Bringing Freedom to Iraq
A prize-winning Iraqi journalist, working for the Guardian, was investigating claims that the US and Britain misused and misappropriated tens of millions of dollars belonging to Iraq. (I assume that's on top of the $9 billion in Iraqi money an audit last year said we "lost.")A few days ago, the director of his film informed US authorities about what he had learned, and asked for an interview.
Yesterday, American troops stormed into his home, firing into the room where he, his wife, and children were sleeping, and took videotape that he shot for the film.
If that isn't an attempt to intimidate a journalist asking dangerous questions, I can't imagine what it is. But American journalists ought to demand some answers.
I reckon Mr. Fadhil's investigation uncovered some truths that "American authorities" were not interested in being exposed.
Just another consequence of an illegal, immoral invasion of a country that had nothing to do with defending America…
Comments
http://www.guardian.co.uk/f...
http://freeinternetpress.co...
http://www.aljazeera.com/me...
http://www.democracynow.org...
http://www.npr.org/template...
And that took me just 2 minutes, I'm sure I could dig up more information upon a more detailed inquiry… …so not sure if you're just trolling, or have some other motive…
Are you referring to the same NY Times that sat on the illegal spying story in collusion with the interests of the Bush administration?
http://www.salon.com/politi...
Just because a court hasn't ruled on something, doesn't mean its not "illegal". Maybe in a strict "legalism" sense, but everything Nazi Germany did was absolutely legal, sanctified by their court system and even here in America, SCOTUS has upheld some abominable statutes, that nobody today would claim had any basis in legality, at least on any moral grounds that most all except the vilest of racists…
None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Interesting.
You are missing Naum's point. I find one of the weakest arguments that both the left and the right use is if the evidence is against them, they blame the messenger. Just because a particular form of media does not subscribe to your own POV (point of view) does not automatically mean that the information is not true or suspect, as you assume.
You intentionally ignore the central point of Naum's message. I don't have to call you names like Naum to completly discredit your fallacious reasoning.
I never question the source of mainstream media simply because it does not match my own POV, because this is fallacious, irrational, and illogical reasoning. It is a very slothful(lazy) way of disregarding facts which do not match my own POV. Instead, why not actually study the facts which Naum presents (which will admitedly take more intellectual work on your part) then simply disregard them out of hand?
Thanks for the comments.
Add Comment