Troops under investigation for Kandahar shooting spree

The Guardian, its' unprincipled reporters and editors have descended to a new and disgraceful low.

Sometimes I really worry about these people. When was there ever a more slanted story, designed to fit the prejudices of its writer, editor and majority of devoted readers, at the expense of the usual target of the chattering classes?

Scandalous, slanderous and foul.

Edited to add an entire class of arrse.
Why do they insist on reporting things like this in a negative light? Civvies without a clue will believe stories like this, and it will do nothing but give ammunition to the hippie f*cks who continuously accuse us of "killing innocent people for no reason" etc.

Also, if this thread's to stay open, we need to talk about the reporting itself rather than the actual incident - ARRSE policy and all that.
absolute rubbish, we all know it to be false but loads of ill informed people will believe this and it may contribute to attacks on british troops, do these knobbers think about this when they are writing their lies, or do they just justify it as a few dead marines for the greater good.


War Hero
Squadron Leader Jason Chalk, a spokesman for Nato regional command in Kandahar, described the reports as "disconcerting" and promised a thorough investigation by Royal Military police. "If people are found to have acted outside the rules of engagement, they will be held to account for their actions," he said.

Notice where the quotation marks are, pound to a pinch of sh!t this bloke Sqn Ldr Chalk is spitting feathers about the Guardians selective reporting.
Journalism is money!

If the ournalist is free lance, then he or she will have to come up with a story worth printing!

The strange but simple truth is that the more near the front of the paper their story is the better payment they receive.

Take an inch of truth, add a mile of perhaps and a touch of the unthinkable and hey presto, you have a really good story!!!
My point was that the Guardian's reporter seems to have set out with the intention of finding the worst possible story about the Army (or RM, in this case) in defiance of the facts; people had been killed by terrorists - the paper even publish a photograph of the effects of the IED used. "They aimed their guns straight at me. I immediately raised my hands," said one bystander; damned right they did.

The story is about a successful extraction from a terrorist attack during which casualites were taken, yet this noxious reporter, using hearsay; ie "interviews with medics, witnesses, local journalists and western officials in Kandahar" has slanted his submission to make it a story of out-of-control uniformed thugs shooting up the innocent local populace. This is not reporting of a standard appropriate to a serious British national newspaper. It is, however, all too common with that rag.


War Hero
I think everyone who has posted so far is agreeing with you!

Some with more sarcasm towards journalists than others, granted.
It is quite unfortunate that the general public will believe reporting that is reliant on witnesses comments.

It is all too evident time and time again that these witnesses will then try to extract some sort of monetary compensation out of UK PLC.

This piece of 'journalism' is utter gutter literature.
this total crap makes my blood boil, as me n bee says "Take an inch of truth, add a mile of perhaps and a touch of the unthinkable and hey presto, you have a really good story!!! " that'll sell the papers, and that is what it boils down to circulation figures.... barstewards.


Book Reviewer
Abdul Wali, 26, a baker, was cowering inside when he heard the first bullets. Stepping into the street, he saw a taxi driver with apparent bullet wounds being pulled from his car.

One moment Abdul Wali is cowering inside and listening to shots, then he is brave enough to step outside?

Noor Khan, a reporter for Associated Press, who was sitting in his car nearby, feared he would also be shot.

I doubt they knew he was a reporter or they'd have realised he deserved shooting.


I'm not sure if it is biased, and I'm sure that the british public are capable of making their own minds up when reading the news. Even if Guardian readers are generally a bunch of lefty liberals. Personally I'd prefer to read a cross section of the press to form my own opinion.

If I had a choice between the Guardian and one of Murdochs bag of biased bollox I know which one I'd choose.

The one with the biggest set of funbags in it :D


War Hero
fishfingers said:
I'm not sure if it is biased

Every one is entitled to an opinion I happen to disagree with you on this.

fishfingers said:
I'm sure that the british public are capable of making their own minds up when reading the news.

You choose to read a selection of newspapers and fom your opinions from them ! The vast majority of the Brit Public only buy 1 paper and the majority of these appear to believe every word written. (Not on about red tops as even the chavgit down the road would not believe some of their inane ramblings).
This reporting is absolutely atrocious. I'm really running out of patience with the media

Latest Threads