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