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.
I stand corrected. I find blogs cumbersome and cluttered so I am blog challenged.
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/
''anti-war activist'', ''anti-war protestor''?
How so? Documentation?
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.
Sites is a traitor.
BTW, thanks for posting this.
Have a great weekend.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1281882/posts?page=2#2
There are numerous posts reporting this guys affiliations.
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?
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/
scroll down to find the link
Thank you.
I bet his life among the soldiers and loyal, truthful reporters will be heck from now on.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.