posted on November 16, 2004 03:55:13 PM new
The established media has no trouble broadcasting video of a U.S. Marine in the middle of what I consider a battle action. Yet the video of Iraqi terrorists killing an innocent woman with nothing but good will in her heart is too terrible for broadcast? What unabashed bias!!!!
How dare these cretins demonize a U.S. Marine doing what he was sent to do and yet eulogize a murdering bastard like Arafat? Have they no shame?
Come on you gutless wonders show us the video of these thugs in all their brave glory!
posted on November 16, 2004 04:35:18 PM new
There is absolutely no comparison that can be drawn between those videos. No one can blame the Marine for killing what he perceived to be an enemy and a danger in wartime. He, like thousands of other Marines are doing what they have been trained and ordered to do. Although there is a video, the actual shooting is not being shown as far as I know.
The second video shows an Iraqi civilian being shot by a terrorist thug. The victim may be Margaret Hasssan who was kidnapped, held for several days and then shot in the head. The thugs who did this planned the killing for weeks and videoed the murder.in hopes that it would be shown. Why would you want to cater to their wishes by broadcasting their brutal video?
posted on November 16, 2004 05:27:36 PM new
I also believe our news media...the alphabet channels.... are reporting in a very slanted way. It is so slanted as to appear to me to be against our own fighting soldiers.
I just read a Yahoo news article from NBC that tells the story of the soldier shooting the wounded enemy and there was not one mention of what had happened to their group the day before. Our enemies are using all kinds of horrendous ways to kill our soldiers and does our mainstream media focus on what our troops have to face as they fight the terrorist....do they cheer them along? NO they don't.
The terrorists are using their mosques to store ammunition, to hide in and fight from and are using their own dead to be a boobie-trap to kill our soldiers. See any alphabet media making mention of that? No....only when they believe a US soldier has done wrong do they cover it and not too fairly either, imo.
Might have helped to balance out the story if they'd stated that the day before we'd lost a soldier because the same situation had happened. And had this injured Iraqi had a grenade....which this soldier wouldn't have had anyway of knowing, it would have killed every US solder in the place, plus the photographer taking that picture.
It sickens me to see how many pretend to support our troops while constantly siding with the poor enemy against our soldiers actions to save their own lives. It's like this somehow isn't WAR to them...it's a reality/game show or something.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on November 16, 2004 05:53:05 PM new "It sickens me to see how many pretend to support our troops while constantly siding with the poor enemy against our soldiers actions to save their own lives."
Not a single person here has failed to support our troops. And not a single person here has "sided against our soldiers to save their own lives" or to do the job that they have been trained to do in Iraq.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Nov 16, 2004 05:53 PM ]
posted on November 16, 2004 06:19:44 PM new
LOL helen....changing what I said and what I was directing my anger towards....isn't your job. Nowhere in that post did I say "here".
But I will concede I've said it at other times.....but not this time...and I know it's true. As I've said before....I believe you THINK you support our troops....but I'd like you to find just a handful of soldiers who would agree with your judgement that they should have 'admitted defeat' from the beginning of this war and who think that is being supportive of them. It's not. I doubt you'd find even a handful that would think that way.
And you and others who agreed with kerry's vote against giving the funding $87B that our fighting troops needed while at war....isn't being supportive either.
So you may fool others here...but you certainly don't fool me. I've read WAY too many of your posts. You USE our troops, their deaths and their injuries to promote your agenda against any war. You did it when we went into Afghanistan too.
----------
KD - I think you've read enough of my posts to know who I judge doesn't support our troops. I know you guys like to give lip-service to them....but real support....naw...not one bit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on November 16, 2004 06:37:21 PM new
Linda, the best way to support the troops is to do what you can to make sure they come back alive. If the government cared so much about them, they wouldn't have sent them there to begin with.
posted on November 16, 2004 06:42:36 PM new
An insurgent who is playing dead is a threat and the marine was justified in removing that threat. The insurgent could've had a gun, grenade or ied hidden and the marine wasn't going to take any chances.
posted on November 16, 2004 07:13:36 PM new
Linda, you equate support for George Bush with support of the troops. You fail to see that I can be against the war, and not support George Bush but at the same time support the troops and their welfare. Keeping track of casualties in this war is essential to support the troops. And when we see that there is no plan or that the plan is failing, it would be detrimental to the troops not to pay attention or voice our concern.
