3 ms·
They may not have needed it, but it happened nonetheless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony Ther
by Yasuraka 3y ago
They may not have needed it, but it happened nonetheless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
There are recent parallels, but this time by Biden who was fed false information. Though this time, the white house retracted that statement immediately instead of waiting for things to blow over[1].
I suppose the difference was that this time, the US government had nothing planned to capitalize on the lie.
[1] https://nypost.com/2023/10/11/biden-ive-seen-pictures-of-terrorists-beheading-children-in-israel/ https://nypost.com/2023/10/11/biden-ive-seen-pictures-of-ter...
- genman 3y agoFrom another side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosio...
- Yasuraka 3y agoI don't quite see how that is relevant, as it is something that really happened, albeit with disputed cause. The two examples above are fabricated and, going back to the point of the comment chain, were caused by false evidence (testimonies).
- genman 3y agoI disagree. Nayirah testimony may have been exaggerated, but it didn't mean that Iraqi army didn't commit wide range of atrocities in Kuwait.
- Yasuraka 3y agoThat sounds similar to Lantos' statement >"given the countless cases of verified Iraqi [here: Israeli, the author] human rights violations", it was "unnecessary and counterproductive to invent atrocities." In that sense I do see the connection between that made-up event and the bombed hospital, in that it doesn't really matter if this specific case happened, there's enough true ones to go around. That is to only say that I now get your point, not that I agree to what I would call muddying the waters.