The videotaped shooting of a Fallujah combatant by a U-S Marine has evoked strong emotions in the Arab world and on Capitol Hill.

Texas Democrat Sylvestre Reyes (sil-VEHS'-tree RAY'-uhs) says it's time to rethink the presence of embedded reporters in combat zones. During a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, Reyes compared it to a football game, saying "we don't want to know everything that's going on on the field." Reyes says this is not censorship. In his words, "We should not be providing the Al-Jazeera the kind of propaganda they've had the last couple of three days."


http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2582261

This reminds me of an old Redd Foxx gag.

"My grandma had to get up every morning and cut wood for the fire, get it started, and then get breakfast going in the freezing cold before the sun came up. My grandpa hated to see her like that, slaving and freezing in the early morning. So he slept with his back to the wall".

he's right and he's wrong.

first it is censorship although i dont think they should be there for security and safety reasons, not because we're seeing the reality of war up close and personal. so he's wrong in wanting to do away with embedded reporters.

i do think he's right in saying its being used as propaganda by al jazzera and the like so i understand his point on this matter.

its a thin line to tread indeed, you either piss off one side and they accuse you of hiding something or you keep the other side from reporting it and using it as propaganda against US forces. aljazeera doesnt bother to say "this is just a soldier or a handful of soldiers, not all soldiers are like this", rather they report it with an obvious pro arab/muslim slant and then let extremists or those dispositioned toward extremist take it from there.

i see his point and at the same time i disagree with it, but for different reasons.

i do think he's right in saying its being used as propaganda by al jazzera and the like so i understand his point on this matter.

Then a better way to prevent giving others propaganda material is preventing these kinds of events to happen in the first place.

there should be more media. a 24 hour war channel would be good. so we all realise what war is.

It's a bullsh!t argument; kill the messenger because he didn't whitewash the incident.

We have a significant number of hoodlums running around in U.S. uniforms, and not only do they contribute to making the situations far worse, they also contribute to numerous friendly fire casualties. 'Supporting Our Troops' doesn't mean not prosecuting scum or not pulling deranged incompetents out of the line. You get a lot of them in the military, and at least 30% up to 60% of 'soldiers' in many units are trash who need to be kept far away from police actions.

Saw way too much of it in VN that got winked at, and saw once friendly and/or neutral villages and informants turn overnight into enemies who caused a lot of U.S. casualties a few months later, all because the military would not do it's job when Billy Joe Bubba got bored and used some farmer for target practice or him and his buddies decided to get them a piece from some 11 or 12 year old girl who struck their urges.

'Troopers' like this were shoved out front where hopefully they wouldn't kill or wound their own; they make great bait, and nobody minds if they happen to catch one in the back. Sh!t happens, you know ...

Funny, in a way, how these people are 'kids' when we talk of sending them to Iraq.....then, when they get there, and do their job, they're criminals, hoodlums, murderers, etc.


P.S. I would just like to point out that I used there, their, and they're correctly, all in a single sentence.

P.S. I would just like to point out that I used there, their, and they're correctly, all in a single sentence.


Woohoo - Way to Go :w00t: :cooldance

can someone give me the link to the video?

What a great idea. That way Rummy can have the troops indulge in an orgy of war crimes and human rights abuses and no one will ever know the difference.

The idea of embedded reporters is indeed horrible. It only causes divisivness and indeed fuels the propoganda machine. Americans don't have the stomach for war. they'd be much happier just hearing that things are going well and we're winning, wether its true or not. Whenever incidents happen that cause people to face the reality of war, then they're torn between supporting the cause or being morally superior. They then realize that morales and war don't match up so neatly, and that's hard to deal with. Then they must be outraged because that's what all the morally superior people are doing, and they don't want to be morally weak, so they question the war and then become anti-war, and before you know it, we've lost another war due to a lack of will to fighht and win.