Whatīs all this "children" argument? Does anyone (apart from the fat boy) disputes that THERE WERE children on the site, and that they were killed?
Every media, from both sides of the political spectrum have reported this! Whats with all this now?
You think the iraqis made up the whole story and the bodies are of Barbie dolls, is that it? Manequins, from the local Chanel store, maybe?
No matter how anyone looks at what happened, no matter wich side you take and wich story you support, the FACT is that those children are dead! There are pictures, there are testimonies of doctors, family members, neighbours. Are we going to distrust ALL of them now? Are they ALL liars?
If our first reaction to hearing a bad story is to disclaim and discard the testimonies of those present, whatīs the point of having a media in the first place? Are WE, who werenīt there, supposed to know more than those who were?
We can question a few details of the story but not the core of the story. We can argue there were or not foreign fighters, we can argue wether there were or not shots fired into the air, and we can question that there was a wedding under way. But we cannot question the basis, that there was an incident, and that the incident took out innocent lives, period.
Allthough dsome media might "forget" to point out a detail or two in their story, if we the public analyse every single report made about the incident and gather pieces and freagments from each media source, we get a better picture than what we would if we would base ourselfs on one sole report, and one sole media source.
Each side chooses wich fragments to report and wich ones to witheld. We have to read ALL sides, all sources, and then build a picture, filling in the blanks as they appear. Making a puzzle, so to speak.
The few details that are common to all media sources often make the true core of the story, like this incident.
All the media reports the incident, report the 40 deads, and report women and children amongst them. This is the core of the news, from wich we start filling in the blanks. But if we dispute the core itself, then there is no point in watching the news, is there? Maybe we should all just travel to the sight and see for ourselfs, or consult a cristal ball...
@Muspell
I think i answer your post aswell, with what i wrote above.
To tell you the truth, iīm starting to have a diferent picture all together.
The wedding seems to be true, but it also seems that the festivities had ended before the attack. This would signify that the shots fired (if there were any) into the air were not a part of the festivities. The reason why this story doesnīt mention these shots is because the source for that report is only the US Army. I have not read a first hand report where those shots are mentioned. The place where every other media got it from was the US Army. Were there shots? I donīt know. Maybe yes, maybe no. If there were no shots, the US Army would be hard pressed to justify their attack, so maybe they just used it as an excuse. "We were attacked, so we responded".
If the party was over, and everybody had went to bed, who would be outside firing? And if there were shots, and the intention was to shoot the US forces, why didnīt they fire before, when the US forces were next door?
Why would anyone fire at the chopper, knowing that your family was right there under the line of fire and would gert hurt?
And if the US had marked that house as a foreign fighter safe spot, why didnīt they went in when they were in the area, right next door? Why would a single chopper venture alone to attack the place with no immediate ground support? The troops were right there! Only minutes away!
I think this chopper was on patrol and came across something, maybe a wedding guest with insomnia, carrying a gun or something, and the pilot thought it was an enemy site. But we all know EVERYBODY carries a gun in Iraq, more so than in the US. Carrying a gun does not automatically make you an enemy.
Regarding the Guardian reporter, i think the link you posted answers your question. No newspaper writes such an article without having someone on the spot themselfs. And when they donīt, they always remember to point out from where and whom they got it from , as a means of covering their reputation if the story turns out false or inacurate. It is very rare to see a paper taking their info from another paper without mentioning where they got the report from. Reporters in Iraq have to be extremelly mobile, they have to travel to the news site in minutes to get their stories. So i wouldnīt be surprised if quite a few reporters from various newspapers and TVs were on the spot covering the incident within minutes of it happening. They monitor comunications, hoping from something juicy to come up on the radio. As soon as one reporter knows about it, everybody else will know about it too. There are no "exclusives" in Iraq, they share all the information.
__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.
|