Come on SDAI, surely you can ferret out something better than this.

I'm sure I could.

I didn't even spot the AFP source at the bottom, initially, but when I did it became important to point out.

Look at the results of France's little hack piece:

Divide & conquer.

France benefits by a nonstop generation of news pieces, photos, etcetera released around the world that diminish the clout of the USA.

France is waging an all-out propaganda war against the US.

I don't give a tootie about any DNC edits to wikipedia or even BBC or Reuters edits. I climb behind the front of the article, out of the computer on the other end to where the author sits keying it in and I look at his motivation and agenda.

This article, just like the bogus "bullet lady" holding the bullets US soldiers shot at her home is part of a pattern of outright fabrications designed to create internal strife inside the US and diminish US clout around the world.

That's a very real form of warfare I ferret out, and publicize so that Americans and foreigners see they are being played for suckers.

The fact that the source of this article was an Aussie news agency which was paying for AFP articles, it's a great example of how France is trying to sew dissension and distrust of the USA in Australia - one of our stronger allies.

And when you ask why - it all boils down to money.

As an unabashed capitalist, I should understand such motivation, but when it's done knowingly to spur wars, terrorism, mass-murder and attacks upon a foreign nation to benefit your own, all while posing as a news organization with humanitarian interests - it's simply an undeclared act of war.

Bullet lady was meant to inspire more suicide attacks and distrust of our troops abroad, just as the CIA-Vatican story was meant to fuel worldwide distrust of the US government and foster anti-Catholic sentiment.

Here's the way the past few years have been running media-wise:

A) France plants FAKE news item about US soldiers spitting on Koran

B) Jihadists rally arounds such news and 20 kids sign up for suicide bombing. Two bombs go off outside of US training center for Iraqi police. One foreign aid worker is strung up and executed and a total of 143 die and another 63 are injured.

C) France writes another news story about bombing and how awful US presence is for Iraqis. Real photos weren't bad enough so they doctor up some photos and try and get some grisly imagery to sell abroad.

D) US folks read story and are enraged US soldiers are so evil and begin to wonder about sticking it out over there. Bush's popularity sinks a few more points.

E) Some conservative blogger spots the bogus news item and points it out. AFP issues no retractions, although some of the news organizations buying AFP's regular stream of "fake news" do.

F) Damage is done. Most folks never hear about the retraction or anything else, besides the bombing.

G) Foreign propaganda has effectively swayed X number of US folks over to the "bail out" side and fueled the anti-US sentiment of Y number of folks around the world.

Sure, how can any western nation be so conniving and bloodthirsty? Look up the Algerian war and what the French did to millions of Algerians as recently as 1962. From mass rape of the women to systematic torture and execution, the French can easily be called post WWII Nazis.

Sure, one underestimates their influence by default because they're French, but in the age of mass-media one article can spur a hundred suicide bombings and the deaths of tens of thousands. Especially when your nation is heavily invested in serving Muslim nations and is linked to their media.

France is still at it. Because the US has babysat them from being taken over by the USSR for over four decades - they never evolved past their old inhumane tactics and we were so busy looking at Soviet misdeeds that we glossed over those of our supposed "allies".

You want to know who acts as a liaision between Al Jazeera and Al-Qaeda? Who aids and abets terrorists? Look no further than the land that gave you the bullet lady to gaze at.

That is why this article is important. Not because of its content - because of its author's clear agenda.