Posted on 11/21/2004 11:07:20 AM PST by CHARLITE
The episode of media recording the shooting of an enemy combatant in a fortress masquerading as a Mosque is one of the reasons why military men learn to never trust the “media.” Video footage absent the actual, complete context is analogous to engaging in sex with an aids carrier, without protection…maybe worse. Objective commentators would await the outcome of the investigation, but judging from all the prattle on the subject, it is an understatement that the “media” is awash in a preconceived bias.
It is easy to second guess, Monday morning quarterback, or otherwise prejudge the actions of an individual when pressure is on. One good rule for survival in combat is, “when in doubt, shoot, ask questions later;” stated another way, “if they are willing to die for their cause, oblige them.”
The Marine in question had no way of knowing that the “possum” player was injured, was not about to set off a bomb, or, draw a weapon and begin shooting. Given that the environment was one of intensive combat for a number of days before the event in the “Mosque” there should be a presumption of his having acted in the interest of self-preservation as well as members of his unit; and even the “backstabbing” reporter. But when looking for a story, the media too often comes down on the side of the enemy. One cannot help but wonder, “why?”
It should not come as a surprise that the “liberal” media has begun an inexorable shift to anti-“WOT” and anti-military propaganda now that their “darling,” Kerry, has been crushed. One should take note of the similarity in language used by “liberals” in media and Hollywood, and their “examples” in now defunct Soviet news agencies: “adventurism,” “hegemony,” “cowboy,” “American Imperialism,” and etc. The reader should not be surprised when “liberal” opinion writers begin referring to U.S. servicemen and women as behaving like “blood thirsty mercenaries.” Déjà vu, all over again.
It is evident that “liberals” in the media have “forgotten” that the US was attacked and that thousands of American civilians were killed by ruthless, immoral, moon-god worshiping swine. But, being “smarter” than the rest of us, “liberals” have adopted the line that the U.S. is guilty by its association with and support of Israel, and therefore “deserved” the attacks of 9/11. No wonder there is a sharp divide in this nation!
Nearly all news media reporters are interested in one thing, their own welfare and advancement. Their motivation and objectives are to receive recognition, notoriety, a Pulitzer Prize, status and…more money.
Message for the media: It is not the purpose of the media accompanying US Forces to document whether or not the U.S. is complying with Geneva Conventions. Nor is their approved mission as “embedded” reporters to act as arbiters or to decide whose side viewers should choose. If “embedded” reporters aren’t on “our” side already, someone should seriously consider terminating them.
Semper Fidelis
What do you think about this article? Write a letter to the editor at: http://www.bulletinboards.com/view.cfm?comcode=gulf1msw
Comments should be sent to: cheetah@gulf1.com
It's gotcha journalism pure and simple. Sensationalism wrapped amid a "scoop" mentality reduceing the story to a sound bite that reflect more the bias of the journalist than what the story is about.
OK, you're a Marine searching enemy bodies in a mosque. One of the bodies is starting to move and there is a reporter filming in the room.
You only have two rounds left.
Quick! What do you do?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Shoot the reporter twice....
Kevis Sites is an anti-war activist and a Pulitzer Prize hunter photographing a war.
Journalists should have no business putting their spin on things like what this Marine did unless they have walked in the same shoes. Bunch of liberal jackasses who don't know s%$t about combat.
The MSM is just piggybacking on the communist propaganda streams from the cold war.
When you think about it, Kevis Sites was in a position to "break" a big story no matter what the Marine did. If he had hesitated and someone else was killed, Sites would have used the same film to "prove" the lack of training and/or other gneral "unworthiness" of our troops.
The only way that justice could have been served is if Sites had been the only casualty. If I were Sites, I'm not sure I'd like to stay "imbedded" under those circumstances.
That is absolutetly correct. The MSM describes the terrorist as being unarmed, but unless he has been strip and cavity searched, how can a terrorist be proven to be unarmed?
Have the reporter search the 'body' that's moving. If the 'body' blows up himself and the reporter, then you've managed to save two rounds you might need later.
There are growing legions of Americans who no longer trust the media. Add to that the military personnel, their families and friends who are learning the same lesson. The anti-American left wing media has depleted whatever credibility they may have once enjoyed. Its fun watching their audience steadily evaporate.
True. A win-win situation for Sites who had an agenda. The only silver-lining would have been for the bullet to have ricocheted and oh well, there's always another time.
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.