The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_954519.html?menu=[/URL]
I dearly hope that Piers Morgan is sent to Basra to apologise in person. I can't really see anyone, pro or anti war, complaining if that noxious little cockwasp gets beaten and abused by coalition troops.
Way to endanger lives Piers, and way to give ammo to the hawks who keep insisting that British soldiers aren't committing any abuses, despite Red Cross and Amnesty reports saying otherwise.
I dearly hope that Piers Morgan is sent to Basra to apologise in person. I can't really see anyone, pro or anti war, complaining if that noxious little cockwasp gets beaten and abused by coalition troops.
Way to endanger lives Piers, and way to give ammo to the hawks who keep insisting that British soldiers aren't committing any abuses, despite Red Cross and Amnesty reports saying otherwise.
Page:
I posted this elsewhere, but perhaps this is appropriate. That, and it was ignored. And my attention seeking disorder can't handle such shunning.
***
Could someone explain something to me, please?
Daily Mirror. If I remember correctly, they were jumping on the tabloid bandwagon months back, and spraying every nook and cranny of their "newspaper" with, "We're supporting our boys!!!" and "We're behind them" blah blah etc, myes? And they were also doing the whole, "Ooh, naughty Al-Qaeda - killing innocent Brits/Americans" too, right?
So why is it that, if they were supporting the troops, wanted them to succeed, and were wishing them well, that they publish pictures that would certainly give Al-Qaeda and fringe terrorist groups reason to do even more horrific things to civilians, and go even further to harm British soldiers?
I was watching the news last night, and they were talking to a British Private as he was simply patrolling an area and overlooking it and so forth. He was talking about how, since these pictures were published by the Mirror, that things have heated up dramatically, and that Iraqi's - whether they be civies or not - were taking every opportunity to attack them.
Way to go, Piers.
They could've at least had the pictures analysed properly by experts before publishing them, rather than moisting themselves at the site of what was gold to them.
Even so, surely they could've done things confidentially - took these pictures to the government, the British army - whoever, rather than simply publishing them when, as I said, a backlash would be certain upon the guys they were supporting, and wanted to succeed.
It baffles me.
And yes, pick that to shreds. I'm probably wrong in most of it.
Grr.
***
Could someone explain something to me, please?
Daily Mirror. If I remember correctly, they were jumping on the tabloid bandwagon months back, and spraying every nook and cranny of their "newspaper" with, "We're supporting our boys!!!" and "We're behind them" blah blah etc, myes? And they were also doing the whole, "Ooh, naughty Al-Qaeda - killing innocent Brits/Americans" too, right?
So why is it that, if they were supporting the troops, wanted them to succeed, and were wishing them well, that they publish pictures that would certainly give Al-Qaeda and fringe terrorist groups reason to do even more horrific things to civilians, and go even further to harm British soldiers?
I was watching the news last night, and they were talking to a British Private as he was simply patrolling an area and overlooking it and so forth. He was talking about how, since these pictures were published by the Mirror, that things have heated up dramatically, and that Iraqi's - whether they be civies or not - were taking every opportunity to attack them.
Way to go, Piers.
They could've at least had the pictures analysed properly by experts before publishing them, rather than moisting themselves at the site of what was gold to them.
Even so, surely they could've done things confidentially - took these pictures to the government, the British army - whoever, rather than simply publishing them when, as I said, a backlash would be certain upon the guys they were supporting, and wanted to succeed.
It baffles me.
And yes, pick that to shreds. I'm probably wrong in most of it.
Grr.
Light wrote:
> In mine, he should have been kicked to death by midgets long ago. He
> represents everything bad about hack, sensationalist, tabloid
> journalism.
Agreed.
> In mine, he should have been kicked to death by midgets long ago. He
> represents everything bad about hack, sensationalist, tabloid
> journalism.
Agreed.
Didn't he have to stand up in court and say on record that they were real?
How the hell would he know that unless he was there? Noticed a subtle change in tack recently too, read a quote in the Guardian by him that said something along the lines of 'even if they are fake, it still accurately represents what's happening over there'. Which is probably true, granted, but still not enough to cover your ass, Morgan.
He won't be sacked, but should be sent to Iraq in a replica football shirt with a sack over his head, and plopped in front of a line of squaddies, all with their flies undone having just quaffed gallons of Gatorade. And perhaps they could break his face too.
How the hell would he know that unless he was there? Noticed a subtle change in tack recently too, read a quote in the Guardian by him that said something along the lines of 'even if they are fake, it still accurately represents what's happening over there'. Which is probably true, granted, but still not enough to cover your ass, Morgan.
He won't be sacked, but should be sent to Iraq in a replica football shirt with a sack over his head, and plopped in front of a line of squaddies, all with their flies undone having just quaffed gallons of Gatorade. And perhaps they could break his face too.
Exactly, although the people who faked the pictures are no better.
I'll be interested to see if readers of the Mirror boycott the paper in protest at being misled and of course, the Mirror endangering "our boys".
Poor effort by Piers Morgan.
Poor effort by Piers Morgan.
Pesky goshdarned double post...
tphi wrote:
> In my opinion, he should have resigned already.
In mine, he should have been kicked to death by midgets long ago. He represents everything bad about hack, sensationalist, tabloid journalism.
> In my opinion, he should have resigned already.
In mine, he should have been kicked to death by midgets long ago. He represents everything bad about hack, sensationalist, tabloid journalism.
Bye bye Piers. May the knowledge that the extra hatred and attacks on British soldiers because of the the photos *you* printed is all your fault live with you for the rest of your life.
In my opinion, he should have resigned already.
In my opinion, he should have resigned already.
Darwock wrote:
> Wouldn't be surprised if the govmt supplied the pics in the first
> place, with this expose in mind from the beginning.
Nah; too easy to prove. Chances are it's some asshat's in the TA trying to make some cash.
> Wouldn't be surprised if the govmt supplied the pics in the first
> place, with this expose in mind from the beginning.
Nah; too easy to prove. Chances are it's some asshat's in the TA trying to make some cash.
Wouldn't be surprised if the govmt supplied the pics in the first place, with this expose in mind from the beginning.
Page: