PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Mail On Sunday Apache story
View Single Post
Old 21st May 2004 | 16:58
  #59 (permalink)  
West Coast
Community Builder
Community Influencer
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2001
: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,925
Likes: 615
From: surfing, watching for sharks
Beagle
You make it look easy talking out both sides of your mouth.

You said before you had the facts...
______________________________________________
"it looks just like the old, pre-cab tractors of my youth still used in that part of the world. Look carefully and you can see the steering wheel, mirror and the hot rear transmission casing. No AAA system I've ever seen looked like that, nor would it be stuck out in the open in that way with a hot barrel after being used."

"Sorry, but convince me it's anything more than gung-ho bullies murdering some farm workers. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise......."
____________________________________________________

Now you say after the unedited version proves you wrong after
all your work to condemn US forces you retreat to this...
_________________________________________________
"The 'farmers' may well have been a legitimate target. It was the murder of the wounded man which I found unacceptable."
_________________________________________________

You found the targeting of the "farmers" unacceptable and condemned it as actions by thugs. Without so much as an accurate fact basing all you knew off a heavily edited (for dubious purposes) video you condemned the attack. Wouldn't a wise man have waited for the facts to come out, or at least seek all available info (unedited version) before finding fault? You condemned the US for the attack, you were wrong we now know. You supported the "farmers" as doing legit work. Wrong again as time and facts have shown.

As to the wedding, you look like a ping pong ball. Bouncing back and forth to one side of the issue to the other. Did you learn a lesson from earlier mistakes and decide to play both sides of the coin?

Look to Fox news all you want. Fox is not my first choice, nor second choice of news. It however hasn't had to appoint a truth czar from the outside to monitor its reporting for bias and accuracy such as the biased broadcasting corporation has had to do. I guess that makes it at least as credible as the BBC as a news source.


As to the wedding, time and not the media will tell. Just as in the "farmer" case we are now seeing limited video clips designed for maximum effect. You may choose to make your case on these, just remember what happened last time you did.
West Coast is offline