Whether the soldiers think as I do about the war is irrelevant to the topic that we are discussing. Why on earth would I try to fool anyone here? I don't kiss up to anyone here as you do. I have been as straightforward as anyone who has ever posted on this board. Innuendo and sucking up to those you claim to respect is your game, not mine.
BTW...You should also be aware that all soldiers are not as gung ho as you imagine. There are a lot of guys in Iraq right now who see the failure in guerrilla warfare and want to come home. I support that.
posted on November 16, 2004 07:59:22 PM new
helen - In YOUR mind only is sucking up when once in a blue moon a dem agrees with something I say. OR when a dem and I can have a discussion, disagreeing, without insulting each other.
Too bad you can't see others have the ability to NOT hold the ultra-liberal strict party line at all times...NEVER finding any points to agree upon...and that there are areas where dems and conservatives can agree. I understand your mind think just can't accept that idea at all.
That's been oh-so clear for a very long time.
----
Linda, you equate support for George Bush with support of the troops.
No I don't...I equate support for our troops when one supports their mission - not when one wants them to admit defeat. That's strickly your 'twist' on it. But once they are given a mission, which they have been by our President AND our Congress, to want them to admit defeat is NOT part of that mission. They want to get in, get the job done and return to their families. That's why we support a military to begin with...and that's their job. IF we were to do as you suggest...we wouldn't have a need for a military at all. Why pay to support them, send them on a mission and then have them wave the white flag.
You wanting them to admit defeat is a LOSS to them NOT support in anyway, shape or form. If you don't support them in their mission, you aren't supporting them at all. The two can't be divided from each other.
You fail to see that I can be against the war, and not support George Bush but at the same time support the troops and their welfare.
Again, what I see is you use their deaths and injuries to promote your agenda...which is to pull out and end the war. Not see it through...and just dump the entire mission. Yet you also turn around and complain that the US has a history of destroying countries and then not staying around to put them back. You were constantly talking about that during the Afghanistan war.
Keeping track of casualties in this war is essential to support the troops.
LOL - no it's not. You post more about the Iraqi innocents and their deaths - bad America we're killing all these innocent civilians - the one's shooting and trying to kill our soldiers. Supporting them is not siding with their enemies against the actions they take to stay alive....but siding with them, understanding what they're going through, joining a center that sends needed personal supplies to them....when they have a success...you know...the good news I occasionally post...not making fun of it...but being proud they've done what they have done.
And when we see that there is no plan or that the plan is failing, it would be detrimental to the troops not to pay attention or voice our concern. There's quite a difference between voicing your concern and NEVER siding with your own countries actions. But you'll side with France or other so-called allies in a nano-second...against your own countries policies. The whole world is right...American is wrong. Just like you're above statement. Our Armed forces are making tons of progress...yet you see it as a 'failed plan'. Try telling that to them and see if they take that as support.
Whether the soldiers think as I do about the war is irrelevant to the topic that we are discussing.
Oh...here we go again....it's okay when you do it...but when you don't want to discuss it...then it's irrelevant.
Just pointing out how they'd NOT see any support coming from one who wanted them to immediately admit defeat.
IMO, what you think of as your support....keeping track of their deaths/injuries....does absolutely NOTHING to help nor support them. They're very much aware of how many they're losing and how many injured are being shipped out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on November 16, 2004 08:58:52 PM new
Park - there is another aspect that you have to consider. There is some politicing going on with the media attack on the soldier in the tape and with the criminal charges against him. That tape is being aired on arabic TV. If it was ignored by western news sources, if the actions of the soldier were ignored by the military then it would be spun into an "endorsement" by those who would use it to recruit more extremists. By having the american press decry the actions and the american military bring criminal charges against the soldier, it eliminates the ability to use it as a recruiting tape.
As for the killing of Margaret Hassan. What a horror! Even al-Zarqawi called for her release. This is a woman that spent 30 years in Iraq doing nothing but good for the people and she was killed based only on the nation of her birth by people who spit in the face of their religion by killing her. Helen is right - they deserve no recognition whatsoever.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on November 16, 2004 10:09:53 PM new
fenix - Are you sure you're not mistaken about charges being filed? I believe you may have this shooting that took place and filmed on by the NBC reporter confused with another one from August...where charges have recently been filed. I don't believe they've finished their investigation of this one yet.
