1 posted on
03/12/2003 2:37:53 PM PST by
dead
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 last
To: dead
THIS TARGET: BONUS SCORE ~ DOUBLE POINTS
63 posted on
03/12/2003 4:11:00 PM PST by
PhilDragoo
(Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
To: dead
This is threatening freedom of information, before you even get to a war."You mean the same freedom of information the Iraqis enjoy?
67 posted on
03/12/2003 4:16:47 PM PST by
cardinal4
(The Senate Armed Services Comm; the Chinese pipeline into US secrets)
To: dead
I'm really having a hard time seeing a bad side to this.
Of course I wouldn't want them to expend so many bullets on independent reporters that they wouldnt have some left for the major network folks.
But I'm sure they have planned ahead for that, so I'm OK.
69 posted on
03/12/2003 4:19:33 PM PST by
keithtoo
To: dead
I believe the bankrupt Iridium satellite phone system was sold to the CIA.
74 posted on
03/12/2003 4:29:56 PM PST by
js1138
To: dead
" And then on top of everything else, there is now a blackout (which was imposed, during the last war, at the beginning of the war), ...ordered by one Mr. Dick Cheney, who is in charge of this."
The adults are in charge this time.
75 posted on
03/12/2003 4:30:33 PM PST by
tet68
(Jeremiah 51:24 ..."..Before your eyes I will repay Babylon for all the wrong they have done in Zion")
To: dead
" I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs. You will get it later." The way it should be: "I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of unbiased, post operations reporting after the war is concluded. We should get it later."
76 posted on
03/12/2003 4:32:36 PM PST by
TADSLOS
(Sua Sponte)
To: dead
the Pentagon attitude is: "entirely hostile to the the free spread of information." Well...Duh!
" And this time the Americans are: a) Asking journalists who go with them, whether they are... have feelings against the war. And therefore if you have views that are skeptical, then you are not to be acceptable."
Would we want someone who has an ideological spasim over football reporting on the Super Bowl...nah..didn't think so.
78 posted on
03/12/2003 4:36:24 PM PST by
Dead Dog
To: dead
Uh, did they ever stop to think that by sending something via satillite they just might draw the bombs to them regardless of where they were originally aimed?
To: dead
Wasn't there an SNL parody with Al Franken's One Man Mobile Uplink covering an explosion of a bomb from point blank range? If not, there should have been.
-PJ
To: dead
Unlike our American colleagues, who immediately left their pool, after about 48 hours, having just had enough of it."Correct me if I'm wrong, but I certainly don't remember any journalists coming home within two days of the beginning of the first Gulf War unsatisfied with being able to get the story. I DO remember that they bitched and moaned the whole time, but I thought they stayed there for fear they wouldn't get any story at all.
This whole report about the Pentagon sounds SO bogus to me.
83 posted on
03/12/2003 5:37:15 PM PST by
SuziQ
To: dead
"I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks --that is the television signals out of... Bhagdad, for example-- were detected by any planes ...electronic media... mediums, of the military above Bhagdad... they'd be fired down on. Even if they were journalists ..'
WELL! IF THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE "POINT" (Photojournalist Operating Infront Needing Targeting" Who cares?
I think Sadam has his bunker under the Al Rashid Hotel where the Journalist stay. I would drop the new MOAB down the elevator shaft. "They have been warned."
To: dead
Threatening their uplink gear might seem like threatening them personally, but all the military wants to do is take out their antennas. Nobody needs to get hurt.
85 posted on
03/12/2003 7:12:14 PM PST by
RightWhale
(Theorems link concepts: Proofs establish links)
To: dead
"may find it necessary to bomb areas in which war correspondents are attempting to report from the Iraqi side."Awwwww.... We're taking sides... Isn't that too bad.... I got no sympathy. They know the rules going in.
Let's roll.
86 posted on
03/12/2003 7:18:24 PM PST by
mhking
(Fasten your seatbelts....We're goin' in!)
To: dead
According to Ms. Adie, who twelve years ago covered the last Gulf War, the Pentagon attitude is: "entirely hostile to the the free spread of information.
In a war I don't want the free spread of information. Is her name Ms. About to Die?
87 posted on
03/12/2003 7:19:42 PM PST by
aruanan
To: dead
Works for me too.
88 posted on
03/12/2003 7:22:37 PM PST by
philetus
(Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
To: dead
Pentagon Threatens To Kill Independent Reporters In Iraq Good! Now the !@%#!!s won't be able to transmit information and orders to Saddam's flunkies.
90 posted on
03/13/2003 7:07:32 PM PST by
vishnu2
To: dead
...and the downside is? I don't see any...In many newscasts, a common phase "If it bleeds, it leads" mindset...If moronic reporter puts the soldiers lives in danger by spilling the beans on an pending attack, then destroy the reporters' equipment. IMHO, AND ANYTHING THING ELSE, THE SOLDIERS MAY WANT TO THROW (OR SHOOT) AT HIM..WORTHLESS SCUM
92 posted on
03/13/2003 7:47:00 PM PST by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because your paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
To: dead
I don't think I would be making any electronic noise in this enviroment. If these morons do. . . . . . .
94 posted on
03/18/2003 5:57:43 PM PST by
Nov3
To: dead
Since these "reporters" and their bosses insist on putting the lives of our military in jeopardy, we should just give them guns etc. and let them fight the war, theyll really get it first hand that way. Disssgussstinggggg!!
95 posted on
03/19/2003 7:40:35 AM PST by
yoe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson