It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Keven Sites...what you need to know about the "Prisoner shooting" videographer

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Just when you thought you knew everything about the "Prisoner shooting" video from Fallujiah, along comes something else. It turns out that the "videographer" is FAR from who'd you expect him to be.
 



kfbk.com
File this under: Big surprise....not!

Kevin Sites, the NBC "journalist" who shot the video of the United States Marine capping that terrorist..... guess what, turns out he doesn't work for NBC - he is a freelancer, and he doesn't appear to be a journalist either, not in the traditional sense anyway. More in the vein of propagandist Amy Goodman and her Democracy Now! - an Internet & cable public access anti-US venom factory.

Sites, it turns out, is an anti-war activist who posts his work here: www.imagesagainstwar.com... and maintains a blog here: www.kevinsites.net...

Here is NBC defending Sites, on al Jazeera no less! english.aljazeera.net...


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Wow. Am I ever surprised.

Lemme check.

Nope.

It's time we took the "imbeds" out of the frontlines, especially when it seems that anybody (literally anybody!)can obtain a press pass. Simply invent your own "news service". And now it seems anyone can afford a video camera. At any rate, these people don't have any right to do their job under the aupices and protection of the U.S. Marines. Let them get their "dirt" at the press corp meeting, like everyone else!

[edit on 11-18-2004 by Zion Mainframe]




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 03:08 AM
link   
I was not surprised, i just had to find some of the "facts" he decided to leave out of his video, without making any comments and realized he had an agenda, and anti-U.S./coalition agenda...



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Far from who'd we expect him to be ? He's a freelance war reporter, been in Kosovo, Colombia, Afghanistan, Iraq... distinguished lecturer of the year etc.... www.kevinsites.net...
Should we expect NBC to send Conan O'Brian to cover Iraq ?

Lots of reporters working in warzones are freelancers. The fact he's biased against the war and not selected by political opinions just gives more credibility to the embedded reporter program.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by vibetic]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by vibetic
Lots of reporters working in warzones are freelancers. The fact he's biased against the war and not selected by political opinions just gives more credibility to the embedded reporter program.
[edit on 18-11-2004 by vibetic]

The fact that he is anti-war means that he s biased. It's not surprising that NBC chose him.

This gives more credence to the story I heard about his comments regarding the firing upon the mosque a short while back. He was a poor choice for objective reporting.




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Help me understand here, would this make the whole thing the reporter's fault? Or is it because it was this reporter that brought the news to the surface?

So are we blaming the reporter for bad news?

If you or anyone else was in Iraq and caught that moment on video as this reporter did what would you have done with it?

Maybe we have the answer to all the problems of this war.. Kill all reporters!! and things will get better.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   
www.worldnetdaily.com...

He was a VERY poor choice for objective reporting. He
couldn't be bothered to report about the insurgant
attrocities (faking death/injury/surrender and then blowing
up Marines ... which is against the rules of engagement).

Nope. He couldn't be bothered with that. But he found
the time to make a big deal out of a marine shooting a
dead insurgent to make sure he was dead so that he
wouldn't turn around and blow them all up.

The 'reporter' is nothing more than an anti-war propagandist.
True reporters are able to print the truth, even if it doesn't
flow with their own feelings. If this guy wants to be an
anti-war propagandist that's fine ... but he shouldn't call
himself a reporter - because he isn't one.



[edit on 11/18/2004 by FlyersFan]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 07:29 AM
link   
This seems a little odd, so to get this straight...

Are you blaming a reporter for being biased, thus causing a soldier to act in a way that is incongruent to Military Rules of Engagment and International law or is the issue that this biased Individual brought to light that there are other occurances ongoing that are simply not reported because those reporters who do encounter acts unbecoming for the United States do not report on it , because it would make the US look bad?



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Has anyone actually read Sites's blog? Seems fairly impartial to me. I certainly couldn't find any of the anti-coalition rhetoric that I was expecting, in fact he seems to speak quite highly of the unit that he's with.

I'm not making comment on the killing itself - another thread already discusses that extensively - but I don't think it's fair to discredit Kevin Sites as a journalist just for doing his job.






[edit on 18-11-2004 by mattpryor]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:07 AM
link   
What does it matter? Even if he was an insurgent himself, his bias isn't going to change reality. This marine had had some comrades killed when a 'wounded' iraqi blew himself up and had himself been wounded similarly. He shot this one to prevent that from happening. Its not an unusual occurance in war, on any side. Heck, he didn't gouge his eyes out or hack his body to peices or take him back to a camp and then execute him or cut his head off. He just gave him Tartan's Quarter. What the hell does it matter if the guy behind the video camera is biased, the camera isn't. Does this man's bias somehow change the laws of optics or something? Come on man, this is a joke, its a video tape. No one denies what happened. Making it out to be some sort of biased event makes it seem like the marine did something he shouldn't've, and I suspect that's not what you want to say.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky The fact that he is anti-war means that he s biased. It's not surprising that NBC chose him.
Biased against war maybe. How does this effect what he recorded?



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
Has anyone actually read Sites's blog? Seems fairly impartial to me. I certainly couldn't find any of the anti-coalition rhetoric that I was expecting, in fact he seems to speak quite highly of the unit that he's with.

You don't understand, we get comments like this:


Originally posted by jsobecky
The fact that he is anti-war means that he s biased. It's not surprising that NBC chose him.

Because the modern definition of 'against the war' includes anyone who isn't blindly and vehemently supporting the invasion of Iraq. It even includes anyone who would dare to report anything that doesn't show the war to be nice and surgical.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
He was a VERY poor choice for objective reporting. He
couldn't be bothered to report about the insurgant
attrocities (faking death/injury/surrender and then blowing
up Marines ... which is against the rules of engagement).

Uh, that stuff has already been reported, thats how you know about it. This war crime has not been reported, he was there, he filmed it, so he reported it, I'd say he probably gives almost all of his footage to NBC and they chose what they'd show.

Frankly I am stunned at the gall of anyone who would now try to discredit the cameraman who happened to film this.

(Also, faking death/surrender isn't against the rules of engagement for these insurgents/terrorists, why would it be?)



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Despite my pro-war leanings, and despite Mr. Sites own personal leanings, he was placed with this unit and merely 'happened' to be a witness to the Marine incident. His personal bias has no bearing on what he video'd and witnessed.

'Character assassination' of this individual is irrelevant to the happening/event and has no credible bearing, at all.



seekerof



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Help me understand here, would this make the whole thing the reporter's fault? Or is it because it was this reporter that brought the news to the surface?

So are we blaming the reporter for bad news?

If you or anyone else was in Iraq and caught that moment on video as this reporter did what would you have done with it?

Maybe we have the answer to all the problems of this war.. Kill all reporters!! and things will get better.


If I were an Army Unit fighting in a war I certainly wouldn't want a reporter following me around. Even if I was the perfect soldier, words and pictures can be distorted in a way that the reporter wants the story to fit.

I havn't seen the video is there a link?



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
How does this effect what he recorded?


The video speaks for itself. It does put into context the lack of background information provided. The circumstances and environment were not initially reported (conveniently), thereby amplifying this to "atrocity" level.

What Kevin Sites' background does compromise, is what is reported; or maybe more importantly, what is not reported.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toejamfootball
This seems a little odd, so to get this straight...

Are you blaming a reporter for being biased, thus causing a soldier to act in a way that is incongruent to Military Rules of Engagment and International law or is the issue that this biased Individual brought to light that there are other occurances ongoing that are simply not reported because those reporters who do encounter acts unbecoming for the United States do not report on it , because it would make the US look bad?



The marine did NOT act against the Military Rules of Engagment and International law. You liberals need to understand this. The enemy is ONLY protected once they CLEARLY surrender to our forces and that surrender is accepted. THAT rule only applies to UNIFORMED and CLEARLY IDENTIFIED enemy soldiers.

For instance, if you are a spy and you are caught by our forces IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL to execute him on the spot (not wearing a uniform).

If these guys want to fight an irregular war then they cannot expect to be afforded the considerations given to fighters who follow the rules of war.

The marine was perfectly correct to shoot first and then ask questions. The reporter is scum to try to distort what happened there.

What's even more evil is that the reporter had FULL knowledge of what was going inside the mosque (he had been there the day before with a different squad) and he DIDN'T tell the marines that the insurgent was wounded...although he almost certainly had that knowledge.

Seeker...listen to the video again..the marines asks if anyone knows if the guy is wounded...there is no reply...the guy starts to get up and the marine fires...what no one is telling you is that the reporter has another bit of video floating around when he was with an squad the day before in the same mosque. In that video he asks the marines about the wounded and they tell him someone will come get them but that they had to press forward. So the reported KNEW this insurgent was just wounded and yet did NOTHING to defuse the situation.

Amazing...the reporter is the only one in this mess that knowlingly allowed a person to be shot..all for some good footage. HE is the one that should be in prison.



[edit on 11/18/2004 by MrNice]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:45 AM
link   
The fact that this is the very worst that has come out of Falluja given that reporters have 24 hour access to nearly everything that happens there speaks volumes about the overall conduct of the troops involved in this operation...

The whole point of embedded journalism is that for the coalition's part the truth is always going to be far less damaging than the fiction that will be circulated in its absence.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by mattpryor]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Oh, it's always the same: if you cannot find any grounds to attack the issue, just attack the person.

Does it really matter whether Sites might be a leftist, rightist, communist, capitalist, gay, hetero, man, female, African American, Latino, Asian American etc etc? No, it doesn't.

All I see from this video -and as explained in the transcript- is that a group of marines enter a mosque which was taken over the day before.

The reporter heard shootings when he came near the mosque, a marine asked to others at the door of the mosque whether they shot the men inside.
The marines at the door confirmed they shot several men inside, but shrugged when asked whether they have found weapons.

The group with the reporter entered the mosque and saw that the men inside were "insurgents" who have been wounded, unarmed and left behind the day before. The reporter noticed that 3 -yes 3- wounded and unarmed men from the day before have been shot recently.
One marine noticed that an "insurgent" is breathing (faking death) and shot him.

So perhaps we are here talking about 4 cold blooded murders of unarmed, wounded men who have been left behind for evacution by the US Marines after an attack the day before.


Blobber




[edit on 18-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Just as a small note, if you are preoccupied with following "Rules of Engagement" against an enemy that intentionally disregards it you will die. No question about it. The purpose of these rules was for both sides to follow it, not for one to follow it and the other get their heads blown off by those portraying the wounded.

I want a documentary made about every time these "insurgents" break the rules of engagement for example hiding amongst schoolkids, attacking civilians, pretending to be dead or injured to lure soldiers into a close enough range to kill them. I want a documentary to be made to show what kind of enemy the US is facing over there.

But alas my documentary will never be made because it is not popular to criticize the "freedom fighter". You know, the one who beheads 50 year old women who dedicate their lives to charity. No, no documentary will be made about them because it's only popular to follow the US army around and watch for loose cannons to snap (which has happened in every war, and I guess most of the audience is to unintelligent to realize that).

War sucks, people are human, humans reach a point sometimes where they snap. Thanks to today's journalism these moments are captured on tape forever in order to represent it as the conduct of the entire US army and to portray the enemy as a group of helpless men.

We must thank the media for accomplishing this and ignoring the atrocities these animals commit daily, and we must thank our fellow viewers for allowing this to happen, for allowing incidents like these to taint the image of our armed forces and for beatifying these murdering insurgents.

By the way, the proper thing to do would be to deliver the video to military authorities and get that man (who is clearly mentally unfit to serve) out of uniform and into a court room to answer for his actions. Instead it becomes a November Sweeps TV show and the stupid public eats it up. Congratulate yourselves.

[edit on 11-18-2004 by Djarums]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 09:58 AM
link   
They don't just not follow the same rules of engagement as our troops, they also exploit the fact that we do. As far as they're concerned it's a weakness to be taken advantage of.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Biased against war maybe.

How does this effect what he recorded?

The story of the six blind men and the elephant comes to mind.





top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join