Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Truth About Islam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stan who wrote (4456)	2/4/2007 2:45:49 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 20106

A BAN ON 'VICTORY' New York Post ^ \| 2-4-07 \| Editorial nypost.com February 4, 2007 -- Question: When is a U.S. military victory not a victory? Answer: When it's reported by The New York Times. Read the account from Baghdad in the Jan. 30 Times about a battle the previous weekend in the city of Najaf - one of the biggest engagements of the war - and you'd think that U.S. and Iraqi forces had suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of what was described as "an obscure renegade militia." "Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity" of the fighters arrayed against them, read the piece by correspondent Marc Santora, who added, "They needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed." Not until the article's sixth paragraph - 200 words into the 1,100-word piece - did this sentence appear: "The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle." Or, as Wellington said after defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, "It was a damned close-run thing" - but the good guys won. So why wasn't this the lead of the Times' story? Given the way things have been going, it would seem to be an unusual enough development to warrant prominent attention. Maybe because the Times doesn't want America to win in Iraq. Indeed, it seems that the Times wants to squelch any talk of possible victory - (Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ....