Author Topic: What is the price of treachery? (Read 1040 times)

Nilsen · « **Reply #15 on:** November 25, 2004, 05:17:12 PM »

So.. are we for free press or against it now? what is the correct thing to cheer and whats not?

Is there some goverment website that could inform me so im not mislead by the free press.?

pugg666 · « **Reply #16 on:** November 25, 2004, 05:20:24 PM »

I'm just curious as to your source Killjoy, one that states that he recieved monies above and beyond what he would recieve for doing his JOB.

Just curious.

Maniac · « **Reply #17 on:** November 25, 2004, 05:20:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
So.. are we for free press or against it now? what is the correct thing to cheer and whats not?

mmm, You mean share by your "cheer" comment right? im not in anyway a spelling nazi, but it has meaning to what you want to get out of your post

"If its what i think you meant : what is the correct thing to share and whats not?"

Then my reply would be, Share it all. And let god sort it out.

Nilsen · « **Reply #18 on:** November 25, 2004, 05:22:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maniac
mmm, You mean share by your "cheer" comment right? im not in anyway a spelling nazi, but it has meaning to what you want to get out of your post

"If its what i think you meant : what is the correct thing to share and whats not?"

Then my reply would be, Share it all. And let god sort it out.

no.... cheer as in praise

Killjoy2 · « **Reply #19 on:** November 25, 2004, 05:22:54 PM »

Quote

Blaming those that report the crime is not

Kevin Sites did not report the crime. Reporting a crime is not selling it to the media.

Kevin Sites could have used to video to "report the crime" to a military officer. Instead he sold it and gave the terroist cause great joy.

Quote

Blind loyalty is not

Blind Loyalty impies that Kevin Sites had to suppress true loyalty to only show the video to a military court. If the military courts took no action he "might" be justified in selling his video. Blind Loyalty is an empty phrase in this context.

How many terrorists will be inspired to kill US soldiers because of Kevin Sites video?

Kevin Sites can hide behind journalistic integrity all he wants, but the fact is he sold out.

Maniac · « **Reply #20 on:** November 25, 2004, 05:24:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Killjoy2
Kevin Sites did not report the crime. Reporting a crime is not selling it to the media.

Kevin Sites could have used to video to "report the crime" to a military officer.

He did indeed, did you read what he wrote or not?

Maniac · « **Reply #21 on:** November 25, 2004, 05:25:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
no.... cheer as in praise

Mkay, did not get what you was replying to in that case. i must have missed something

Tali · « **Reply #22 on:** November 25, 2004, 05:28:58 PM »

Seems like this is more a question of, does your country allow the media to have 'inbedded' units with the military, if yes (and the comments have already been made that the initial war coverage was laped up) or no. Do you want to hold your military up to the very highest standards with media right up at the front with them and watching them, or do you want to let the military get on with it, not allow the media to get close, and just be told when it's all over and have all battlefield news come to you from the military/administration (i.e. propoganda for home consumption). You can't have both, so pick one and don't whine about the downside of what you pick...and as the 'free press' is a fairly major feature of 'democracy' and supposendly what all this mess is about, then maybe dictatorships for western countries need to be reconsidered?

Nilsen · « **Reply #23 on:** November 25, 2004, 05:33:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maniac
Mkay, did not get what you was replying to in that case. i must have missed something

I did not reply to any spesific post, just in general regarding what information we are supposed to like and what we are supposed to condemn.

Some seem to think that when something bad happens it should swept under the rug (like in this case) but when things goes well it should be shown as often as possible.

Killjoy2 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 25, 2004, 05:34:43 PM »

Quote

I'm just curious as to your source Killjoy, one that states that he recieved monies above and beyond what he would recieve for doing his JOB.

I don't know what he got paid for his video. It's my original question. It is common practice for these "journalists" to get paid for video. Sometimes they are paid a base to do the reporting. But they are there because thats where they can get sensational video. They get paid for sensational video and little else.

I don't know how much me was paid. I know he is paid every time it is aired.

Quote

what is the correct thing to cheer

The correct thing to "cheer" are those who put "higher purpose" above their own gain. Sites is not one of those people. 15,000 Marines went into Falluja. As a whole they fight for a higher purpose.

cpxxx · « **Reply #25 on:** November 25, 2004, 05:36:44 PM »

Killjoy and others did you ACTUALLY read this bit:

Quote

I did not in any way feel like I had captured some kind of "prize" video. In fact, I was heartsick. Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.
We all knew it was a complicated story and, if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation - providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks.

For those who don't practise journalism as a profession, it may be difficult to understand why we must report stories like this at all - especially if they seem to be aberrations, and not representative of the behaviour or character of an organisation as a whole.

The answer is not an easy one.

He showed it to his the commander straight away. He offered to hold it back. What do you want; a cover up which would inevitably get out and stain the reputation of the Marine Corps and the United States.

Maybe that's what you want?

Who is the real traitor???

Nilsen · « **Reply #26 on:** November 25, 2004, 05:41:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Killjoy2
The correct thing to "cheer" are those who put "higher purpose" above their own gain. Sites is not one of those people. 15,000 Marines went into Falluja. As a whole they fight for a higher purpose.

Oh I see.

Basicly you want it to be covered up because of the "higher purpouse"?

EN4CER · « **Reply #27 on:** November 25, 2004, 05:56:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maniac
Its funny, you say no one of your team would have done what Sites did. But would they have done the same thing as the Marine did?

I can only speak for my team and its members. Police Tactical Teams train different than Military Teams. Our missions our different, policies different etc. When we breach a door we constantly have to make split second decisions. Those decisions effect everyone - innocent bystanders, victims, perps, and team members. You can go from hero to goat, live to dead in the blink of an eye. I'm sure the Military has as many if not more unknowns to deal with when doing room entry and clearing. I'm not gonna Monday Morning Quaterback what that Marine did - I was not there. He has been well trained, he pulled the trigger, he had a reason why he did it. IMO - In the world of CQB (Close Quarter Battle) and Room Entries - What goes on in room entry should stay there - It has no place in the eyes of the general public.

Killjoy2 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 25, 2004, 06:01:56 PM »

Quote

I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.

I read it. I also read that NBC delayed broadcasting the video by 48 hours.

Quote

He offered to hold it back.

He didn't offer to hold it back, only delay it.

Quote

What do you want; a cover up

Since when is it a coverup to report a crime to military authorities? And leave it at that? What if the video was delayed a month? A year? Is that a coverup?

But the video can't be delayed a month let alone a year because it loses its VALUE. NBC or Sites would never consider delaying the video for very long. It is worth too much money.

So far what I am reading is left-over tripe from the war protests of the 70's.

Lets see what we agree on.

1) The Sites video gave the terrorist cause more power. It will inspire terrorists to go to any lengths to kill US soldiers.

2) It is not typical behavior of US Marines in Falluja. In fact it appears to be an isolated incident.

3) Miliary authority moved quickly and gave assurance that the accused Marine and the incident would be investigated.

Is it worth giving aid to the terrorist cause to "report" this incident? Remember, there is no "coverup", there is no overwhelming human rights violation by US Marine. Just one Marine.

We've walked all some empty rhetoric and now we finally arrive at the core of the issue.

Is it worth giving aid to the terrorist cause?

pugg666 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 25, 2004, 06:13:57 PM »

You still haven't answered my question Killjoy.