CNN Foreign Corespondent Calls Out Fox News: ‘Outrageous’ ‘Lies And Deceit’

[Formaldehyde]

It takes courage to go out into a war zone in the first place, even with military protection. It takes even more courage for someone to be willing to "hang out" with armed and potentially hostile insurgents, especially if they knew that they might be fired upon by their own country.

That is correct. And that is why we owe so much to the real war journalists who aren't cowards.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Courageously? How does one die courageously by getting blown away either by mistake or because they were hanging out with insurgents? Whats so courageous about that?

Pat Tillman ? (Blown away by mistake was he couragous or stupid? (or simply tragic?) )

Or How many young men have died for non-couragous reason in war ?
Like the poor smucks whom got electricuted due to halliburton and faulty electrical wiring? Pretty bad way to die.

 

[MobBoss]

It takes courage to go out into a war zone in the first place, even with military protection. It takes even more courage for someone to be willing to "hang out" with armed and potentially hostile insurgents, especially if they knew that they might be fired upon by their own country.

I dont know if thats courage inasmuch as it would be self-serving journalism out to make a name for themselves.

Pat Tillman ? (Blown away by mistake was he couragous or stupid? (or simply tragic?) )

Or How many young men have died for non-couragous reason in war ?
Like the poor smucks whom got electricuted due to halliburton and faulty electrical wiring? Pretty bad way to die.

I never found anything remotely courageous about Tillmans death. I always felt it was more of an ancient greek style tragedy than anything else. And I will be honest, I certainly wouldnt have walked away from a pro-football career to do what he did. He risked it all and paid all in doing so. But courageous? The politically correct demand it be so, but I am not of that opinion. In fact, as a career soldier myself, I would really try to downplay the presumptive idea that dying in war is courageous at all. As an NCO and leader, I dont want to lose more soldiers because they think its noble to die a hero. Dead is dead, and fwiw, any spouse or child would much rather have their mate/parent back regardless of how 'courageous' they may have died. This is a job, and you owe it to your mates to do it well and do it right, but dying like Pat Tillman died wasnt courageous, it was just sad, and definitely a mistake.

 

[JollyRoger]

If putting your life on your line for your country is not courageous, then I do not know what is.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Dulce et decorum est? Pro patria mori?

 

[MobBoss]

If putting your life on your line for your country is not courageous, then I do not know what is.

I didnt say all of their service wasnt courageous, nor the entireity of how they served. I am merely referring to their deaths, which were indeed due to error and a tragedy as a result.

Come on Jolly, for once, dont try to spin this like that.

 

[Berzerker]

Rofl, 'scuse me, that do you really expect that to be effective given the fact they are shooting their own countrymen right now? Really, I dont find that a very serious answer if thats the reason they hauled them out there in the middle of the night....

I never said it was effective and it dont matter if you or I think it will be effective, only if somebody in charge there decided to let western cameras in to see the damage because they thought it helped their cause. Or the Libyans could just let the world see images of the rebels taking a beating... But yes, I expect it will prove effective - not everyone wants us to bomb Libya over this and the tide of public world opinion will change in greater opposition as more images of destruction roll in. You didn't want the world to see the Abu Ghraib photos because of public opinion but now you dont think photos matter? Sure makes more sense than calling out some reporters to stand around for 15-30 minutes as human shields.

You sure are splitting hairs over courage, getting shot and killed may not be courageous but signing up and being there is courageous. I'd say it takes courage to go to a warzone and risk your neck...

 

[MobBoss]

I never said it was effective and it dont matter if you or I think it will be effective, only if somebody in charge there decided to let western cameras in to see the damage because they thought it helped their cause.

Well, hang on, it being effective or not certainly leads to the plausiblity of it being done for that reason or not. Not to mention that effect could have been had whether the media were rousted out of bed in the middle of the night to go to the site, or whether they visited during daylight hours the next day.

I dont deny the possibility of what you are saying, but the plausibillity/probability of it seems quite low in comparison to the suggestion that the media were 'invited' out in the middle of the night to prevent follow up attacks - or possibly to set up a situation where the media crews were even killed in follow up attacks.

Which strikes me as a possibility that no one has suggested yet. There would be a HUGE benefit for the Libyan government to cast doubt on such a UN venture if say journalists were 'murdered' by a UN airstrike in Libya. In fact, that makes so much more sense to me, I think it even more plausible that the effort was more to put those media crews in harms way than to possibly prevent further bombing attacks.

Or the Libyans could just let the world see images of the rebels taking a beating... But yes, I expect it will prove effective - not everyone wants us to bomb Libya over this and the tide of public world opinion will change in greater opposition as more images of destruction roll in.

Think how much more it would have changed if foreign journalists had been 'murdered' by UN airstrikes. Now there is a headline the Libyan government would love.

You didn't want the world to see the Abu Ghraib photos because of public opinion but now you dont think photos matter?

Are you trying to equate the outrage over the torture photos of Abu Graib with a Libyan C&C building hit by bombs?

Seriously?

I think it obvious that the Abu Graib photos would have a far more profound effect. If you think they are in any way similar I think you gravely mistaken.

Sure makes more sense than calling out some reporters to stand around for 15-30 minutes as human shields.

Ah...but think of the propaganda benefit to be gained if said reporters get killed in a follow up airstrike?

You sure are splitting hairs over courage, getting shot and killed may not be courageous but signing up and being there is courageous. I'd say it takes courage to go to a warzone and risk your neck...

And I would agree with you.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, hang on, it being effective or not certainly leads to the plausiblity of it being done for that reason or not.

And your opinion is irrelevant, only the opinion of the person in charge of that decision

Not to mention that effect could have been had whether the media were rousted out of bed in the middle of the night to go to the site, or whether they visited during daylight hours the next day.

If it bleeds, it leads... I'm sure Libyan TV is showing daylight images too...

I dont deny the possibility of what you are saying, but the plausibillity/probability of it seems quite low in comparison to the suggestion that the media were 'invited' out in the middle of the night to prevent follow up attacks - or possibly to set up a situation where the media crews were even killed in follow up attacks. Which strikes me as a possibility that no one has suggested yet. There would be a HUGE benefit for the Libyan government to cast doubt on such a UN venture if say journalists were 'murdered' by a UN airstrike in Libya. In fact, that makes so much more sense to me, I think it even more plausible that the effort was more to put those media crews in harms way than to possibly prevent further bombing attacks.

But no or little benefit of showing dead Libyans bombed by the Great Satan?

Are you trying to equate the outrage over the torture photos of Abu Graib with a Libyan C&C building hit by bombs?

Seriously?

I think it obvious that the Abu Graib photos would have a far more profound effect. If you think they are in any way similar I think you gravely mistaken.

Hmm, dead Libyans scattered around bomb craters or scared and humiliated prisoners - no, I wouldn't try to equate them. The point was about the use of negative images to sway public opinion, not equating the images. Jesus you have a nasty habit of creating strawmen to argue against.

 

[Patroklos]

It takes courage to go out into a war zone in the first place, even with military protection. It takes even more courage for someone to be willing to "hang out" with armed and potentially hostile insurgents, especially if they knew that they might be fired upon by their own country.

Opportunism linked to profit and war voyerism is not courage.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Opportunism linked to profit and war voyerism is not courage.

Fighting in the "Waffen SS" is though !!!

Sorry Patroklos I couldnt resist.

 

[Patroklos]

Being wrong? Be my guest

 

[carmen510]

Opportunism linked to profit and war voyerism is not courage.

Is this a viewpoint you formulated during your service with the Navy (if you did have the opportunity to work alongside war correspondents) or just your personal views on the media?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I never found anything remotely courageous about Tillmans death. I always felt it was more of an ancient greek style tragedy than anything else. And I will be honest, I certainly wouldnt have walked away from a pro-football career to do what he did. He risked it all and paid all in doing so. But courageous? The politically correct demand it be so, but I am not of that opinion. In fact, as a career soldier myself, I would really try to downplay the presumptive idea that dying in war is courageous at all. As an NCO and leader, I dont want to lose more soldiers because they think its noble to die a hero. Dead is dead, and fwiw, any spouse or child would much rather have their mate/parent back regardless of how 'courageous' they may have died. This is a job, and you owe it to your mates to do it well and do it right, but dying like Pat Tillman died wasnt courageous, it was just sad, and definitely a mistake.