And on the That tape is being aired on arabic TV
....yes, this is just what I mean. Whose side are these people on? They release a tape knowing full well this *will inflame the situation in Iraq* and cause even MORE anger and desire to kill our soldiers. Thanks so very much NBC. Then you can report on how many more soldiers are coming home in a casket.
it eliminates the ability to use it as a recruiting tape. It didn't eliminate it's recruiting at all....if anything, by putting this into the aljazzera's hands, it's going to inflame ALL Muslims who will be calling for our soldiers deaths.
On Margaret Hassan's suspected killing.....it does show exactly what type of monsters our soldiers are dealing with and why it pains me to read American's criticizing their own soldiers for doing what they felt was necessary to survive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on November 16, 2004 10:49:33 PM new
Linda, what about the rules of engagement? Do they apply to this situation at all?
Personally, I dont have a problem with them shooting or killing insurgents at a mosque or anywhere. Kill or be killed; I think is the situation they are in and I'd sure as helz save my asz or my comrades than stop to think about someone who was shooting at us the day before.
The marine probably should not have done that, though. They are supposed to know about 'the rules of engagement' esp. if he was cognizent of being taped, which I doubt he was. It's funny though, had it not been taped, it would have just been another dead insurgent and they'd be moving on. But since the nbc reporter was with them and did videotape this, they have to release it,imo. If they didnt, then they are selectively deciding what to release as war news. If its harmful to the mission, then perhaps the pentagon should stop allowing reporters to follow them around at all.
posted on November 16, 2004 11:22:37 PM new
::fenix - Are you sure you're not mistaken about charges being filed?::
It is quite possible. I was watching BBC news tonight, they were talking about the recent incident, person with me started babbling and after I got them to shut up so that I could listen to the news they were talking about murder charges being filed. It is quite possible that there was a subject change during my hushing attempts
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on November 17, 2004 09:11:45 AM new
"it would have just been another dead insurgent and they'd be moving on. But since the nbc reporter was with them and did videotape this, they have to release it,imo. If they didnt, then they are selectively deciding what to release as war news. If its harmful to the mission, then perhaps the pentagon should stop allowing reporters to follow them around at all."
There is nothing unique about this situation. It has occurred in any conflict throughout time. The only thing different is the quest to report it.
Could you imagine Ernie Pyle sending this off from Iwo Jima to his editors? It didn't happen. Any potential enemy knows he cannot defeat American troops in the field, he has to appeal to the idiots in this country who create posts like "humvee blown up in Iraq", "2nd humvee blown up in Iraq", etc. So we get great beheading videos complete with video fades and wipes, sound tracks, and shockwave graphics.
And don't think these news clowns don't get lots of our people killed either.
posted on November 17, 2004 10:33:56 AM new
I would think if they do charge this guy, morale is going to shoot right down the tubes, and I agree with twelve they might as well end the fighting right then and there if they're zap that out of em with charging this marine. (Yet what are they supposed to do with the international rules of engagement and all that complication that ensues?)
Desquirral; there was a show awhile back about how the media along with everything else has changed drasticly in the past 30 years. One point I recall is one of the Presidents (FDR? TR? - I dont remember which) was wheelchair bound, and although they (the media) knew it, they purposely never showed his legs on camera. Apparantly, the media had much more respect for the office of the presidency, or the idea of what the presidency represented to the public and would not display him as weak....
Well, that was back then...
Now? I really dont know what even Ernie Pyle would do in 2004. Technology is different; everything is much more open... but I think we call that progress, right?
posted on November 17, 2004 12:26:42 PM new
neroter - I 'ditto' what desquirrel said....completely - 110%.
Our media, mostly left leaning has favored democrats over republicans for many, many years. But this is the worst I've ever seen their out-and-out bias to this degree. [the past four years].
This report could have been kept under wraps, just like many previous reports that reporters have previously done. The reporter in Iraq who admitted he withheld writing about saddam's terror reign, because he knew not to do so would cause him to be sent home by saddam. And there's only one instance of how Peter Jenning's manipulated the news too.
Had this ABC reporter not had an agenda - against the war- he could have done the same thing many before him have done....not air/print news that could very easily cause more of our soldiers deaths.
