There's a lot of stories out there about the hostages being "freed", as if the enemy did it out of the kindness of their hearts. "Freed" nothing, they were rescued by American soldiers. This is the real deal here.
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
"Freed" nothing, they were rescued by American soldiers. Well, they were 'Freed' by coalition forces, so it's accurate, but I see your point.
Now... let's see how big a deal the New York Times makes of this. Any bets?
2 posted on
06/08/2004 4:40:33 PM PDT by
Starve The Beast
(I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused)
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
But he did say there was "no reported exchange of gunfire" and that the rescue was not the result of any negotiations.This sounds at least similar to the recent action involving Scots and ragheads; they sliced and diced the vermin with bayonets, and there were no reported "negotiations", either.
I can dream, can't I.
Stinking sandmaggots.
4 posted on
06/08/2004 4:43:38 PM PDT by
MarineDad
(Nobody ever came to regret or ruin by NOT trusting muslims.)
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Does anybody remember the American soldier that was also taken hostage? Any word on him? He was shown alive with those thugs standing behind him stating his name etc. He was 20 years old, has a wife and a baby. He was in the same convoy as the contractor that later escaped. I just don't remember his name.
5 posted on
06/08/2004 4:46:15 PM PDT by
Mon
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
WOW! MSNBC said this afternoon that the hostages had been "released"! Wouldn't want to give the United States armed forces any credit now would they?
6 posted on
06/08/2004 4:53:34 PM PDT by
Ragirl
(Vote in '04 ! Those who sit on their hands end up with poop on them.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson