sundevil777 102 #1 December 9, 2003 I hope we can all agree that this is not journalism. I think it is advocating the position of the terrorists. http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/12083air.xml QuoteA Paris Match magazine freelance photographer was with the attackers and shot pictures of the missile launch and strike, which are in the Nov. 27 issue. Has anyone heard of this little "detail" about the incident? It should be a major outrage!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
FrogNog 1 #2 December 9, 2003 QuoteI hope we can all agree that this is not journalism. I think it is advocating the position of the terrorists. http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/12083air.xml QuoteA Paris Match magazine freelance photographer was with the attackers and shot pictures of the missile launch and strike, which are in the Nov. 27 issue. Has anyone heard of this little "detail" about the incident? It should be a major outrage! I'm not saying I like it, but can you explain what crime(s) you think the photographer committed? Perhaps soliciting multiple counts of attempted murder, solicitation of multiple counts of destruction of property, solicitation of terrorism, and solicitation of disruption of international trade? Or being an accessory, if the freelance photographer assisted in any way besides offering to take pictures? If the photographer showed up and offered to take pictures (for his own gain) of the commission of a sizeable crime that was probably already going to take place, does that make him an accomplice? I hope the photographer got the names and numbers of the people he was hanging out with. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would like to meet. -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 December 9, 2003 A Frenchman with them when it happened? Maybe we would give him some exclusive head-on shots of a TOW missile coming in on him. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #4 December 9, 2003 QuoteI hope we can all agree that this is not journalism. I think it is advocating the position of the terrorists. http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/12083air.xml QuoteA Paris Match magazine freelance photographer was with the attackers and shot pictures of the missile launch and strike, which are in the Nov. 27 issue. Has anyone heard of this little "detail" about the incident? It should be a major outrage! It isnt just the french. Its our guys too. I think a trip to Gitmo is in order. http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101031215/story.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #5 December 9, 2003 >I hope we can all agree that this is not journalism. I think it is >advocating the position of the terrorists. Just because he was with terrorists? Now that's a load of crap. An old friend of mine, Marie Colvin, has spent a lot of time with "the enemy." She interviewed Chechen rebels and was almost bombed by Russian bombers. She's interviewed Arafat. She's friends with Bassam Abu-Sharif, a Palestinian who has since masterminded several terrorist attacks. In 2001 she interviewed Sri Lankan terrorists and lost an eye to a government grenade attack. Do a little research on her and see if she supports terrorism. Should be easy to find her - she's the foreign editor of the London Times and winner of half a dozen journalism awards. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #6 December 9, 2003 QuoteJust because he was with terrorists? Now that's a load of crap. No, because his being there encourages them to do something like what they did. Interviewing them is one thing, but the terrorists wanted to give the photog a good pic, so they obliged him. Again, providing that forum for their act of terrorism is advocating their position, in my opinion. I think your tolerance of that is a load of crap!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
captainpooby 0 #7 December 9, 2003 She's friends with Bassam Abu-Sharif, a Palestinian who has since masterminded several terrorist attacks. She's friends with him? Apparently she has lost her journalistic objectivity. Sorry about her eye. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jkm2500 0 #8 December 9, 2003 QuoteJust because he was with terrorists? Now that's a load of crap. would you feel the same way if this event had happened in the United States? Terrorists are exactly what thier name implies, people trying to impose terror. Any association should be considered an act of aggression against the US. My opinion my be a litte skewed because I watched as soldiers of the US died because of some terrorists. just my $.02The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #9 December 9, 2003 So, if a 'journalist' is travelling with some of the enemy in Iraq, and films their attack on our troops, is that going to be OK with you? Same sort of thing happened in Vietnam. Some tried to defend it as a righteous thing for 'journalists' to do. I think that it is a piece of crap position to hold!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
indyz 1 #10 December 9, 2003 QuoteSo, if a 'journalist' is travelling with some of the enemy in Iraq, and films their attack on our troops, is that going to be OK with you? Is it OK for American journalists to film attacks on Iraqis? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #11 December 9, 2003 QuoteIs it OK for American journalists to film attacks on Iraqis? Yes.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
indyz 1 #12 December 9, 2003 QuoteQuoteIs it OK for American journalists to film attacks on Iraqis? Yes. Why? Edit: Specifically, why is it OK for American journalists to film attacks on Iraqis while it is reprehensible for a French journalist to film the operations of the enemy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aeromobile 0 #13 December 9, 2003 My news says she was given the tape. Do we really know she filmed the shooting? http://www.airdisaster.com/news/1103/26/news.shtml Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #14 December 9, 2003 QuoteQuoteSo, if a 'journalist' is travelling with some of the enemy in Iraq, and films their attack on our troops, is that going to be OK with you? Is it OK for American journalists to film attacks on Iraqis? The point is that the media furthers the enemies cause by filming and broadcasting their attacks. Its giving "aid" and comfort to the enemy. Borderline treason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indyz 1 #15 December 9, 2003 QuoteThe point is that the media furthers the enemies cause by filming and broadcasting their attacks. Its giving "aid" and comfort to the enemy. Borderline treason. A journalist documents the events occuring in the world. I'm sorry if that means looking at things from the perspective of enemies of the United States, but it needs to be done. Those who believe that the media is right in filming one side of an engagement but wrong in filming the other are hypocrites. PS: Who exactly is this French reporter committing or almost committing treason against? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #16 December 9, 2003 QuoteQuoteThe point is that the media furthers the enemies cause by filming and broadcasting their attacks. Its giving "aid" and comfort to the enemy. Borderline treason. A journalist documents the events occuring in the world. I'm sorry if that means looking at things from the perspective of enemies of the United States, but it needs to be done. Those who believe that the media is right in filming one side of an engagement but wrong in filming the other are hypocrites. PS: Who exactly is this French reporter committing or almost committing treason against? hypocrite \Hyp"o*crite\, n. [F., fr. L. hypocrita, Gr. ? one who plays a part on the stage, a dissembler, feigner. See Hypocrisy.] One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety. hypocrite n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold hypocrite one who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not; a dissembler in religion. Our Lord severely rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). "The hypocrite's hope shall perish" (Job 8:13). The Hebrew word here rendered "hypocrite" rather means the "godless" or "profane," as it is rendered in Jer. 23:11, i.e., polluted with crimes. Sorry, dont see any any hypocrisy here. And I was referring my treason remark to the Time reporter. edited to add: I can see some hipocrisy on the journalists part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #17 December 9, 2003 I see very little value in only having one side of a war reported on. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #18 December 9, 2003 Terrorist is in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. I suspect loyalists during the American revolution looked on those who later became known as patriots as terrorists. "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 #19 December 9, 2003 QuoteI see very little value in only having one side of a war reported on. _Am So you would have aired journalist David Pearl's execution, then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #20 December 9, 2003 QuoteTerrorist is in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. I suspect loyalists during the American revolution looked on those who later became known as patriots as terrorists. By your definition, UBL is a freedom fighter and Al Qaeda must be a charity organization. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #21 December 9, 2003 QuoteTerrorist is in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. I suspect loyalists during the American revolution looked on those who later became known as patriots as terrorists. Sorry. I guess you missed history class. They were known as patriots AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED not later. " The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #22 December 9, 2003 I think it is time to take sides. Some have trouble deciding.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
PhreeZone 20 #23 December 9, 2003 >They were known as patriots AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED not later. History is written by the victors. Large amounts of people were against fighting the British and a lot of those raised arms against their neighbors to fight for Britian. I'm sure to those people the people rebelling were terrorists.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #24 December 9, 2003 QuoteQuoteTerrorist is in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. I suspect loyalists during the American revolution looked on those who later became known as patriots as terrorists. By your definition, UBL is a freedom fighter and Al Qaeda must be a charity organization. I personally don't consider them this but there are people out there who do see it that way. They see us as "the bad guys" who are trying to impose our views on them. Do I think the way they have dealt with it is a good thing? No, of course not but my point is that it is all in the eye of the beholder and the fact that some one was there to take pictures does not automatically make the photographer a "bad guy." "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
indyz 1 #25 December 9, 2003 QuoteSorry. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
