To: MadIvan
Here we have another journalist who says "son-in-law" when it was "son-in-laws". Two defected, were lured back and then killed. So widely reported how can a journalist who gets it wrong be trusted?
To: not-an-ostrich
Here we have another journalist who says "son-in-law" when it was "son-in-laws".Actually, it's "sons-in-law."
14 posted on
02/28/2003 6:10:02 PM PST by
sinkspur
To: not-an-ostrich
Here we have another journalist who says "son-in-law" when it was "son-in-laws". Two defected, were lured back and then killed. So widely reported how can a journalist who gets it wrong be trusted?Well, not-an-ostrich, too bad you stuck your neck out. Shouldn't that be sons-in-law? Since you got that wrong, how can we trust you?
19 posted on
02/28/2003 6:12:14 PM PST by
NonValueAdded
("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." GWB 9/20/01)
To: not-an-ostrich
Here we have another journalist who says "son-in-law" when it was "son-in-laws". Two defected, were lured back and then killed. So widely reported how can a journalist who gets it wrong be trusted?
For sure it was two of them. I don't believe the story they were simply lured back. I believe Saddam threatened to kill their extended families. They thought they could escape Saddam's Iraq but they couldn't.
22 posted on
02/28/2003 6:14:21 PM PST by
dennisw
( http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php)
To: not-an-ostrich
"... who says 'son-in-law' when it was 'son-in-laws'..."Actually, it should be "sons-in-law".
:>)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson