Right-wing military writer: We may have to kill war journalists

Right-wing military writer: We may have to kill war journalists

rawstory.com

Former soldier Ralph Peters has carved out quite a niche for himself in the world of publishing. His work regularly lands on the pages of The New York Post and has cropped up in USA Today. He's even a special contributor to Fox News.

..snip..

In his latest essay, in a segment titled "The killers without guns," Peters suggests that the media is responsible for "saving" Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, but that media had "failed to defeat" the U.S. government's charge toward Iraq.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Pretending to be impartial, the self-segregating personalities drawn to media careers overwhelmingly take a side, and that side is rarely ours. Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow's conventional wisdom.

This kind of creeps are real threats to our freedom of press, speech and democracy. I cannot believe how someone could possibly say that we should engage in silencing the mainstream media, alike for instance the Nazis, to be able to secretly conduct war crimes. No person who supports the principles our Western world was established on, could possibly agree with his extremist and ridiculous ideas.



rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 27-5-2009 by Mdv2]

How big a step is it from killing journalist you don't agree with to killing "People" you don't agree with by labeling them "traitors?"

What is it about freedom of speech and of the press as outlined in
The Constitution that you don't understand Mr. Peters.

Not only did others die defending your right to publish what you want Mr. Peters; they died for EVERYONES freedom to do exactualy what you are doing Mr. Peters.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by whaaa]

Honestly, I do not think journalists need to be on the battlefield.

they can read the reports after the fact.

As for killing journalists . . .

Just get them off the battlefield and let the warriors fight.

But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and agree with this statement. If something the press runs can be clearly and without a doubt linked to deaths caused because of the piece then someone in the news outfit surely needs to be held accountable. If I write up a piece that when run gives an enemy valuable intel to mount an operation which results in US soldiers dying there should be zero shelter for me to hide behind, even the Constitution itself.

reply to post by xxpigxx


Journalism has a key role in war,it lets we the public know what atrocities are being commited so they can be held accountable for their actions.Journalists know the risks when they enter a warzone but they do it for exactly the reasons i posted.MSM obviously lie and are very bias but journalists who are on the frontline for the most part are true journalists giving people thousands of miles away information that is key for any country or society that is engaged in a war.



[edit on 27-5-2009 by Solomons]

Well, they can forget their whole trip. ITS OVER. The war of contracts, and the big event may be planned, to further their depopulation and nwo order trip. Thats when we can expect and ET generated
disclosure. NWO is going down. I actually recommend this neocon think tank journalist reconsider the ugly regime he is serving and DEFECT, tell us the truth, and work on behalf of humanity to make up for his actions in the past. I believe we need AMNESTY to encourage DEFECTORS, from all walks of life, militia, cia, black ops, leaders, neocons, journalists, scientists, as well as any renegades.

The real problem is that war involves destruction of property and killing and wounding people.

It's dirty business.

It's especially dirty when you have to fight an army of people who look just like the civilians.

Then you have the prisons. Yes, people were made to form naked pyramids. Is that torture? People had dogs bark at them. Is that torture?

When the journalists got the story and ran with it, were they helping reduce war related deaths and injuries or were they fanning the flames of hatred and indeed prolonging the war resulting in more death and destruction? Is that comparable to shouting fire in a crowded theater?

So, should their be restrictions on what a journalist can publish during a war? Before you say no, remember that if a journalist says the wrong thing, he/she could give away a troop position or speculate about a possible action that the "enemy" isn't aware of yet.

I think the only good standpoint is to say that wars and the media do not mix. As we evolve we are going to have to accept this. The mass media has forever changed the way wars will be fought. Ultimately in the battle between the media and wars the media will come out on top.

I have always stated that soldiers are trained for months and years to do what they need to do on the battle field. That battle field used to be out of sight of regulars civilians. Now, in an instant a photo can be taken and that battle field is right there for the regular civilian to see. It's not that wars are being fought dirtier than ever before it's just that now people know.

We have war crimes... That's a list of things you cannot do during war... At least leaders can come forward and say that we are fighting clean wars these days. Let's go fight ourselves a clean war.

I just think it's interesting how we place rules and standards upon war. We do it as if it's was some natural, civil event. As we evolve we could only hope that humanities days of war will come to an end.

reply to post by Solomons


When they put our troops more at risk then they would have been, they need to get the hell out.

As for "atrocities" . . . meh.

War is war. People need to learn to live with that fact. It is brutal, it is ugly, nightmarish, bloody, sickening, etc. Always has been, always will be. Atrocities are committed by all sides at any given time. Innocents will die. Soldiers will die.

I swear, if we had bleeding hearts in WW2, like we do today, the allies would have been toast.

Let the soldiers fight the damn wars. Journalists have no place on the battlefield.

I do not like war, but I realize ow harsh it is . . . and I alsorealize that it is sometimes necessary.

reply to post by xxpigxx


edited.nothing to do with topic.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by Solomons]

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by xxpigxx

 

Journalism has a key role in war,it lets we the public know what atrocities are being commited so they can be held accountable for their actions.Journalists know the risks when they enter a warzone but they do it for exactly the reasons i posted.MSM obviously lie and are very bias but journalists who are on the frontline for the most part are true journalists giving people thousands of miles away information that is key for any country or society that is engaged in a war.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by Solomons]

Solomons I agree with you to a point. If journalists are on the battlefield then they are subject to the same accountabilities and liabilities of a soldier. They should expect to be killed in the line of duty at any time or taken hostage and they should not be treated any differently than soldiers taken hostage simply because they are "journalists".

Well, but just why did the neocons want to embed all those journalists for the |Iraq invasion?

Propaganda points, stirring war fever, plain and simple. Whip up the masses. And the msm was more than happy to oblige with CG graphics of bombs at night and rolling tanks and dramatic music and majestic flag backgrounds leading into every report and nearly every commercial break.

Brainwashing. Cuts both ways, now, doesn't it?

Right-wing troglodyte hypocrisy, IMHO.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by gottago]

reply to post by Solomons


Perhaps you did not read the article?

Originally posted by xxpigxx
Honestly, I do not think journalists need to be on the battlefield.

Why? So the invading armies can illegaly occupy lands and bomb the Sh!t outa local population? OR so they could rape and torcher innocent civillians as they please or when they get stressed out?

Even if journalists were blocked off into war zones, pictures and videos from the 'battlefield' would still emerge.We live in a time where the technology is availabe to most and high quality vids/pics can be made from a simple mobile handset.

Recent Gaza war was a prime example of how journalists were barred from entering gaza but pictures and videos emerging from the chaos made the whole difference resulting in israel facing worldwide condemnation and till now they are being made to bend for the war crimes they commited on Gazans.