thedrifter
11-05-06, 06:20 PM
New York Times.....whatever!
By Major Pain at BlackfiveDotNet
November 04, 2006
The New York Times ran a story on the front page of their newspaper on Nov 4th. It showed a wounded Marine in the street covered with blood which had been hit by sniper fire.
That's just great. That's how I would like to find out or possibly see my kid wounded in the streets of Iraq. Here sat a NYT reporter clicking away his camera while the warrior bled in the mud. The story continued on how the Marine squad was hit by sniper fire and painted a picture of how the Marines were exploited by the sniper. This rates up there with CNN airing the footage of scumbags video of them sniping our men. Criminal! First you're aiding and abetting the enemy. I'm sure they would argue about the "reporting the news" factor about it. OK, report about the good they are doing. But no, they know the picture will sell papers and they could care less about how affects the Marines family.
The article continues to tell a story about how American fighters fear the snipers. Sure, they fear mortar attacks and the big rats too. However they try to describe how the forces are hindered by the enemy snipers. Wrong. The bad guys have snipers. We have snipers. Our snipers hunt theirs and why don't we see story's about that? The enemy snipers are good shooters at best. Although since the technique has been an effective physical and psychological weapon since it was developed it works on both sides of the war. Why doesn't the NYT interview an insurgent fighter and ask him about our sniper impacts. That would probably put out a different message than they want to push.
By Major Pain at BlackfiveDotNet
November 04, 2006
The New York Times ran a story on the front page of their newspaper on Nov 4th. It showed a wounded Marine in the street covered with blood which had been hit by sniper fire.
That's just great. That's how I would like to find out or possibly see my kid wounded in the streets of Iraq. Here sat a NYT reporter clicking away his camera while the warrior bled in the mud. The story continued on how the Marine squad was hit by sniper fire and painted a picture of how the Marines were exploited by the sniper. This rates up there with CNN airing the footage of scumbags video of them sniping our men. Criminal! First you're aiding and abetting the enemy. I'm sure they would argue about the "reporting the news" factor about it. OK, report about the good they are doing. But no, they know the picture will sell papers and they could care less about how affects the Marines family.
The article continues to tell a story about how American fighters fear the snipers. Sure, they fear mortar attacks and the big rats too. However they try to describe how the forces are hindered by the enemy snipers. Wrong. The bad guys have snipers. We have snipers. Our snipers hunt theirs and why don't we see story's about that? The enemy snipers are good shooters at best. Although since the technique has been an effective physical and psychological weapon since it was developed it works on both sides of the war. Why doesn't the NYT interview an insurgent fighter and ask him about our sniper impacts. That would probably put out a different message than they want to push.