Journalist Showing Bias?
Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was freed by her captors after they were paid what some have claimed to be a $1,000,000 ransom. Of course this makes the kidnapping of Italian journalists a profitable business. The terrorist now know that if funds get low, and they are unable to purchase explosives for their suicide/homicide bombers to use to kill innocents they can simply kidnap an Italian journalist and demand a million dollar ransom to keep the weapons coming in.
If the Italian government wants to place all Italians in Iraq in that danger, I guess it is their prerogative. It also places American and other coalition forces at more risk since the terrorists can now purchase more weapons. But let us not go into these issues. Instead let us concentrate on her assertions.
Perspective check: While the theory of not negotiating with kidnappers IS a sound one, if a member of my family were being held captive I would have a hard time not doing what I could to gain their release. So, my criticism of the Italian government for paying this ransom should be viewed in light of this.
Ms. Sgrena, who writes for a communist news paper in Italy, has made some ridiculous statements since arriving in Italy. "The fact that the Americans don't want negotiations to free the hostages is known," Sgrena said in a television interview. "The fact that they do everything to prevent the adoption of this practice to save the lives of people held hostages, everybody knows that. So I don't see why I should rule out that I could have been the target."
Let's look at two aspects of this.
First, what does she give as her reason for suspecting the troops firing on her? Well, her captors told her "...the Americans don't want you to return." and not to tell anyone she was being released because "the Americans might intervene."
Now I know that someone who kidnapped me and held me for ransom would be at the top of my list of honest upstanding people in whom to trust. Come on! She thinks that it was intentional because some terrorist thugs told her so? Are all Italian journalists that naive? Considering that she writes for a communist paper which has opposed everything we have done in Iraq, is it possible that she may be letting her biases show, and does not want to let the facts get in the way of her goal? That being to make the coalition look bad.
Second, let's assume that her captors were right, and the coalition wanted to stop her so that other countries would not be encouraged to pay ransoms, and to prove that it should not have been paid for her. OK ... why is she alive to talk about this? If the coalition forces had wanted to silence her, a few dozen more bullets and the job would have been done.
Continuing to assume, for argument, that the coalition did not want her to leave Iraq, after the shooting stopped and they realized that she was still alive, why did they not kill her and the others so there would be no witnesses? Instead they called for medical help to save her life. Does this sound like people planning her demise?
The fact is that what the kidnapping (probably murderous) terrorists told her does not hold up to the facts. The problem I have is that in all the “news“ accounts I have read no one has mentioned that her story does not make sense when compared with the facts. She herself, being a journalist, has alluded that she may believe the terrorists over her own experience.
She is alive today ONLY because it was NOT the intentions of the coalition forces to kill her. Well, to be fair, it should be noted that she is also alive today because of the financial greed of the terrorists who kidnapped her, and the willingness of the Italian government to pay the ransom.
What does it say about the convictions, or lack thereof, held by these terrorists that instead of gaining a place in paradise near Allah by killing an infidel, they wanted MONEY!?
Read more about it.....
ABC News: Italian Journalist Rejects U.S. Account
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
If the Italian government wants to place all Italians in Iraq in that danger, I guess it is their prerogative. It also places American and other coalition forces at more risk since the terrorists can now purchase more weapons. But let us not go into these issues. Instead let us concentrate on her assertions.
Perspective check: While the theory of not negotiating with kidnappers IS a sound one, if a member of my family were being held captive I would have a hard time not doing what I could to gain their release. So, my criticism of the Italian government for paying this ransom should be viewed in light of this.
Ms. Sgrena, who writes for a communist news paper in Italy, has made some ridiculous statements since arriving in Italy. "The fact that the Americans don't want negotiations to free the hostages is known," Sgrena said in a television interview. "The fact that they do everything to prevent the adoption of this practice to save the lives of people held hostages, everybody knows that. So I don't see why I should rule out that I could have been the target."
Let's look at two aspects of this.
First, what does she give as her reason for suspecting the troops firing on her? Well, her captors told her "...the Americans don't want you to return." and not to tell anyone she was being released because "the Americans might intervene."
Now I know that someone who kidnapped me and held me for ransom would be at the top of my list of honest upstanding people in whom to trust. Come on! She thinks that it was intentional because some terrorist thugs told her so? Are all Italian journalists that naive? Considering that she writes for a communist paper which has opposed everything we have done in Iraq, is it possible that she may be letting her biases show, and does not want to let the facts get in the way of her goal? That being to make the coalition look bad.
Second, let's assume that her captors were right, and the coalition wanted to stop her so that other countries would not be encouraged to pay ransoms, and to prove that it should not have been paid for her. OK ... why is she alive to talk about this? If the coalition forces had wanted to silence her, a few dozen more bullets and the job would have been done.
Continuing to assume, for argument, that the coalition did not want her to leave Iraq, after the shooting stopped and they realized that she was still alive, why did they not kill her and the others so there would be no witnesses? Instead they called for medical help to save her life. Does this sound like people planning her demise?
The fact is that what the kidnapping (probably murderous) terrorists told her does not hold up to the facts. The problem I have is that in all the “news“ accounts I have read no one has mentioned that her story does not make sense when compared with the facts. She herself, being a journalist, has alluded that she may believe the terrorists over her own experience.
She is alive today ONLY because it was NOT the intentions of the coalition forces to kill her. Well, to be fair, it should be noted that she is also alive today because of the financial greed of the terrorists who kidnapped her, and the willingness of the Italian government to pay the ransom.
What does it say about the convictions, or lack thereof, held by these terrorists that instead of gaining a place in paradise near Allah by killing an infidel, they wanted MONEY!?
Read more about it.....
ABC News: Italian Journalist Rejects U.S. Account
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home