newsstand 0 #26 December 9, 2003 Reporting on Pearl's execution and airing the pictures are two very different things. Had the DHL gone down and people been killed showing it would be very different. However we did show pictures of dead Iraqi soldiers and prisoners while at the same time obejcting to their showing the same things of American soldiers. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #27 December 9, 2003 Could not have said it better! "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #28 December 9, 2003 QuoteQuoteSorry. I guess you missed history class. They were known as patriots AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED not later. Cool, now I get to play the definition game. Patriot: "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests." The colonists were patriots, the Palestinians are patriots, Saddam's remaining supporters are patriots. The fact is, the American Revolution was initially unpopular on both sides of the Atlantic. Most colonists wanted to remain British subjects. Really? Facts to support your claim? It apparently wasnt hard to raise an army and get the french to step on board. Your comment about the Pallies and saddam supporters doesnt even deserve an intelligent reply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #29 December 9, 2003 QuoteI think it is time to take sides. Some have trouble deciding. So what side do you take? The side of the people who had a horrible leader who we helped prop up for years? Or the side that invaded a country that was of no real threat to them? While I think we botched Afghanistan I at least understood and could get behind it. Invading Iraq made no sense. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #30 December 9, 2003 I really can see both sides here. On one hand, we are watching something a reporter from a country that has significant ties to Iraq (said country's leadership having personal relationship with SH spanning several decades), who works for a publication which is less than favorable to the United States, and the tape is showing a significant attack on a Dutch chartered DHL. This attack came perilously close to being fatal. The tape shows Iraqis (assuming they are Iraqis) with a SAM and using it very effectively, the underlying message to the Iraqis/other insurgents being: We have good weapons, we know how to use them, and we will use them. Now, make sure you support us, we are hitting them where it hurts!!" It could be considered a "training tape" like some we have seen with AQ, as well, showing off weapons and accuracy. On the other hand, it can also be seen as something which is "traitorous", or in the very least, angri-fying. It demonstrates what our troops are up against, and what those who support our troops (the Dutch charter here, for example, or the Japanese electricians who were killed recently, or the Koreans who were killed recently, etc.) are up against. It can be seen as an act of aggression, in a sense, because the journalist does not identify where they got the tape, who they got the tape from, and how they found them in the first place. If they are withholding this information, it would seem as if they are encouraging/supporting the Iraqis who shot the SAM. That's both sides. Here's the middle. In some instances, there have been journalists who have crossed the line from indepentent reporting to becoming part of the story, either by withholding information, or by supplying it. The moral question needs to be asked which is "is independent information dispersal more important than human lives", and followed closely by "if I burn these sources, how can I get the information out there?" Both questions are difficult to answer. One would have to consider which side they favor, the value of the information (in this case, names, places, locations, etc.), and any other moral issues, as in "do I become part of the story, or simply report it?". Frankly, I think the french reporter offered no opinion, and thus maintained a fairly good impartial attitude (keeping in mind I don't know if there was anything written about the situation). I am saddened, however, that they seem to value the sale of the tape and the furtherance of their career more than the lives of the Dutch, or anyone else who becomes the target of the SAM shooters. Had it been me, I likely would not have been able to remain impartial, because death bothers me a lot, and I would have let someone know who gave me the tape, or how I came to have it, either by shooting it with the bad guys (and all the info as to where they came from, etc.), or by accepting it. But that's me, and I am not a professional reporter. I would have sincere difficulties standing by with information like that, especially if I came from a "neutral" country. That's just my assessment. I've had a bad day, and been wrong a whole lot. I may be wrong again.... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #31 December 9, 2003 QuoteThe colonists were patriots, the Palestinians are patriots, Saddam's remaining supporters are patriots. Well, 2 out of 3 are killing Americans; military and civilian. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #32 December 9, 2003 Quote Your comment about the Pallies and saddam supporters doesnt even deserve an intelligent reply. Yes it does. Lets change the scenario a little bit. A powerful European country called G invades its neighbor called F but many citizens of F object and form a resistance. As far as G is concerned they are terrorists but to many people living in F they are patriots. Now if G was our friend we would agree with them but if F is our friend we agree with them. Since Germany was run by Hitler we agree that the French resistance were "good guys" but since Iraq was run by Saddam we consider the equivalent as "bad guys." "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #33 December 9, 2003 When did G liberate F? Is that similar to what I did to K back in '90? