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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I can't believe people are accusing this guy of being biased, Democracy Now is anti-war, hence the name DEMOCRACY NOW, they believe in Democracy as a way of solving matters.

The person who posted this story is biased, how can you say that Democracy Now is Anti-US? They are using their rights to express how they feel and their beliefs and opinions, if you don't like their opinions don't listen to them, change the channel, that's your right!

BIASED: All of the media outlets are biased, that's obvious, but why are we making this a civil war between liberals and conservatives? FOX is biased for the current administration, but NBC is biased against the current administration, what happened to non biased news? What happened to Freedom of the press?

Our nation is gonna be torn in half over this issue of the Mosque shooting, watch any war movie, or read reports, Civil, Revolutionary, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korean & now the war on Terror, innocents are killed in every battle, it's a consequence of war. During a fierce battle, when people are trying to kill you, are you gonna stop to decide whether or not the guy standing next to the person that killed your fellow soldier is a threat? no!

Before we go through this petty crap (I feel for everyone in Iraq as well as our soldiers, but this is one person), we need to ask the networks the real question:

WHY ARE THEY NOT SHOWING THE FLAG COVERED COFFINS OF OUR SOLDIERS?

Simple Answer: because that's why we left Vietnam




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kano

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.

I was responding to someone who said that Sites was not biased.

And who is this "we" that you refer to? I assume that you are a member of this "we", and obviously you exclude me. So who is this "we", Kano?

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.

Your definition, not "theirs" (as opposed to "we"). And an inflammatory definition at that.


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,

War crime? Very nice of you to appoint yourself as judge, jury, and executioner of this young soldier.


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

Frankly I was surprised that this cameraman made an on-camera remark regarding our soldiers firing upon a mosque, words to the effect of "Why oh why must they destroy that mosque?"

You can't see that he will most probably report only one side of the war?

Regardless. The fact is that he is anti-war and that cannot be disputed. I am more concerned with those who would summarily condemn this young soldier because of circumstances which can be disputed.


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

OK fine. Then making sure they are dead should not be against ours.



kix

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   
First this Iraq video is a perfect example that this is not a WAR is an invasion..
To be a War there must be declration of war from one country to other and then adhere to the rules of engagement and the geneva convention.
We have here a Invasion of a 3 world country with the world most powerful army its a civil war on top of an invasion with military personel.

Big W said on the deck of the aircraft carries "mission acomplished", yes? is that so? I think that is not in the head of the 475 wounded in germany today of course NOT even in the head of the 2 or 3 dozen soldiers Dead in the Faluja conflict.
Go and tell the parents of one of the deceased in combat, dont worry about you sons death, our President said "mission acomplished" see what happens....

We are confortabily in our butts typing while this guys are dying, for NON EXISTEN WMD, for NO CONECTIONS TO al qaeda etc etc.....
Thosands of Iraqui people have died by fighting, by disease by lack of medicine or just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time....

Thsi video shows perfectly that this INVASION follows no rules, its a winner takes it all affair, and worse...that the US is becominf the bigest promoter of US hatred along muslim population and NON muslim population.....

Yesterday In Chile they had the biggest riots and public turmoil in decades because big W is flying there, but hey FOX doest air 20 minues of street fights on a third world country....

Bush a War president? there is no WAR its an invasion falluja is now ruble Mosul here we go......



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
And so we see a perfect example of a tragedy being used by someone who clearly dislikes America to begin with to further an agenda. But that's ok, it was expected.

I like how some of you say that the insurgents can blow up civilians, attack people waiting for food, and behead women because they didn't sign an agreement. But on the other hand we must tolerate them acting that way. Obviously should you ever set foot on the battlefield, that viewpoint will change quickly when your ass is under fire from people hiding in a mosque or among preschoolers. Easy situation? Anyone who can dismiss what the soldiers are going through with the tactics of the insurgents as easy is an ass.

And by the way kix, you feel bad the Iraq is a third world country? Guess what! Iraq wouldn't be a third world country if the billions of oil dollars were used by Saddam Hussein for his people rather than for his weapons. The people of Iraq wouldn't be living in huts and what not if some of those billions actually went for AID where they were supposed to go and not for guns. But if you had it your way Saddam would still be in power wouldn't he? And the UN reps involved would still be skimming the blood money too. Status quo was so much better for Europe and the UN and Saddam it's no wonder incidents like these are used to villify all of America instead of dealt with normally.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
I like how some of you say that the insurgents can blow up civilians, attack people waiting for food, and behead women because they didn't sign an agreement.

Not at all, in my opinion what they are doing is horrific and wrong by any standards of decent humanity.

But.

They are not the ones 'Liberating' a country, they aren't the ones trying to take the Moral high ground. They aren't even a nation who has respect to lose.

The US (and other coalition nations, just not to as big an extent) are already a long way out on a limb with this, and these very incidents will have a solid bearing on how this all pans out.

jsobecky: maybe I should have put " around "War crime". But either way, shooting a wounded unarmed enemy is a War crime, extenuating circumstances notwithstanding. If they had rolled him over and found a bomb afterwards we wouldnt even have this ruckus.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   

But either way, shooting a wounded unarmed enemy is a War crime, extenuating circumstances notwithstanding. If they had rolled him over and found a bomb afterwards we wouldnt even have this ruckus.


To Kano: I totally understand your point of view here. But we're not there. I don't think anyone should be in the business of shooting someone that's not a threat either, and that goes for both sides of the conflict. But the question that arises is that given this soldier's situation (having been wounded by another insurgent using the tactic of pretending to be hurt) could we humanly expect him to take the chance of finding out the hard way if there was in fact a bomb under him that he could've set off? I believe the human instinct of self preservation takes over at that point, and that explains his chosen action.

Do I agree with it? Nope. But is there a degree of understanding that someone's mental decision-making processes can become impaired due to scenarios like this? Yes. He's an adult and he made a choice and must stand before an authority to sort it out, but I simply do not see it as fair that we judge him without being in that horrible situation. The tactics of this insurgency would be deemed by almost anyone as uncivilized. None of us have encountered people like that, doing things like that, and we lack the understanding of what that can do to a person's psyche.

To all: I believe the bottom line is any of the armchair judges that want to use this tragic incident as a way to judge America and its soldiers as a whole are wasting their brain matter and are staining intellectual discourse overall.

Not everything is as cut and dry as "Bush sucks, his war sucks and we don't like him". Place the agendas out of your minds and look at it in a neutral way. You'll find a tragedy on both sides that should not happen. Not a fan for the flames of Liberal v. Conservative or Republican v. Democrat.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Sorry, but anyone justifying the act is wrong. If a soldier in a war zone thinks a prisoner is rigged but the prisoner is surrendering, you still have to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are means of inspecting a surrendering wounded prisoner to determine whether or not the individual is booby trapped.

Individual US servicemembers are not authorized to act as judge, jury, and executioner, despite clueless fantasies of armchair generals.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
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...
[edit on 11-18-2004 by Djarums]


We should not lower our level to their standards, period.

Second, these wounded men were unarmed -see how the marines were relatively standing relaxed at the door, and shrugged off when they were asked whether they found any weapons. So for a marine who enters the mosque, and see the wounded men, from that perpective it may also be civillians which are covered by the Geneva Convention.

Blobber

[edit on 18-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   
The reports of htis incident show that the "insurgents" in that room had all been shot and incapacitated by a previous squad of marines who left them there to be evacuated later. So, the first squad apparently judged them to be no threat. How, then, does one conclude that this was a justified killing? These guys had not shot at the squad of marines under investigation. Contrary to one post on this thgread, the video DOES NOT show the man who is shown being shot to be getting up, moving, or doing anything aggressive at all. You only hear the marine say that he's breathing and therefore faking being dead. Well, people who aren't dead breathe. People who have been incapacitated by having a bullet tear through their body don't move much and might appear dead until you notice them breathing. Overall, it looks like the marines thought they had entered a room which had dead insurgents inside and then, when they noticed a sign of life, panicked, and based on other marines having been recently killed by apparently dead "insurgents", reacted by killing all the Iraqies in the room. If that is not the case, then it almost looks like this episode might expose a policy of taking no prisoners, which would not surprise me much under the circumstances in Fallujah and what led up to the campaign there.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   

There are means of inspecting a surrendering wounded prisoner to determine whether or not the individual is booby trapped.


Yes, there are. Except if the answer is "yes he is booby trapped" the way to determine that is to die.

There are no sophisticated techniques that can be used on the fly in a situation like this. If there were such techniques then tell me why marines get killed by insurgents using that method. Quite simply you don't know. The same way it's stupidity that Ambulances are suspect vehicles, and children are suspected as potential suicide bombers. They employed the tactics.

A wounded combatant should no longer be perceived as a threat, but they are! Why? Because that's what these people did. It was never hypothetical. They did it! They employed the tactic! If you want to blame anyone for seeing a hurt man as a threat blame them.

I'm sorry folks, but if I was on duty in that region I would be nervous and jumpy too. I thank god that I am not, but I can't imagine how many "normal" things would make me jump.

Finally, stop saying I'm justifying this. I'm not justifying any action I just don't appreciate it when things are looked at from a single narrow point of view without considering the small things like facts, trends and contexts. Don't forget, I've said a few times already that the guy is unfit for duty and should be accountable for his actions. But in the interest of being considered intelligent people I think it's good to address all issues, not just the ones that some of us like.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   
The problem isnt so much to what the reporter recorded as it is the way NBC reported it. When showing footage like this, it should be accompanied with a story on why this occurs and what soldiers are faced with and have to consider during battle and facing injured enemies. It the way that NBC is selling the sizzle and not the steak.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   

We should not lower our level to their standards, period.


In theory you are quite correct. However (you knew there had to be a however), I ask that you entertain this point for a moment. If you recall the American Revolution, you'll remember that it was a war in which a tactic was proved inefficient. Which tactic? The British Redcoats marched in long straight horizontal lines when advancing. The Colonists saw this and employed a more guerilla technique of picking them off as they marched and soon enough it became apparent that this was a stupid way of fighting. Why did they march in a straight line? It was civilized, it was orderly it was how they've always done things. The colonists were making easy targets out of them? So? The British would not retaliate and fight like those lowly Colonists. They had to keep their heads held high and remain "civilized" didn't they? Uh... they also lost...

See, I'm not saying the US Army needs to be coldhearted murderers. What I'm saying is that sometimes you need to adjust. Sometimes you need to pull together that meeting and go through the tactics the enemy is using and say "How do we react to these things?" Because if you do that, you won't end up with unprepared people doing irrational and illegal things. Better planning based on the techniques of the enemy would solve this problem and prevent a reoccurence.

[edit on 11-18-2004 by Djarums]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Kevin Sites

I have looked at Kevin Sites weblog and I got more of an impression of a war travel log than anything else.

Frankly I thought it was very imformative and well laid out....a very good blog. I only learned today that Kevin Sites was the videographer of the event in question.

mike81859



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I am an athiest but, there is one saying that I think fits...

"There but for the grace of God go I..."

Apply it equally to the soldier, the reporter and the Iraqi fella that gets shot. To me accusing the reporter of anything makes about as much sense as condemning the soldier or making the "insurgent" a martyr.

Seems to me that people latch on to this sort of event to advance their own agenda, be they anti-war, pro-bush, the media or whatever. This isn't a "nice" war, there is no such thing. Everybody wants to dash to the moral highground but there isn't one. This kind of thing has always happened in war and always will probably. It isn't the normal behaviour of all soldiers, and I dont think you can latch on to this event as representive of the overall situation.... or perhaps you can and it is just that we are seeing this war live and in technicolour.






[edit on 18-11-2004 by whita]

[edit on 18-11-2004 by whita]

[edit on 18-11-2004 by whita]




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join