First, I don't want the punk killed, I'd just like to see his hair mussed. Jaws wired shut for a few months, food through a straw, that kind of thing.
Second, Sites knew what the reaction of the MSM would be over this footage, because he's a member of their fraternity. I object to his betrayal of our troops. Kevin Sites is a traitor.
Email the punk:
kevin@kevinsites.net
Visit the punk's ridiculously pompous website:
http://www.kevinsites.net
Dispatches from a life in conflict.
(I'm not making it up. This is the actual caption that appears below this photo on the punk's website.)
Ah, yes. "I didn't like what he showed me, so I want to do physical injury to him."
Are you employed in the loansharking business, perchance?
Second, Sites knew what the reaction of the MSM would be over this footage, because he's a member of their fraternity. I object to his betrayal of our troops. Kevin Sites is a traitor.
Oh, I get it. Because others described his video in a fashion you like, therefore he's a traitor.
If this was a righteous deed, then why are so many braying for Sites to be maimed or killed for filming it?
Righteousness need not fear being shown. Evil, on the other hand, needs the black masks.
It's fascinating to watch the reactions. There's a basic conflict between "I think the Marine was right to do this" and "But it should not be shown and Sites is a traitor to the military for giving them a bad image." Those who wanted this deed to not be shown must have, at some fundamental level, serious questions about whether this was a morally right deed.
BTW, for the record: I saw the footage. There was no problem, IMO, with the Marine's actions. And there's no problem with showing the footage. Those who have a problem with seeing it and hyperventilate about it probably should give up watching war footage in general.
Why? Because he reported something you would have rather not seen?