British Press Shills for Syria War With 'Baby Snipers' Story
The Times of London yesterday [October 19, 2013] published a sensational Syria story "Assad’s snipers target unborn babies" based on an interview with British doctor David Nott, who had volunteered his medical expertise in Syria over the past several weeks. Dr. Nott said that he had seen several pregnant women come in with abdominal wounds. He speculated that snipers must have been playing some sort of game where they would target the fetuses of pregnant women -- a grisly business to be sure. Said Dr. Nott:
It seemed to me that it was some sort of a game they (the snipers) were having with each other... One day we'd have pregnant women being brought in with gunshot wounds to the uterus. Not just one or two, but seven or eight, which meant to me they (the snipers) must be targeting pregnant women.
Nott "heard local rumors" that these snipers, who seemed were playing a game, were Chinese or Azeri mercenaries fighting with Assad's government forces. None of this was confirmed in any way. Speculation.
But how did Rupert Murdoch's Times of London report this very imprecise bit of speculation on the part of Dr. Nott -- in a huge dramatic spread? How is that for thorough journalism?