Posted on 11/17/2004 8:05:47 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
Where you there?
Did they have a choice or was Sites embedded with their squad by higher authority?? Maybe next time he'll stop a round.
No I wasn't, but the Marine commander that was there agreed that he was a wounded prisoner, and everyone who was there seems clear on the point that he was not booby-trapped. And if, as the Marine commander also agreed, he'd been there since being left by the previous group of coalition troops, who had held him prisoner and then left him for later pick-up, they must have been pretty sure he was thorougly disabled -- I don't think they'd leave behind wounded enemy who were still in any condition to pose a threat.
And we also know that Saddam did not have nukes...but we only know that because we invaded Iraq.
The man who did the shooting saw a terrorist move, and had a split second to make a decision.
War sucks, but we didn't start it.
I agree with you whole-heartedly. How could the Marine possibly know what that terrorist might have been hiding under his robes? Especially given the circumstances (knowing that in other instances, terrorists has posed as wounded in order to lure soldiers forward only to kill them). He made the correct, split second decision.
Here is something I am borrowing from another website that I found extremely interesting and also very accurate. It's long, so bear with me:
How would the D-Day Invasion be Reported today?
This is what you would hear if Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw reported on D-Day at Normandy.
June 6, 1944. - NORMANDY- Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops.
Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated and reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason," said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."
The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."
Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to big beer," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."
Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon, a so-called "atomic bomb."
Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany.
Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion and French officials are concerned that uncollected corpses pose a public health risk.
"The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess and we don't intend to clean it up.
In an active combat zone, your assumptions (he wasn't booby trapped, he must have been disabled) could and did (an in the case of Fallujah) get Marines killed. The "prisoners" were left unattended for a period of time. The Marine who shot him had no way to know, one, the insurgents degree of disability or capacity to attack, and two, whether he was armed or rigged with explosives (whether consciously or not). This really is a no- brainer, Monday morning quarterbacking aside. A Marine who has been engaged in mortal combat for a prolonged period went through a door in a combat zone, with no knowledge of what was on the other side and made a split second decision upon which his and his teammates lives depended. What do we say to him? Thank you for your service to your country. Semper Fidelis.
This Marine saw movement and reacted in a way that any soldier would have in the intense environment of Fallujah
Looks like NCIS needs to ask Kevin some pointed questions about his creative video editing.
I fully support the Marine. I just don't think that requires vilifying the reporter, who has not publicly contradicted the Marine's version of events or of his reasonable beliefs at the time (and in fact has publicly said he can understand how the Marine could have reasonably believed that the man posed a threat, under the circumstances). Personally, I find that my understanding of the very difficult situation our troops are facing has been enhanced by this video and the information and discussion surrounding it. It's not clear that this wasn't the reporter's intention.
Traitor NBC photographer email addresses:
kevinsites@hotmail.com
kevin@kevinsites.net
http://www.kevinsites.net/
See my post #72.
Kevin Sites: Ingrates don't last long as embeds.
My comments were referring to your assumptions in post 63.
I fully support the Marine. I just don't think that requires vilifying the reporter, who has not publicly contradicted the Marine's version of events or of his reasonable beliefs at the time (and in fact has publicly said he can understand how the Marine could have reasonably believed that the man posed a threat, under the circumstances). Personally, I find that my understanding of the very difficult situation our troops are facing has been enhanced by this video and the information and discussion surrounding it. It's not clear that this wasn't the reporter's intention.
Disagree with you on this one Shrinker. This reporter feeds on getting his work published and displayed on national TV. I find it hard to believe that he didn't know the impact of what he had just recorded. His actions impacted this young Marine significantly. The Marine had been shot in the face the day before, and the last thing he needs is some knee jerk reporter recording and reporting his efforts in combat. The Marines will have a way of taking care of this jerk reporter!
I hope this guy never works again. Boycott his work. Kick him off your staff. NBC, don't give him a dime. He's traitorous scum.
Does anybody know where Kevins Sites resides stateside?
Don't know Tex, but I ran across a few photos from his web site that were buried in his images directory (click here to go to his images directory). These photos look like individual photos of the Marine unit he was attached to (my assumption) and photos he had posted on November 6, 2004.
This, yes, at the very least. I feel for this young man that they have not done "the least".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.