Off Topic- CNN reporter film sniper kills

I Believe it's time to start a class action against these anti-American Communist network on behalf of our American Soldiers, and if was seated on it's jury I would award every last dollar the traitors had. God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto: snipped-for-privacy@aol.com

formatting link
formatting link
shooting to a new low By Chris Lykins The Gazette-Enterprise

Published October 20, 2006

The shot rings out from a terrorist rifle and before the bullet finds its mark in the back of a United States serviceman, the screen fades to black.

This ? CNN says ? is the ?unvarnished truth? of the war in Iraq that the American people must face.

Like a parent to a child, the network knows what is good for us ? even if we don?t.

They American people must also apparently face this ?unvarnished truth? just a few weeks from the Congressional mid-term elections in what might be the most blatant political gift to the Democrats since Dan Rather?s career went down in a blizard of forged Bush military documents.

CNN aired video of sniper attacks on U.S. military personnel provided helpfully by the ?insurgents? ? notice we can?t call them terrorists or murderers.

CNN says it aired the video because it ?concluded the tape meets our criteria for newsworthiness.?

That?s a statement that raises serious questions about how exactly the network goes about making such a determination ? and getting it so painfully wrong.

Apparently, the decision came after it was the subject of ?hours of intense editorial debate,? which I think the American people would love to hear ? you know, as long as we are getting the ?unvarnished truth.?

Can we hear this ?intense editorial debate,? or is that a little too ?unvarnished? for the network to handle?

What did this sniper video provide for Americans ? beyond a reminder that CNN?s journalistic ethics always take a backseat to its agenda?

CNN says Americans need to know what is going on in Iraq ? as if its ceaseless defeatist drum beat wasn?t enough?

We know that our men and women in uniform are dying in the streets of Baghdad.

We know those numbers are real people, with real faces, families, hopes and dreams that ended in the explosion of an IED or ? as the network reminded us ? at the end of a sniper?s bullet.

Unlike some, we don?t view them as flickering numbers on some political tote board.

We know that flag-draped coffins are returning home and that families are gathering to say goodbye.

For those families who get treated to the final moments of their loved ones before their violent end in the network?s pursuit of ?truth,? it is especially cruel.

We already know the ?truth? and the network knows that ? what CNN wants to do is pour salt in the wound.

Hiding behind journalistic principles long-since abandoned, the network has sunk to a new low by essentially becoming the propaganda and public relations arm of a group of thugs and murderers.

Even those opposed to the war in Iraq ? and to act as if that number isn?t large and growing would be absurd ? can recognize this for what it is.

Part of it is a grab for ratings in an era in which Fox News dominates on a nightly basis. CNN, the tottering monarch of days gone by, is making another feeble grasp for a crown that slipped from its grip so long ago ? for many viewers because of manuevers exactly like this one.

I don?t trust CNN anymore ? haven?t since I learned that the network essentially sat on stories about just how bad things were in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was running it in order to maintain access in the country.

Back then we didn?t need to know how bad things were going in Iraq, and CNN said it sat on those stories to protect the lives of people.

Yet, here, just a few years later, CNN says we desparately need to know how bad things are in Iraq and the network can?t wait to show us the end of another series of lives.

CNN hasn?t only lost its way ? it?s a network that?s lost its soul.

Chris Lykins is the managing editor for the Gazette-Enterprise

Reply to
L.W.(Bill) Hughes III
Loading thread data ...

Bill,

I don't follow this argument at all. There is nothing "unethical" about showing people being killed, which is apparently happening every day. That is like saying that showing auto accidents, murder victims and fire gutted buildings in the U.S. is a blatant attempt to get more tax money for police, fire and EMS departments. I don't see this article as anything but an unvarnished attempt to show the American People how stupid the Republicans and their supporters can be. I don't believe that all Republicans are stupid, but this Lykins fellow does a good job of convincing me that at least one is.

It's time to bring the boys and girls home, and leave the Iraqis to their own devices, which is what they plainly want, to have a killing spree that will last decades. Then the soldiers can begin the long and difficult process of fitting back into American society.

Earle

Reply to
Earle Horton

Reply to
L.W.(Bill) Hughes III

Bill and Earle....

Does the fact CNN paid the terrorists to perform this premeditated murder of an American, and/or the reporter's failure to take any step to prevent the murder any kind of proof they are accessories to the murder?

Reply to
billy ray

Proof?

Reply to
Matt Macchiarolo

I blame modern society. There are plenty of no-hopers who are having a really good time watching our boys giving it to the towel heads, and the news stations are more than happy to provide the real life docu-drama. The sooner we realise that war is a serious business which does not need to be broadcast for our entertainment or education, the better. This will make life easier for the soldiers who have a bad enough job to do without the intense media scrutiny.

Dave Milne, Scotland

Reply to
Dave Milne

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 06:58:02 -0700 in , "L.W.(Bill) Hughes III" graced the world with this thought:

But I'm sure showing an Iraqi or whoever, being shot by an American sniper is ok...

Reply to
bizbee

The only other plausible explanation is that the reporter had been standing there filming segment on..... say the traffic situation... when a group of terrorists set up within inches of the camera lens and failed to notice him standing there physically attacking the shooter while screaming for the soldiers to take cover.

Which scenario do you think likely from Ted's Commie Network News.

FWIW: I never met Ted but his mother always treated those of us at the store very well.... I've never been able to understand how he could have come from her...

Reply to
billy ray

The problem is too many of the people in charge or those criticizing the running of the war managed to find ways by lying, cheating, or running away when they were asked for their service so that they haven't witnessed, haven't any concept of the incredible cruelty inflicted on both sides by both sides.

A politician will say that the military is an instrument of foreign policy, a soldier will say his job is to break things and kill people and the one that does it best wins.......

Thing is...... sometimes it is hard to tell who is best....

Reply to
billy ray

I'd have no problem with showing a film of a terrorist attack being repulsed by American soldiers, but I would not sanction any film showing the deliberate murder of innocents or someone who came to help free you from a murderous tyrant.

I do think the news networks should be required to show, every 15 minutes around the clock, the murders by beheading, and other methods, of innocent international aid workers and relief personnel. (who may ride in Jeeps)

The American public needs to know that these terrorists do not fit the description of civilized human beings and need to be exterminated like rabid dogs. (or run over by Jeeps)

The major media outlets intentionally, in my opinion, act to support the terrorists and then cover up their atrocities...

Reply to
billy ray

I'm just tired of thinking about all the new homeless shelters and tetox facilities we will have to build once it is all over. You don't break things and kill people without paying for it later.

Earle

Reply to
Earle Horton

Exactly.... but then the numbers aren't what you have been led to believe.

Thursday night while I was switching through the channels I paused for a moment on Katie Couric as she was saying that after the commercial the story would be about mentally ill soldiers being redeployed to combat.

As this was of interest to me I waited for the report. Katie claimed that

15% of soldiers had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and they were routinely being redeployed.

Their expert claimed that returning a soldier to active duty was improper treatment..... needless to say they neglected to offer what their expert's qualifications were. His proscribed treatment was apparently hand holding and collecting a government check.

They managed to find 3 soldiers diagnoses with PTSD that were reassigned to their former units on active duty.

One soldier was never interviewed but his father showed Katie letters he had written from the front detailing his fears. The father admitted that the son never requested other non combat duty or a medical release from the service or made any other complaint. His son was complying and participating in the Army's treatment program.

The second soldier made it clear that this was an unjust war against a sovereign country and his problems were all cause by persons in authority and he was a powerless dupe of the military-industrial complex. I had some reason to question his actual situation and motives that were. of course, caused by class prejudice as he was covered with home made 'jail' tattoos and claiming all sorts of problems not being addressed by the VA.

The final soldier's family basically told Katie "piss-off commie, our son requested to returned to his unit - to active duty"

Now back to Katie's expert that no one has ever heard of before.... His contention was re-exposure to traumatic conditions is contra-indicated and endangered the other members of his squad implying, in his opinion, that these soldiers will refuse to act in emergency situations.

The currently accepted treatment for PTSD is:

  1. Initial rest
  2. Psychotherapy to remember, recognize, and accept what happened.
  3. Anti-Depressant therapy as needed.
  4. Re-exposure to the location the trauma occurred. Failure to re-expose someone to the location of trauma only serves to reinforces the trauma's ill effects. Along with the other steps it follows the old adage to 'Get back on that horse that threw you ASAP or you will live in fear the rest of your life."

Given the choice of a combat veteran with treated PTSD and a whiny, hand wringing, oh the humanity!, tree hugger who only joined to get money for school soldier I would take the combat veteran ANY time as he is more likely to shoot first and ask questions later when exposed to a situation where the difference between MY life and death is a fraction of a second.

As a final interesting not just the night before the CBS news broadcast a report on PTSD treatment that contradicted their expert the following night.

Reply to
billy ray

...or not...

formatting link

Reply to
Thomas Waldron

Let's take a quote from the story you reference where they admit that they have been communicating, supposedly through intermediaries, with the terrorist leader himself.

" Michael had been communicating with Ibrahim Al-Shimary, a shadowy leader and spokesman for the Islamic Army."

Now I don't know the country of Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware's birth but he is surely an enemy of all that is good and that is how and why he serves his Politburo masters at Ted's Commie News Network.

Had he been a defender of freedom and liberty, or at least what would be considered a decent human being, he would have immediately contacted the authorities associated with the non-terrorists and cooperated in the capture of the terrorist leader.

The action he took, however, was to further the agenda of the terrorists at the specific direction of his masters.

That is IF we believe this story..... in either case the authorities or family of Michael Ware's victim should pursue Mr. Ware and see he receives all the justice he deserves.

To quote John Wayne (in reply to David Janssen who is playing a member of the media: "There is such a thing as due process. Out here, due process is a bullet."

formatting link

Reply to
billy ray

It's obvious you've already made your mind up. When you don't like the message, hang the messenger.

How often do you actually watch CNN?? Or do you only know their reports from what you hear Limbag, Sean Insannity and Faux News say about them?

Reply to
Matt Macchiarolo

Ware sounds like he's Australian. I'm sure you have proof that Ware knows the whereabouts of Ibrahim Al-Shimary. If you don't I am sure you assume that.

And you should love this, he used to be Time Magazine's Baghdad bureau chief. More reason for you to slam him.

formatting link
>

Reply to
Matt Macchiarolo

Well Matt, after reading about it on this very forum and most likely this same thread I made it a point to see the ABC (Almost as Bad as the Commie) news.

I haven't watched much of CNN since Gulf War 1's attack on Baghdad and just a bit on the regular news when Comrade Geraldo Rivera got caught relaying strategic information to the enemy via a live news broadcast in 2003.

I understand why Comrade Rivera did it, he was sucking up to the powers at ABC who fired him a few years before when he attempted, for the first time in his career, to tell the truth. Whether the firing was about the telling the truth or because that the truth was about another Demoncratic sex scandal I don't know

I've never understood why he was not executed on the spot as a the spy he was.

.

Reply to
billy ray

Time magazine? Nuff Said.....

I lost my respect for Australians when the voted to only allow criminals to have weapons.

The government over there doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that the violent crime robbery rate almost doubled in the few years since the ban.

That little southern town..... can't recall the name at the moment, that voted to REQUIRE every household to have a weapon and to provide a weapon, if the family hadn't the means, had the right idea.

formatting link
>>

Reply to
billy ray

At which time he was (and still is) employed by Fox News.

formatting link
the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, he accepted a pay cut and went to work for the Fox News Channel as a war correspondent starting in November 2001. His brother Craig accompanied him as a cameraman on assignments in Afghanistan. During the U.S. war in Afghanistan in 2001, Rivera was derided for a report in which he claimed to be at the scene of a friendly fire incident; it was later revealed that he was actually 300 miles away. Rivera faulted a minor misunderstanding for the discrepancy.

Another controversy arose in early 2003, while Rivera was embedded with U.S. military personnel in Iraq. During a Fox News broadcast, Rivera began to disclose an upcoming operation, even going so far as to draw a map in the sand for his audience. The military immediately issued a firm denouncement of his actions, saying it put the operation at risk, and nearly expelled Rivera from Iraq. Two days later, he announced that henceforth and voluntarily he would be reporting on the Iraq conflict from Kuwait.

Reply to
Matt Macchiarolo

There was a little town in Montana or Idaho doing that recently as well. Not going as far as requiring, but providing town-sponsored weapons certification.

Besides, how could you "require" a household to own a weapon? "Buy a gun, or we put you in jail??"

Turns out the guy on the town council sponsoring the program was the only certified weapons trainer in the area. Hmm.

Reply to
Matt Macchiarolo

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.