Your stock just seriously went up in my book.

 

[MobBoss]

And your opinion is irrelevant, only the opinion of the person in charge of that decision

Well, I know you would like to think so, but thats simply not the case.

If it bleeds, it leads... I'm sure Libyan TV is showing daylight images too...

But no or little benefit of showing dead Libyans bombed by the Great Satan?

Except there wasnt any bleeding and from the footage I saw no dead libyans were seen....nor any mention of the 'Great Satan'.

Hmm, dead Libyans scattered around bomb craters or scared and humiliated prisoners - no, I wouldn't try to equate them. The point was about the use of negative images to sway public opinion, not equating the images. Jesus you have a nasty habit of creating strawmen to argue against.

It seems you cant handle my counter point to your Abu Graib reference then, 'cause my point is valid. You cant compare the two very well because they are indeed wildly different. Instead you mutter 'strawman' and ignore the difference. Ah well. You seem to forget YOU were the one to first mention Abu Graib in this context without caring to quantify how the two situations are quite different.....and you want to accuse me of the strawman? Please.

 

[RedRalph]

Opportunism linked to profit and war voyerism is not courage.

Not a fan of Blackwater, eh?

Your stock just seriously went up in my book.

Seconded. That's a common sense that has nothing to do with one's politics.

 

[JollyRoger]

Opportunism linked to profit and war voyerism is not courage.

I think you could still be a hero is you only generate a profit of common cents.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, I know you would like to think so, but thats simply not the case.

How is your opinion relevant to the opinion of the person calling the media in to cover an attack site?

Except there wasnt any bleeding and from the footage I saw no dead libyans were seen....nor any mention of the 'Great Satan'.

I cant speak for what you saw, but I imagine people were killed in the attacks... But maybe not, since you didn't see any blood or bodies.

It seems you cant handle my counter point to your Abu Graib reference then, 'cause my point is valid. You cant compare the two very well because they are indeed wildly different. Instead you mutter 'strawman' and ignore the difference. Ah well. You seem to forget YOU were the one to first mention Abu Graib in this context without caring to quantify how the two situations are quite different.....and you want to accuse me of the strawman? Please.

The strawman was accusing me of trying to equate images from Abu Ghraib with images of the attacks on Libya - and you followed that nonsense up by accusing me of ignoring the differences, differences I just mentioned to explain why I dont see them as equal. And I mentioned what they have in common, they're making us look bad (thats even debatable Mobby?). You got tangled up arguing against your own strawman

 

[MobBoss]

How is your opinion relevant to the opinion of the person calling the media in to cover an attack site?

Their both opinions.

Again, I humbly submit the utter lack of outrage from those photos in comparison to your offer: Abu Graib. The decided lack of angst is proof enough to validate my opinion and my point.

I cant speak for what you saw, but I imagine people were killed in the attacks... But maybe not, since you didn't see any blood or bodies.

From the various media reports and photos that I saw, all I saw was a damaged building and that was it.

The strawman was accusing me of trying to equate images from Abu Ghraib with images of the attacks on Libya

Didnt you bring up Abu Graib as an example of photos being able to stir things up? Of course you did. But there is a decided difference in the two situations...so much so that the comparison doesnt really make sense to be honest. I guess because I point out how bad your reference truly is you feel the need to divert with the old 'strawman' comment. /oh well. Its a tactic I guess, albeit not much of one.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Why did the soliders burn Pat Tillmans clothes, diary and other artifcates ?
Why did the pentagon release an S4 Memo stating the President Bush must have denability ?
Why did the military lie to Pat tillmans family that he wanted a public military funeral and someone had to smuggle out Pat Tillmans form stating he wanted a privite funeral?
Why did three star general after resigning publicly state he was ordered to cover up Pat tillmans death ?

More then tragic.