Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

KILL SHOT UPDATE: [HERE'S THE CRUCIAL BACKSTORY]
JunkYard Blogs ^ | Nov. 19, 2004 | B. Preston

Posted on 11/19/2004 11:52:48 AM PST by conservativecorner

Only a few have seen the footage shot the day before -- providing irrefutable evidence that the mosque was a well-defended arms depot. And fewer still have viewed the very next sequence after "the shooting," which shows two Marines pointing their weapons at another combatant lying motionless. Suddenly, one of the Marines jumps back as the terrorist stretches out his hand, motioning that he is alive. Neither Marine opens fire. According to the Marines, a Navy medical corpsman was then summoned to treat the two wounded prisoners. In his original written report, Sites, the correspondent who videotaped the shooting, doesn't mention the medical treatment provided to the injured enemy combatants, but he does note that four of the combatants were some of those who had been left behind from the firefight on Friday. If the NBC reporter knew that from being there the day before, why didn't he tell this new group of Marines before they rushed into the room?

None of that is included in the tape, which is now being used to raise Islamic ire at the "American invader." Why? And why did it take more than a day to learn that the Marine seen shooting on the videotape had been wounded in the face the day before if the correspondent knew that when he filed the videotape? Why didn't the original story include the fact that a Marine in the same unit had been killed 24 hours earlier while searching the booby-trapped dead body of a terrorist?

Within hours of the videotaped incident in the mosque, another Marine was killed and five others wounded by a booby-trapped body they found in a house after a gunfight. Why was this not made part of the original story? Even Amnesty International, no friend to the American armed forces, has reported that the Iraqi terrorists have illegally used white flags to lure coalition forces into ambushes. Yet this, too, is absent in the original story.

Though the Arab media doesn't mention it, the incident is being fully investigated -- even as combat operations continue. If a court martial is convened, the young Marine in the videotape will have a chance to defend his actions. Meanwhile, Arab broadcasts outside Iraq that won't even mention the murder of relief worker Margaret Hassan will replay the "shooting video" for weeks to come as an incitement to join the Jihad.

In the rush to air sensational footage, the "pool" system failed us all. Worse yet, it failed the young soldiers and Marines and their brave Iraqi allies who are fighting to liberate Fallujah from the terrorists' bloody grip. Even though the "shooting video" lacked context and failed to tell the full story -- it became the big story. If it becomes the story of Fallujah, that would be a crime.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: fallujahmarine; iraq; marines; slanderngprivateryan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: ganeshpuri89

I stand corrected. I find blogs cumbersome and cluttered so I am blog challenged.


21 posted on 11/19/2004 12:36:25 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Kevin Sites is a terrorist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

This was supposedly written by Oliver North. The link at junkkyardblog takes you to Townhall.com where the article is credited to Oliver North.

In any case, here is a link to the Nov 15 & 16 reports (text & video) at NBC where the contextual background is given quite clearly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6496898/


22 posted on 11/19/2004 12:45:11 PM PST by elli1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I-spy-guy

''anti-war activist'', ''anti-war protestor''?

How so? Documentation?

23 posted on 11/19/2004 12:49:00 PM PST by elli1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: conservativecorner
Sites is a left wing antiwar propagandist who was looking for agitprop material and he found it. Then he used it.
His actions are treasonous and seditious. So are those of the company he works for. Due to his actions to some extent he is by now responsible for American soldiers injuries or deaths.
It took three decades to catch up with Kerry. There for I'm sure Sites realizes combat vets have long memories.
25 posted on 11/19/2004 12:55:12 PM PST by crabpott (Please send guns, money and lawyers and the rest of my Buffett CD's....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

The reporter needs to be embedded elsewhere. If he is going to report in this manner, he may affect the future judgement of other marines, causing them to lose their lives.


26 posted on 11/19/2004 12:59:17 PM PST by ampat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

Sites is a traitor.


27 posted on 11/19/2004 1:00:15 PM PST by Vets_Husband_and_Wife (Let Kevin Sites of NBC know he's a traitor! The backlash should be on HIM not on our troop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

BTW, thanks for posting this.

Have a great weekend.


