Posted on 08/27/2003 2:08:08 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:16:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
August 27, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - U.S. forces carried out a massive raid yesterday to crush a vicious Iraqi crime ring responsible for a string of terror bombings, gun running - and the murder of a local prostitute servicing U.S. troops.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Scumbag alert......
http://www.bobtuley.com/georgepatton.htm
Pvt Smith: "Somebody killed Betty"
1SG Johnson: "Saddle up boys!!"
What is the author trying to say here, that the real reason the Army took out this crime ring is revenge?
Not that it is implausible that she was working the morale maintainance angle with some of the local GIs, but the source of this information is the warlord that was just busted. The military does not appear to have been asked to verfiy the claim.
Does the Post consider the U.S. Army less reliable than an Iraqi criminal warlord?
The first paragraph says "... and the murder of a local prostitute servicing U.S. troops.
But surprise, surprise, surprise...
The last paragragh says...murdered a local prostitute whom Lateef accused of selling her services to U.S. troops.
Gee, I wonder why they couldn't include that attribution in the first sentence, where they state unequivocably that our troops are dipping their salami's in an Iraqi prostitute?
Anyone think I am being slightly cynical when I note that the attribution is included in the very last paragraph, and that I remember from my journalism classes that news stories are written specifically so that they can be cut from the bottom without losing any important information?
Anyone think I am being over-sensitive when it occurs to me that this scumbag of a news-writer is taking malicious glee in sticking a knife in our troop's back in what he thinks is a slick and risk-free fashion.
Gee, I wonder why they couldn't include that attribution in the first sentence, where they state unequivocally that our troops are dipping their salami's in an Iraqi prostitute?You're not being cynical. I agree that the position and wording of those sentences were intentionally written to imply scandal. I would also blame the editors of the New York Post for putting out this libelous report.
This woman is probably just someone the troops saved from receiving one of their stupid vengeance killings for accidentally showing a big toe or walking down the street at the wrong time.
Not at all, this is a typical fifth-column attempt to undermine the war effort. Imagine you're one of the many wives at home reading this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.