IMO, IF having reporters in any war zone is going to endanger our soldiers lives...then keep the reporters home. During the middle of a war, during heavy fighting...probably the heaviest fighting...we certainly don't need a democratic news media working against them....questioning their every action....NOT giving both sides of the story...make their own buddies have to defend his actions. We should be on OUR side no matter our political positions...many in the mainstream news media haven't been for a very long time.
Only two examples:
Collins, who served as a CNN correspondent in Baghdad in 1993, also criticized CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan following Jordan's confession that he had withheld from viewers numerous details of Saddam Hussein's atrocities over the last 10 years in order to protect news sources and maintain access in Iraq.
Collins resigned from CNN after growing uncomfortable with the way CNN was reporting from Baghdad and Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Collins wrote an op/ed in the Washington Times in April detailing how he was pressured to read "Saddam Hussein's propaganda" on the air as part of CNN's effort to obtain an exclusive interview with the Iraqi dictator.
Other news organizations are guilty of similar tactics, according to Collins. "CNN is only the most egregious violator of this principle that you ought not to get too close to the regimes you're covering," Collins said.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/1/160050.shtml
And for those who don't like this source ....it can also be found on many mainstream news sites.
---
On the rules of engagement...yes, they are rules they are to follow. But what many, who have never served in our Armed Forces don't know is that are also trained to remove any threat. There is not a more dangerous way to fight than urban combat...going door to door. The purpose is to take out the enemy...period. Their past experience will be a large part of their reaction to any threat. And this soldier was shot in the head the day before. It's just too easy to be armchair quarterbacks...we're not there...we don't feel the hightened adrenaline flow...nor face the body's natural reaction to fight or flight that they go though.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 17, 2004 12:30 PM ]
posted on November 17, 2004 01:06:40 PM new
The newspaper says that the day before this unit lost a man killed (by a booby-trapped dead Iraqi) and the Marine in question was wounded in the face earlier that day.
We already know they're going to crucify this guy to keep all the wackos here happy.
posted on November 17, 2004 05:41:11 PM new
There have been no charges brought against this young Marine. This will be 15-6 investigation. In that investigation they will take in consideration. 1. The order of the day. 2. Movement of those in the building taken electronic heat seeking radar. which counted 2 people.( 2 wounded were taken care of the day before. 2 were dead). 4. Number of bodies at the time of the shooting 5. 1 & 4 are facts at the time of the shooting.
The camera shows that. 1 wounded, 1 dead away from 3 dead who were piled against the wall. The Marine who did the shooting was the point man of the squad. His Primary objective is to protect those investigating the bodies. (The day before one Marine was killed while trying to care for a wounded terrorist, who blew up both of them.}.
The Number of hours the young man has been in combat, the fact he was wounded the day before, his story along with the story of those with him.
But most important the sound of his voice on the tape. (It shows he was wound up tight as a drum.) He did not shoot the wounded terrorist by himself, but shot the one playing dead in a group of dead and of course the order of the day. all of this will be part of the investigation. Should he be charged it will be under the U.C.M.J. article 32. I say the risk was worth the shot.
posted on November 18, 2004 01:40:53 PM newAnd you and others who agreed with kerry's vote against giving the funding $87B that our fighting troops needed while at war....isn't being supportive either.
Two years into the war and some of the troops still don't have armor plated vehicles. I suppose you want to blame that on Kerry.
Had this ABC reporter not had an agenda - against the war- he could have done the same thing many before him have done....not air/print news that could very easily cause more of our soldiers deaths.
Now everyone has their own personal agenda. What about Bush's personal agenda? Bush had a plan to go into Iraq before he was even president. It has already been well documented that he planed this war before he was elected in 2000. If that doesn't qualify as having an agenda I don't know what does.
we certainly don't need a democratic news media working against them....questioning their every action....NOT giving both sides of the story...
I guess Linda is volunteering to be a reporter in Iraq so the USA can have some unbiased news reports for once.
Linda has forgotten about the stories from the troops themselves who don't agree with Bush's handling of the war. I guess the troops don't support themselves???
Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
--------------------------------------
There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again." George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 24, 2004 03:58:19 PM new
I was just checking the currently popular news with webloggers from around the world here...The Daytop Top 40
The top story is writen by the cameraman who filmed the shooting of the wounded Iraqi ...Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1 It's a very vivid story from his viewpoint.
I doubt you'd find even a handful that would think that way.