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #34 December 9, 2003 QuoteQuoteThe colonists were patriots, the Palestinians are patriots, Saddam's remaining supporters are patriots. Well, 2 out of 3 are killing Americans; military and civilian. If we didn't invade Iraq they would not be killing us. BTW is the avatar really you? Mine is my grandson. (this is the edit) "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #35 December 9, 2003 QuoteI really can see both sides here. On one hand, we are watching something a reporter from a country that has significant ties to Iraq (said country's leadership having personal relationship with SH spanning several decades), who works for a publication which is less than favorable to the United States, and the tape is showing a significant attack on a Dutch chartered DHL. This attack came perilously close to being fatal. The tape shows Iraqis (assuming they are Iraqis) with a SAM and using it very effectively, the underlying message to the Iraqis/other insurgents being: We have good weapons, we know how to use them, and we will use them. Now, make sure you support us, we are hitting them where it hurts!!" It could be considered a "training tape" like some we have seen with AQ, as well, showing off weapons and accuracy. On the other hand, it can also be seen as something which is "traitorous", or in the very least, angri-fying. It demonstrates what our troops are up against, and what those who support our troops (the Dutch charter here, for example, or the Japanese electricians who were killed recently, or the Koreans who were killed recently, etc.) are up against. It can be seen as an act of aggression, in a sense, because the journalist does not identify where they got the tape, who they got the tape from, and how they found them in the first place. If they are withholding this information, it would seem as if they are encouraging/supporting the Iraqis who shot the SAM. That's both sides. Here's the middle. In some instances, there have been journalists who have crossed the line from indepentent reporting to becoming part of the story, either by withholding information, or by supplying it. The moral question needs to be asked which is "is independent information dispersal more important than human lives", and followed closely by "if I burn these sources, how can I get the information out there?" Both questions are difficult to answer. One would have to consider which side they favor, the value of the information (in this case, names, places, locations, etc.), and any other moral issues, as in "do I become part of the story, or simply report it?". Frankly, I think the french reporter offered no opinion, and thus maintained a fairly good impartial attitude (keeping in mind I don't know if there was anything written about the situation). I am saddened, however, that they seem to value the sale of the tape and the furtherance of their career more than the lives of the Dutch, or anyone else who becomes the target of the SAM shooters. Had it been me, I likely would not have been able to remain impartial, because death bothers me a lot, and I would have let someone know who gave me the tape, or how I came to have it, either by shooting it with the bad guys (and all the info as to where they came from, etc.), or by accepting it. But that's me, and I am not a professional reporter. I would have sincere difficulties standing by with information like that, especially if I came from a "neutral" country. That's just my assessment. I've had a bad day, and been wrong a whole lot. I may be wrong again.... Ciels- Michele I think your post is very intelligent and objective. Me personally, I would have taken out the guy with the SAM regardless of the outcome. The DHL guys arent even part of the shit. At the very least I wouldnt have filmed it if I wanted to save my ass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WFFC 1 #36 December 9, 2003 QuoteIt apparently wasnt hard to raise an army and get the french to step on board. At that time in history, the French didn't much care for the British, nor did many other countries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #37 December 9, 2003 QuoteBTW is the avatar really you? Yes, it is. Over the Chocolate Mountains in '85. Is your avatar really you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indyz 1 #38 December 9, 2003 QuoteReally? Facts to support your claim? It apparently wasnt hard to raise an army and get the french to step on board. Ball State: "About twenty percent of Americans remained loyal to England, forty percent chose to be neutral, and forty percent supported independence." As for funding from France, it wasn't easy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #39 December 9, 2003 QuoteQuoteBTW is the avatar really you? Yes, it is. Over the Chocolate Mountains in '85. Is your avatar really you? Cool, just checking, there are a few people out there who tend ot exagerate themselves. I was but a lowly enlisted man in a TAC RECCI unit. Guess I didn't get the edit in fast enough. It's my grandson. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #40 December 9, 2003 QuoteQuoteReally? Facts to support your claim? It apparently wasnt hard to raise an army and get the french to step on board. Ball State: "About twenty percent of Americans remained loyal to England, forty percent chose to be neutral, and forty percent supported independence." As for funding from France, it wasn't easy. Here's what you said:" Most colonists wanted to remain British subjects. " Twenty percent is hardly MOST colonists. And then ONE GUY, Ben Franklin goes to France and convinces them? You say it wasnt easy? Your link says otherwise. Shit. I'm from Canada, dont you guys know your own history? As far as France, easy or not they hopped on board. Both your statements fail the test. