1 posted on
12/19/2001 3:16:25 AM PST by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Only 40? And only wounded at that? Jeez, I thought the marksmanship of the IDF was better than that!
To: kattracks
What a bunch of morons. It's the same principle as a knife fight. If you're out in the open in a combat zone, you're going to get shot.
3 posted on
12/19/2001 3:21:36 AM PST by
ipfreely
To: kattracks
(40 cases of journalists wounded by shooting)
Wounded journalists are much more intertaining that head-shot ones who tend to just drop instantly...I used to love Sunday mornings on our squatter's patch...Sunday was fried chicken day...by 10am all us kids were lined up on the fence waiting for Pa to select which chicken neck to wring off...Watching that headless chicken flappin around squirtin blood and sheddin feathers never failed to excite us...We were still yappin about it 2 hours later as we fought over the last piece...
To: kattracks
The only thing a reporter or photographer should know when going into a war zone is the art of duck & cover.
5 posted on
12/19/2001 3:42:05 AM PST by
Catspaw
To: kattracks
Why doesn't Fox send Geraldo to the Gaza strip?
6 posted on
12/19/2001 4:03:13 AM PST by
LarryM
To: kattracks
The liberal signiature is all over this story, according to the author, since the IDF was not found to have systematically targeted the reporters, the investigation was obviously not thorough enough. Sounds like Gore in Florida.
To: kattracks
"The message this delivers to soldiers, whether the army intends this or not, is that preventing the shooting of journalists and punishing those who shoot them are not of utmost importance," the FPA said in a statement. Aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war is a dangerous occupation.
To: kattracks
A good story for any moron wondering why the US military wouldn't agree to wet nurse the press. I hope the IDF improves their aim if El-Jism is involved.
67 posted on
12/19/2001 11:14:38 AM PST by
Righty1
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson