CNN’s Anti-American, Seditious and Treasonous display of sniper film.

amicus

Literotica Guru
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
14,812
CNN’s Anti-American, Seditious and Treasonous display of sniper film.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1723943/posts

CNN's Sniper Film: This Time It's Personal
Mens News Daily ^ | October 22, 2006 | By Tom Glennon
Posted on 10/22/2006 11:36:38 AM PDT by Nasty McPhilthy

I rarely lose my temper, but that does not mean I don’t have one. Generally, I am disappointed in certain actions or words I disapprove of by people or organizations, rather than angry. But this time, I am really angry at CNN, because I am taking it personally.

When a CNN executive accused U.S. troops of targeting journalists in Iraq to stop their reporting, I viewed it as anti-military left wing rhetoric, with no basis in truth. I think most Americans who bothered to read this story agreed with me.

When CNN showed the U.S. Marine shooting a terrorist pretending to be wounded, while attempting to set off the explosives wired to the booby-trapped body next to him, I knew that any reasonable inquiry would exonerate the soldier; and I was right.

[B] As CNN showed the embarrassing pictures of the detainees at Abu Ghraib over and over, I ascribed it to their agenda to discredit American forces, in much the same manner as Illinois Senator Dick Durban when he compared our soldiers to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge of Pol Pot. Again, they were just pushing their well documented agendas, with little regard for its repercussions. [/B]

But this time, they have crossed a line that no news agency in the United States should cross. They have become a news service advocating for the enemies of our Nation.

I am referring, of course, to their decision to broadcast the sniper “Snuff Film” provided by a terrorist organization in Iraq. CNN defends this with the absurd argument that they were reporting the “unvarnished truth”. The truth is that they have played, on international television, the worst form of pornography, the “Snuff Film”. That they have done so to advance the cause of the Islamic terrorists is not an opinion that I have arrived at lightly, but the evidence is beyond circumstantial. When taken in context, it is obvious to me that they are rooting for the other team. While CNN would certainly refute this, I think the facts speak for themselves.

Beginning with the attacks on the United States on September 11th, CNN has scrubbed much of their coverage. As with other main stream media, they have abstained from showing all of the video and pictures from that day. Never has the viewing public seen the pictures of those victims who leapt to their deaths from the World Trade Center, rather than suffer the pain of being burnt to death. Most Americans have never seen the tape and pictures of scores of bodies lying on the sidewalks and streets of New York, before the collapse of the twin towers. The sounds of bodies hitting the pavement have never been heard on CNN, out of their “sensitivity”. CNN has also shielded us from the graphic videos of helpless prisoners being shot or beheaded by terrorists. While most

Americans are aware that these incidents have occurred, they are not aware that hundreds of bound innocents have been murdered in this manner, and that the practice continues to this day. The terrorists not only take pride in these murders, they provide the videos to news services on a regular basis. But the American media, including CNN, has decided not to show them, as they are “disturbing”.

The murder by beheading of three Christian schoolgirls by Islamists in Indonesia was not even reported by most media; let alone the broadcast of the pictures of these young girls with their heads resting on their chests. Not one American news service has ever shown the cartoons of Muhammad that sparked world wide Muslim rage, including the deaths of scores of people, out of “respect” for Islam. But they are perfectly willing to show an entertainer like Madonna showing her disdain for Christianity by turning the crucifixion of Jesus into a vaguely obscene musical skit.


What CNN and most of the mainstream media have actually done is to do their best to hide the true nature of the enemies of the United States. While claiming that certain images are too graphic for us to see, the effect is to hide the barbarity of those against whom we struggle. Some of these decisions are due to cowardice. The media is simply afraid that taking a truly unbiased journalistic stance will put them at risk of becoming a target for Muslim rage, which often turns deadly. Certainly CNN has admitted they deliberately omitted reporting on the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, although they were well aware of the horrendous acts committed by his regime; because their access to him might be restricted, and their personnel placed at risk. And yet, they appear to have a direct pipeline to the terrorists, and are on the priority mailing list of these murderers.

The airing of the sniper footage by CNN has, in my opinion, placed them at a new low. The intent of the terrorists in filming the sniper attacks is to show that they can kill Americans at will, without repercussion. The recent upsurge in attacks aimed at Americans in Iraq is a blatant attempt by the terrorists to influence the upcoming elections. The timing of this film is an obvious propaganda ploy, meant to augment the reporting of increased American casualties, and discourage Americans from supporting the efforts in Iraq. CNN has become the willing tool of the Jihadi propaganda strategists.

Yet, the actions by CNN go even beyond this. And this is where it becomes personal.

CNN claims it was unable to identify the American soldiers shot in cold blood for our viewing pleasure. This is beyond oversight. It is a blatant falsehood. The U.S. military keeps very detailed records detailing the circumstances surrounding every American casualty. Eyewitness accounts, wound examination, situation reports and after action reports are all on file, and can be used by the appropriate authorities to identify each of the soldiers shot on the video. What I find reprehensible is that there are families here who may have seen their loved ones shot down on television. Families receive a fairly detailed account through official sources of the circumstances surrounding each casualty. The soldier’s commanding officer will usually send a personal letter to the family, often providing additional detail. Finally, the comrades of the fallen soldier will often write to the family, with even more detailed information. The bottom line is that a little investigative journalism on the part of CNN would enable CNN to identify the soldiers who were cut down. That they did not make this effort allows them to avoid the confrontation with the families of these men, and the subsequent criticism CNN would receive if they showed the deaths of Americans who have an identity. Anonymity serves their purpose, but exposes the families to the pain and horror of watching their son, brother or father die in prime time.

Why is this personal? My youngest son is in the military, as is a nephew. I also have a number of friends and former Scouts in harms way, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. I take this action by CNN in a very personal way, as it could be a family member or friend who appears on the next episode of Prime Time Snuff. I do not want to have a public viewing of the last moments of someone I know so that CNN can achieve an “exclusive report” in their ratings race, while advancing the image of how effective a terrorist sniper can be.


CNN claims to have a mission and vision statement, and adheres to a standards and ethics code. May I also suggest that they also have a motto, borrowed from a movie. The motto, aimed at we viewers, is “The Truth? You can’t handle the Truth!” CNN is living up to that motto.

~~~~~~~~

It isn't just that CNN is anti war, as is the bastard child of NBC, MSNBC, they are blatantly and unapologetically, anti-American. Fully 80 to 85 percent of all news coverage is negative, be it American ethics, morals, business or government.

These treasonable activities of an activists news organization will have a stop put to them one day soon. I personally hope that control will not be in the form of censorship and the abridgement of free speech rights but rather an indictment and trial for treason and sedition.

amicus....
 
If you think CNN has liberal bias, you may be a crazy right winger.
 
Ami my friend,

You of all people should know that broadcast media, including CNN and MSNBC are in the business to make money. (Just as the radio stations yu worked for were.) They are not in it to neccasarily show or tell the news, they are in it to make money. (Something which you have no problem with, as you have so often informed us.)

So what sells? What would get the most viewers? A live action shot of an American Soldier getting sniped and his shooter getting reduced to a rag doll, or the footage of a supposed American Sniper (Whom most Americans don't want to even admit exists) shooting at a supposedly unarmed and helpless person?

The first is over and done with. The second causes controversy which makes more people want to watch and find out the ultimate results.

Americans have this strange concept. We don't like to admit we have snipers. They are unclean in our eyes. They shoot from ambush, they don't stand up to the enemy and fight on equal terms. They don't give the enemy an even break.

Cat
 
Is this the thread where I get to point out that Bush's State of the Union Address where he outlined the reasons to invade Iraq could theoretically qualify as a
"subversive activity" in violation of Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2388 of the US Code, and land Bush in prison for 20 years after he leaves office?

It's not?

Okay, I'll wait.
 
Seacat...forgive me...I am of the old school, I guess, a newscast, to me, was a news cast, with information gained from AP associated Press, or UPI United Press International, I was kind of a 'rip and read' newscaster in the early days and we took the news as the holy grail, we merely read and reported.

Then there was talk radio, opinion editorials, 'op eds', as they refer to them now, but even then, I did, as I do now, offer authentication to any 'opinion' I express and usually, then, attempt to find a common rational groud upon which to expand the news items....as you will see from my latest post on Korea...

News and politics and entertainment, have gradually merged over the years, which is partly why I am no longer active in broadcast media, I don't do that.

Thus I have moved to the arena of 'fiction', within which I can express my thoughts and attempt to provide a rational and logical basis for the actions and thoughts of my characters, without contradicting my intellectual principles.

Which is seen as a little silly by most on this forum as they accept no, 'absolute' principles of ethical or moral conduct and consider my efforts as not worthy of consideration in the relativistic world they inhabit.

I suggest that if someone were to read any of my works a thousand years into the future, they would understand the moral, ethical, logical and rational basis upon which my thoughts were formed and understand what I write as few seem to, today.

But then, neither you nor I will ever know, will we?

amicus...
 
...and thus another raving crypto-fascist fucktard goes on ignore.
 
Oblimo, you are basically expressing a tautology, an useless expression of doubt without foundation. You could say the same about Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, or President Wilson in WW1 or Roosevelt in WW2, Truman in Korea, JFK and Johnson in Vietnam.

When a nation has been attacked and is at war, the 'rule of engagement', reflect, but do not mirror, the basic premises of that nation. You in your supreme wisdom, may have a post 9/11 strategy that is politically correct to world opinion...that was not the intent of the body politic in the United States.

It was not just President Bush, his administration, his cabinet, but the entire Congress of the United States of America and by that, the American people that set forth to right the wrong of the cowards who took innocent life in the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the aircraft involved.

I am sure you would have talked the perpetrators to death had you the opportunity.

I said you were expressing a tautology, you are basically just an asshole who has no understanding of anything, but I was being kind.

amicus...
 
Ami: Which is seen as a little silly by most on this forum as they accept no, 'absolute' principles of ethical or moral conduct and consider my efforts as not worthy of consideration in the relativistic world they inhabit.


I think you do us a diservice, ami. True, some people differ from your views as you do from others.Iit doesn't mean we do not respect you for those views, and how you stand up for them.
Each to their own.
A lot of the replies are just to wind you up. I know I'm guilty! :D

On the other hand , I do not really believe in 'absolute' principles.
I prefer to think in terms of shades of grey; I believe it is closer to the truth if you take a bit of each side.

ken
 
Kendol...thanks, I guess...but please, define your words...'principle' implies, 'absolute' there are no 'grey', wishy washy principles, they exist only in absolute terms.

So, you either have principles, or you do not...simple as that, one can be, but not defend, an 'agnostic' position as it waffles between two extremes and those extremes, one of which is right and the other is wrong....true or false...

I do not make the rules, nor do I always live by them, but I do acknowledge that they exist.

amicus...
 
"ignore" is such an escape for you 'fucktards' who have neither the intelligence or the fortitude to defend your positions...weak as they are...but then, one can understand that...


amicus...
 
ami,
your** rant is so long (1300 words) that i'm unable to see what the facts are.

i doubt there are any laws regarding showing of deaths or dead bodies, simply rules of 'good taste' and 'courtesy' voluntarily adhered to by most news orgs (and NOT some of the seamier newspapers).

in any case, charges of treason against liberals are pretty commonplace in the looney right. (and CNN are, imo, scarcely 'liberals' despite their recent criticisms of Bush. the last show i saw, the commentator called for voting against all incumbents)


---

**oops. i should have noticed you're simply re posting someone else's rant; i should have known, since the fellow, though looney, is able to spell, and to craft sentences and paragraphs.
 
Last edited:
amicus said:
When a nation has been attacked and is at war, the 'rule of engagement', reflect, but do not mirror, the basic premises of that nation. You in your supreme wisdom, may have a post 9/11 strategy that is politically correct to world opinion...that was not the intent of the body politic in the United States.
The US invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. To claim a connection based on what we know today is ridicules.
 
Pure said:
ami,
i doubt there are any laws regarding showing of deaths or dead bodies, simply rules of 'good taste' and 'courtesy' voluntarily adhered to by most news orgs (and NOT some of the seamier newspapers).

in any case, charges of treason against liberals are pretty commonplace in the looney right. (and CNN are, imo, scarcely 'liberals' despite their recent criticisms of Bush. the last show i saw, the commentator called for voting against all incumbents)

Pure,
There is an agreement with all the news agencies to NOT show either soldiers being killed, mutilated bodies or identifiable corpses. This video has gotten a lot of negative press and, maybe, rightly so. Tucker Carlson had a different view. He asked, "Was it right to show the video?" and at the same time praised CNN for the preamble before showing it. In that introduction CNN explained that the film was cruel and nothing more than a propoganda film for the "insurgents". In that they were correct, but I still question the advisability of showing the video in full.

That said, I agree the showing, though in bad tastes does not constitute anything approaching treason. Why? Did the showing have the intent of overthrowing the U.S. Government? Did the showing have the intent of raising insurrection? I don't think so, therefore, this is not treason.
 
There is an agreement with all the news agencies to NOT show either soldiers being killed, mutilated bodies or identifiable corpses

i believe so; nor are returning coffins shown. the war has been sanitized; i'd argue that the press's hewing to the White House wishes is arguably unethical for journalists and immoral.

i wonder how todays 'rules' compare with WWII rules?
 
Pure said:
There is an agreement with all the news agencies to NOT show either soldiers being killed, mutilated bodies or identifiable corpses

i believe so; nor are returning coffins shown. the war has been sanitized; i'd argue that the press's hewing to the White House wishes is arguably unethical for journalists and immoral.

i wonder how todays 'rules' compare with WWII rules?
I'm not sure the two wars are comparable. There were film crews during WWII but they were restricted to "secure areas". Even the famous marine flag raising picture was staged later. Then there was the film processing time followed by strong censorship.

The German Army Photography Corps was much more active but had a strong propaganda aspect. Generally on all sides were pictures of explosions, troops and (unidentifiable) bodies after the actions ended (note the floating bodies at the Normandy beach landing and the dying on the decks during the Battle of the Coral Sea).

On the other hand, Iraq is a totally different technology. The videos are transmitted within minutes of the happening and replayed on CNN within a few hours. Censorship is restictive but in a different way. Iraq is much more visible in the media, but the stories are directed by military command due to the placement of the journalists in areas of little activity.

The problem, as I see it with Iraq, is that the fighting is sporadic and spread over a huge area. In WWII battle lines were drawn and great armies clashed. The press knew where the attack was going to be. That's a very different thing than Iraq.

Secondly, war is long periods of tedious waiting followed by very short periods of fighting. It's the job of the press (as they see it) to keep the interest of the public. For a long time that has meant using action video clips from insurgents (remember the car bomb clips last spring?).
 
Pure said:
There is an agreement with all the news agencies to NOT show either soldiers being killed, mutilated bodies or identifiable corpses

i believe so; nor are returning coffins shown. the war has been sanitized; i'd argue that the press's hewing to the White House wishes is arguably unethical for journalists and immoral.

i wonder how todays 'rules' compare with WWII rules?


Pure

Is this true? Returning coffins are not shown?

All the major land based Uk TV channels ( BBC, ITV, Ch4, Ch5) show the return of dead UK soldiers. Normally as the lead item.
It seems 'right' that soldiers killed in the service of the country are given the respect they are due (whether you believe in the reasons for them being in Iraq or not).

And ami, I'm not a dictionary( my kids think I am). I wouldn't insult your intelligence by defining such terms. There is no need to.


I believe in the power of grey TRUTH! :)
 
kendo1 said:
Is this true? Returning coffins are not shown?
Yes, this is the policy of the Bush administration. I don't remember now if they restricted the access of journalists or only granted them access with the agreement they not photograph the coffins. None-the-less, photos of the coffins returning from Iraq or Afghanistan are not allowed.
 
Land of the Free.
Free speech.


I plead the Fifth.

There would be an outcry at such censorship here.
In the land of Censorship. :rolleyes: :)
 
??

A few days ago a Coroner investigating the death of an ITV (British) journalist in Iraq determined in his verdict that he had been "unlawfully killed" by a US Marine. It will be interesting to know whether that has been reported in the USA and whether there are any further legal developments. Sorry but I cannot find a link to the story at the moment.
 
amicus said:
Oblimo, you are basically expressing a tautology, an useless expression of doubt without foundation.
That's not what "tautology" means.

A "tautology" is a proposition that is true by definition of its terms, regardless of the truth value of its terms (or a redundancy, such as "tuna fish salad" instead of "tuna salad"). An example you might be familiar with: "A=A".

You in your supreme wisdom, may have a post 9/11 strategy that is politically correct to world opinion...that was not the intent of the body politic in the United States It was not just President Bush, his administration, his cabinet, but the entire Congress of the United States of America and by that, the American people that set forth to right the wrong of the cowards who took innocent life in the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the aircraft involved..

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here but if you want know what Congress' intent was when they authorized the use of armed forces in Iraq, you can read it: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

I am sure you would have talked the perpetrators to death had you the opportunity.

When we were negotiating with the Taliban, I called my congressman's office and told him I would support the use of armed forces in Afghanistan. I still do. When we had Bin Laden pinned down in the caves or Tora Bora, my reaction was: good, nuke it. Wasn't Tora Bora the exact situation for which we developed bunker busters?

I said you were expressing a tautology, you are basically just an asshole who has no understanding of anything, but I was being kind.

You were being a man without a dictionary.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top