28 posted on 11/19/2004 1:00:52 PM PST by Vets_Husband_and_Wife (Let Kevin Sites of NBC know he's a traitor! The backlash should be on HIM not on our troop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elli1

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1281882/posts?page=2#2

There are numerous posts reporting this guys affiliations.


29 posted on 11/19/2004 1:28:46 PM PST by I-spy-guy (The European Union... ignoring the blindingly obvious since 9 May 1950)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: I-spy-guy

I know about Sites' photos at ''imagesagainstwar''. What did you find objectionable about the photos? How does that prove he's an ''anti-war activist/ protestor''? Some FReepers admit to posting/ having posted at DU. Does the fact that they've posted there prove that they're wacko libs?


30 posted on 11/19/2004 1:41:56 PM PST by elli1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/

scroll down to find the link


31 posted on 11/19/2004 1:54:26 PM PST by treeclimber ("We will hunt the terrorists in every dark corner of the earth. We will be relentless." GWB 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: treeclimber

Thank you.


32 posted on 11/19/2004 2:02:26 PM PST by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Last I heard, he was still in Iraq avoiding everybody, even his own reporter buddies.

I bet his life among the soldiers and loyal, truthful reporters will be heck from now on.

33 posted on 11/19/2004 2:43:08 PM PST by Freedom Dignity n Honor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: elli1
I know about Sites' photos at ''imagesagainstwar''. What did you find objectionable about the photos? How does that prove he's an ''anti-war activist/ protestor''? Some FReepers admit to posting/ having posted at DU. Does the fact that they've posted there prove that they're wacko libs?

Interesting people point to that site but NOT to his own personal blog site, http://www.kevinsites.net/, which does not have any anti-US material on it (that I saw). Perfect example of not seeing the trees because the forest is in the way.

34 posted on 11/19/2004 2:50:26 PM PST by killjoy (I'm John Kerry and I'm relieved of duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: killjoy

Interesting people point to that site but NOT to his own personal blog site, http://www.kevinsites.net/, which does not have any anti-US material on it (that I saw). Perfect example of not seeing the trees because the forest is in the way.

I've noticed that, too. And I don't see anything ''wrong'' w/ the photos he has up at ''imagesagainst war'' either, for that matter. The photos feature the guys who lost. It's reasonable to think that a war photographer is going to peddle his wares to people who are interested in what is happening in the war, irrespective of their political position on that war.

35 posted on 11/19/2004 4:07:15 PM PST by elli1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: elli1
I've noticed that, too. And I don't see anything ''wrong'' w/ the photos he has up at ''imagesagainst war'' either, for that matter. The photos feature the guys who lost. It's reasonable to think that a war photographer is going to peddle his wares to people who are interested in what is happening in the war, irrespective of their political position on that war.

I would be much more horrified if someone put up a site called "imagesforwar.com" with the burned bodies of Iraqi soldiers ogrish.com style.

36 posted on 11/19/2004 4:17:19 PM PST by killjoy (I'm John Kerry and I'm relieved of duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

http://www.petitiononline.com/as123/petition.html


37 posted on 11/19/2004 4:21:26 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II; conservativecorner
Uncut Video Of Fallujah Marine Incident In Question
38 posted on 11/19/2004 4:24:36 PM PST by tutstar ( <{{--->< http://ripe4change.4-all.org Violations of Florida Statutes ongoing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: killjoy

I would be much more horrified if someone put up a site called "imagesforwar.com" with the burned bodies of Iraqi soldiers ogrish.com style.

Exactly. Wars are sometimes necessary things but only a sociopath would say that they like war.

39 posted on 11/19/2004 4:33:27 PM PST by elli1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tutstar
That video is much less clear than the cut version that Hannity links to. However, it has much more context. It sounds as if the wounded terrorists at the end are surrendering and divulging that they have information. At least that is how it sounds to me. Shooting terrorists playing possum sounds like an effective interrogation technique. BTW, terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Convention.

http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention1.html

Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany. (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

40 posted on 11/19/2004 4:57:05 PM PST by AndrewC (New Senate rule -- Must vote on all Presidential appointments period certain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson