| |
|
But those 175 soldiers weren´t all killed (by the enemy). link
"The UK has lost 170 soldiers in Iraq as of October 9, 2007: 133 in ambushes, engagements, bombings or other attacks (including the shooting down of a C-130 Hercules transport plane which killed 10 soldiers).
Out of the remaining 37, the cause of death included accidents, 'friendly fire' incidents, illnesses, and suicide."
Why is it so hard for the media to not contort what has happened and to just stick to the facts? Instead of killed they could have written died. Then the reader wouldn´t get the idea that all 175 soldiers got killed in combat against their enemy. Some of those people died thanks to the US Army or by illness or by their own hands. Deaths like that are no exceptions to, but parts of the realities of war, that should also be mentioned.
Instead they use words like, blood, honour, sacrifice, proudly, celebrating. The same way the deaths of soldiers have been justified as necessary and unavoidable for centuries, when in fact often they are unnecessary and avoidable. |
|
|