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #41 December 9, 2003 >The point is that the media furthers the enemies cause by filming > and broadcasting their attacks. Its giving "aid" and comfort to the > enemy. So if a journalist has an opportunity to get an attack on tape, as part of an interview he's conducting, you'd prefer he turn off the camera and allow the terrorists their secrecy? Strange. I think US intelligence would be better off with more, rather than less, intelligence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indyz 1 #42 December 9, 2003 Pardon me. In my earlier post I should have said, "most colonist remained loyal to Britain or chose to remain neutral." Clearly a small factual error totally invalidates my argument. My most sincere apologies. I am done with this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #43 December 9, 2003 QuoteGuess I didn't get the edit in fast enough. It's my grandson. You have a good looking grandson. There is nothing lowly about being enlisted. My grandfather was a WW2 vet and received 2 Bronze Stars and 2 Purple Hearts. He retired from the Army as an SFC. He past away in '86. My father spent over 20 years in the Navy and retired as a Senior Chief. I am very proud of them, as I'm sure, your grandson will be of you as he gets old enough to understand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #44 December 9, 2003 >Sorry. I guess you missed history class. They were known as patriots > AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED not later. And I fear you may not be paying attention to current events. Many Iraqis see the insurgents as patriots. Note even the US armed forces has gone from calling them terrorists to insurgents. And if they "win?" (which in this case means an early US withdrawal) They will be seen as heroes by the Iraqis they "liberated." It's all in the eye of the beholder. The victors write the history books. And you can be damn sure that if we lost the american revolution, Paul Revere would be on the "terrorist" side of the page. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #45 December 9, 2003 QuoteSo if a journalist has an opportunity to get an attack on tape, as part of an interview he's conducting, you'd prefer he turn off the camera and allow the terrorists their secrecy? I think that is a bad analogy. He didn't just 'happen' to be there. It is more like the angry mob that disperses once the reporters leave. It could have been a French plane bringing in relief supplies, or Michael Baldwin on a protest tour, or Hillary Clinton, or Air Force One. We were allies with Stalin. Should we have not allowed ourselves to oppose his tyranny because of this? I think it is time to take sides.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #46 December 9, 2003 >would you feel the same way if this event had happened in the > United States? Yes. Had Marie been covering that, I know that she would do everything in her power to talk them out of it, and for her, her mind is her best weapon. As I mentioned before, do a search on what she's written on the US-Iraqi war. >Terrorists are exactly what thier name implies, > people trying to impose terror. Any association should be considered > an act of aggression against the US. That makes Pat Robertson and Donald Rumsfeld enemy combatants against the US. Pat Robertson supported Charles Taylor as he was sheltering Al Qaeda shortly after 9/11, to the tune of several million dollars. Rumsfeld shook hands with Hussein as he was gassing Iranians and promised him aid. Of course, both of those things may have made sense at the time. You (or I) weren't there; we don't know all the details. Just as in this case. >My opinion my be a litte skewed because I watched as soldiers of the >US died because of some terrorists. Keep in mind that there are lots of Iraqis who watched as US troops killed their families. (Accidentally, of course.) Their opinions are likely to be skewed, too. Which is the danger of relying on emotion to decide the issues on something like this; it can be as valid on both sides, and both sides see equally violent and senseless deaths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #47 December 9, 2003 QuotePardon me. In my earlier post I should have said, "most colonist remained loyal to Britain or chose to remain neutral." Clearly a small factual error totally invalidates my argument. My most sincere apologies. I am done with this thread. Calling 20% of colonists MOST people is hardly a "small factual error". You are welcome to leave the thread if you cant back up your arguments or points with facts and yes, your argument is invalid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #48 December 9, 2003 >It could have been a French plane bringing in relief supplies, or >Michael Baldwin on a protest tour, or Hillary Clinton, or Air Force One. Yes. And such aircraft will be downed as well, unless we can better secure the ground around the airport. Think having video of an attack might make that easier? If you were in charge of airport security, would you want that tape destroyed before anyone saw it? >We were allies with Stalin. Should we have not allowed ourselves to >oppose his tyranny because of this? Not at all; in the future I hope we are wise enough to not ally ourselves with people like the Mujahideen and Saddam Hussein. >I think it is time to take sides. I think it's time that we figure out who the real enemy is. Remember when we knew that Bin Laden was the enemy and we were going to destroy him and his organization? We weren't going to rest until he was brought to justice? I'm on whatever side is opposite his. The Iraqis are not on his side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #49 December 9, 2003 "Yes. Had Marie been covering that, I know that she would do everything in her power to talk them out of it" Yes, of course she would be talking her palestinian terrorist mastermind friend out of attacking. Did I mention I was sorry about her eye? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #50 December 9, 2003 QuoteYes. And such aircraft will be downed as well, unless we can better secure the ground around the airport. Think having video of an attack might make that easier? If you were in charge of airport security, would you want that tape destroyed before anyone saw it? Of course having the tape could help security after the fact. A reporter that is willing to follow along to such a planned attack is encouraging it. There are a lot of deterrents to committing such an attack (the chances of getting caught). I want that deterrent to cause them to delay their attack, and delay it more. Providing them with a global stage to perform is certainly not a deterrent. Quote>We were allies with Stalin. Should we have not allowed ourselves to >oppose his tyranny because of this? Not at all; in the future I hope we are wise enough to not ally ourselves with people like the Mujahideen and Saddam Hussein. The point is, we should not feel guilt for opposing Stalin or Saddam. Some of your posts seem to imply that our reaction to Sept. 11 should be to apologize, and forgive them.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
