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.
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.