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.
You're definitely right about the quality of the video. Several folks pointed out that there is a cut around 42 seconds.
Terrorists should never be afforded the protection of Geneva convention though the MSM will brainwash many Americans to believe they should.
Sites...you little pri*k, you won't get away with this...
Why don't you go to his personal website, http://www.kevinsites.net/, and read what he PERSONALLY has written about the war before you judge him.
For a start, posting his "art on a site called "Images AGAINST War" is a pretty big indicator to me.
I really don't have time to get into a logic/fallcies debate on dicto simpliciter, etc. today. Freepers can post where ever they like, as long as it does not put US or UK troops in extra danger.
The guy posts at a images against war website, ends up embedded with US troops and all of a sudden produces an incendiary tape (which now appears to have been editied) And this is having a similar effect the Daily Mirror fakes did...
There is a process that Kevin Sites should have followed, he didn't. Whether he posts nice blogs or not, i see an agenda in his actions and time will surely tell.
I didn't know he had been kidnapped in Iraq. It's suspicious that they let him go.
He's lower than amphibian shit.
For a start, posting his "art on a site called "Images AGAINST War" is a pretty big indicator to me.
I don't take the posting of his photos at Imagesagainstwar to be definitive of anything. It might be a political statement or simply a practical decision. He's a free-lance photographer and basically anyone who has a position on war is a potential market. There was certainly nothing incendiary about the Sites' photos that are posted there.
So, you are giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, Good for you! I'm not, so we'll have to agree to disagree, unless of course you are actually trolling, which your argument switching looks very much like.
Did i say the pics on the site were incendiary? No. (Although most probably illegal under the Geneva Convention)
Did i say the tape that he gave to the media was? Yes.
Did i say that the release of this tape will put Allied troops in danger? Yes.
I stand by my assertions, i stand by the anti-war activist comment and that i think this is a set up.
As i said, the tape may have been editied, there is now a military investigation, so i suggest you wait and see.
You say he's targeting a particular market? Well there's good money in slamming the US military, just ask Michael Moore.
I doubt the MSM feels that way, though. They would much rather have a handy stick with which to beat the Administration and our military. They seek to turn this war into just another OJ Trial spectacle wherein they and their smarmy friends can just pontificate on endlessly about their own moral superiority.
So, you are giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, Good for you! I'm not, so we'll have to agree to disagree, unless of course you are actually trolling, which your argument switching looks very much like.
There's just not yet enough evidence (that I'm aware of) for me to make up my mind about Sites, so it may end up that we don't disagree.
Did i say the pics on the site were incendiary? No. (Although most probably illegal under the Geneva Convention)...Did i say the tape that he gave to the media was? Yes.
Didn't say you said they were. Don't know about the Geneva Convention but am of the opinion that the footage pales in comparison to the pre-meditated murder depicted in the beheading videos.
Did i say that the release of this tape will put Allied troops in danger? Yes.
I'm not so sure although I can see the tape being used as an 'excuse' for what some heathen was going to do anyway. OTOH, I'm not sure that the 'take no prisoners' msg that could be interpreted from the tape is a bad thing in the larger context.
I stand by my assertions, i stand by the anti-war activist comment and that i think this is a set up.
And you may be right.
As i said, the tape may have been editied, there is now a military investigation, so i suggest you wait and see.
I meant to ask you about the tape being edited. The news of that went underneath my radar screen. Do you recall where you read/ heard that? I'm assuming that you don't mean the editing for American news.
You say he's targeting a particular market?
Not exactly. I'm saying that the anti-war faction is 'a' market, that I'm sure he could have submitted much more graphic images and photos that are inflamatory. Incidentally, the story behind those photos at images... is on his blog. Ends up that one of the blindfolded detainees invited some of the American military guys to dinner after it was all over.
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.