This morning friends and colleagues sent me an article signed by Francesco Grignetti regarding the Vannacci issue.
From the text I learn that a "cultural movement" linked to the general's book would be born and that "The website has also been made available Online Defense”. Add to that that we would have published a letter to support that Vannacci would be the real injured party "by the decomposed, dare I say almost hysterical reaction of the political and military leaders".
Let's go in order starting from the lightest aspect.
-
“Difesa Online” is a newspaper (newspaper registered with the Court of Rome n. 302 of 12/12/2013): electronic, online or otherwise is fine, but defining it as a "site" is reductive and incorrect.
-
Finding out you're there "made available" of a movement of which a line had not yet been read is extremely unpleasant and for two reasons: first we have never been "at the service" of anyone (and this is why - unlike others - we are detested by the leaders of many circles, but not by the grassroots!), according to, the day (madness!) that we even decide to do so, we would prefer to determine it ourselves and not because La Stampa has established it.
-
So let's go to the most serious part of the article. When we defended fellow citizen Roberto Vannacci we did so because the text of the book that had been banned - or worse, "burned at the stake" (remember anyone...?) - was tremendously different from the headlines that defamed it.
After having published several articles (also by lawyers who underline the legitimacy of the free thought of the Italian soldiers), we have disclosed - 5 days ago – a letter that we shared in content. However, to be sure of the understanding of what has been published even by the youngest or the least gifted, we have titrated "The real injured party is the Army, but not because of General Vannacci's book…".
The result? The Press reads you Vannacci would be the real injured party "from the decomposed reaction, dare I say almost hysterical, of the political and military leaders" .
Read the letter yourself (“...if in this whole matter an injured party will emerge, this is precisely the Armed Forces of which I have been a part of for forty years...") and tell which interpretation is correct (link "Letter to Online Defense").
While still far from the choral insults to fellow citizen Vannacci (homophobic, sexist, racist, ...), we realize that misrepresenting a simple title and defining a rare case of free information as "available", does not demonstrate superficiality or lightness, but rather bad faith. Topped off with a... "Freudian slip"?
