< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: The Brain in Spain - MIA


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

The Brain in Spain - MIA

Apart from the fact that a three man tank crew do not consitute 'troops,' the BBC has excelled itself in highlighting the foolishness of journalists who go to a war zone and complain because they find themselves under fire. Especially when they set themselves up to look like enemy artillery spotters.

US officials say the tank crew believed they were being shot at when they opened fire, although TV footage of the incident did not record any incoming fire.

Of course there was no TV footage of incoming fire. That would have been edited out on the spot.

Try and imagine you are a member of a tank crew, fighting in a modern city. You see a building with people leaning out windows, peering through what might be binoculars and speaking into what might be cellphones. Moments earlier you have been under fire and have seen other vehicles under fire. What do you do?

Call the Spanish Courts for permission to fire? Of course. Standard EU operating procedure.

Funny thing is, there was no mention on BBC of the Iraq referendum.

As for the pretentious Spanish court, I think it's high time the international community demanded from Spain reparations for the depradations inflicted on the civilised world by the Spanish Inquisition. That might give their courts something useful with which to grapple.
ยท Linked Article

Posted by Adolf Fiinkensein | 10/20/2005 07:37:00 AM


Blogger Gooner said...

Is it depradations or deprivations?

10/20/2005 09:16:00 AM  
Blogger darren said...

I saw on breakfast telly that a Guardian journo has been kidnapped.
I trust the terrorists will treat him kindly. The Guardian is on THEIR side. No worries about the Stockholm syndrome kicking in, eh!

10/20/2005 09:41:00 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

What constitutes a "troop"?

10/20/2005 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Roger,the word 'troops' implies large numbers, certainly more than three individuals. Technically a 'troop' was a unit of cavalry and in the US forces probably was or is the equivalent of a platoon in the British or NZ army. Remeber the TV show 'F Troop?' No, you probably don't. It was bloody funny though.

10/20/2005 11:12:00 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

The implied meaning is different to the technical meaning isn't it. I recall reading about some military presence in a newspaper or magazine (that's very specific isn't it) that some country had 1500 troops there. Meaning 1500 soldiers - I thought.

10/20/2005 11:21:00 AM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Well you could hardly call three men in amongst 140,000 or so as 'troops.' The headline implied the 'troops' were to be arrested, 1440k of them. Surely they could have said 'Arrest warrants issued for three soldiers.' or 'arrest warrants issued form tank crew.' It's just media hype. No sense of perspective.

10/20/2005 11:26:00 AM  
Blogger Rob O'Neill said...

If you search under the word "referendum" there are two stories. The most recent is 17th noting:

"The electoral commission said on Monday it was re-examining the ballots and that final results from the referendum would be delayed by several days."

10/20/2005 12:27:00 PM  
Blogger Rob O'Neill said...

sorry, that's from the 18th

10/20/2005 12:28:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home