The true story of Kevin Sites 99 replies

Please wait...

Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,261 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

As embedded journalist Kevin Sites last year november filmed how a American in Fallujah marine shot dead a wounded unarmed Irakian insurgent. His images went across the whole globe, though not everywer the full version was shown. Now Sites no longer is embedded the true background of this incident can be told . Shock Some channels, among them Sites owns NBC, decided not to show the shooting themselfs because it was said to be too shocking. Ofcourse the report caused a flood of disbelief/shock. The army kept claiming the soldier shot out of self defence and thus acted according to the ‘rules of engagement’. The person might have had a boobytrap on him. "My responsibility" Sites had a though one on his material. "My stomach turned over". "I didnt found it nice material, i knew exactly what it was: something that rarely is filmed in wars". For some time he considered destroying the material. "When he was for my own eyes and camera was murdered, the story behind his death became my responsibility" he said in his web-log. Verzachtende omstandigheden In his report he tried to bring up as many points as possible to soften the surrounding condistions. Still in the eyes of many Americans he betrayed hsi country by earing the material. He received thousands og hate mails and dead treats. selfdefence After five months of investigation the marine went out free because he had acted out of selfdefence. Now Sites no longer is embedded he wants to show the whole story. Including the material he made earlier showing the whole incident from an other perspective. One day earlier The American marines entered the same mosque one day earlier. Ten out of fifteen insurgents died in this action. THe rest was disarmed and the wounded stayed behind. The next day the marines found the same wounded inthe mosque. Then an American marine shot dead an insurgent infront of the camera. The report contains an eyewithness reports of Sites and the by him filmed material. The videoreport (partly dutch but the report itself is in english, check it out!): simply go here and then chose "smallband" or "broadband" source: http://www.netwerk.tv/index.jsp?p=items&r=deze_week&a=172263 Sites website: http://www.kevinsites.net/ ---------- What do you think of this action? Yes i know we spoke about this before when it first saw the news but i like to discus it again with this new and more complete material. You can probably guess my fewpoint upon this but i wont join in the discussion till some replies have been made.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,814 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,996 Posts

6 Threads

#2 13 years ago

Maybe you know the picture where a Vietnamese soldier is shooting someone who looks like a civlian in the head? This also went through the media much like this case and most people never learned that this civilist was actually an officer who just shot several other people. What I want to say is: You can never get the whole picture from a media-report. You can be sure that they will present the pictures in such a way that many people will be shocked. Lets just say that war is an altogether stupid idea which should be avoided at all costs. Crimes will be comitted by both sides in every war. Accepting war means accepting that such incidents will happen, so avoiding war seems like a good idea to me.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

News story recently, that the investigation about the Marine shooting the "wounded" terrorist was wraped up. The Marine was cleared of any wrongdoing.

It would make me sick if he was found guilty of "murder" or something like that. In a war you cant dictate the quick-thinking actions of a soldier in Combat. You trained em and you need to trust em.




Crimson Dave

Debaser

50 XP

26th October 2004

0 Uploads

215 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago

Kevin Carter? anyone know about him?




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,261 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago

The video is up, simply go to http://www.netwerk.tv/index.jsp?p=items&r=deze_week&a=172263 and then pick either smalband (smallband) or breedband (broadband). The first minute is in dutch, but the rest is all more or less in english. for those who still has no clue what this is about here a gentile hint: marine_shoots_wounded_iraqi.jpg we all saw what happend next...




Nederbörd

Has mutated into a Lurker

50 XP

13th March 2005

0 Uploads

1,848 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago

Well, it's a war right? And both sides will always at some point commit crimes such as this right? However (I hope I'm not flaming anybody here, please notify me if I do), what I've seen is how American politicians are talking about the good intentions of liberation from dictature and instituting democracy and ''We fight for freedom'' things. When I hear that I always think of the soldiers like somewhat civilised who follow the ''rules of war'' and and kind and gentle and ditten och datten. While I think of the other side (Saddam's Iraq in this case) as cruel and vicious and evil with no respect for peoples lives etc. etc. Everytime I hear thiss I always expect the ''good'' side to act right and the ''bad'' side to act wrong. Maybe it's because of this that I (or other people) get more irritated of when a democratic state does some thing wrong then when a dictators state does it. Cause I expect more of the side who preaches about freedom and all that. If for example France would do that I would get pissed of at them instead. Or Germany, Holland, Sweden, Norway Austria, South Korea. If any democratic state would do that I would get pissed off at it. But when a dictatorship does it I don't get that angry. I don't know exactly why though. Man this post makes me feel strange. I hope I just didn't write a truckload of flummy stuff right now.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,291 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,141 Posts

5 Threads

#7 13 years ago

What exactly is the problem here? When you go to war you must be prepared for the fact that you might die. These people went to war with us; the minute they picked up a gun and pointed it at a British soldier or American marine they forfeited the part of their rights that said 'life.' No prisoners is a perfectly acceptable policy. War is not a pretty thing, we don't play it for pleasure or the praise of those back home. You fight to win, anything else is a waste of time. These people are the enemy, in war you kill your enemies and destroy their ability to make war. I'd much rather see them shot a few times in Iraq than shipped of to Guantanamo or somewhere where they can waste our resources. These people need to learn that if you point a gun at one of our soldiers we aren't going to pat you on the back after you've lost and give you a drink and a nice hot meal. War does not work that way, it's not a game of cowboys and Indians where when you lose it's all forgotten, no harm, no foul. People die in war, get used to it.




Mephistopheles

IME and myself

50 XP

28th December 2004

0 Uploads

2,054 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago

Interesting news, Dönitz. Last time this subject came up I was already thinking: "Damned, maybe you would have done the same thing in this situtation if you were a soldier." But now, after the release of the complete video (and audio) footage, we see that it was really an execution. Nevertheless we don't see what the victim had done or wanted to do. But in the end it wouldn't justify the execution.

MrFancypants[...] You can never get the whole picture from a media-report. You can be sure that they will present the pictures in such a way that many people will be shocked. Lets just say that war is an altogether stupid idea which should be avoided at all costs. Crimes will be comitted by both sides in every war. Accepting war means accepting that such incidents will happen, so avoiding war seems like a good idea to me.[/QUOTE] bgood.gif [QUOTE=NiteStryker]News story recently, that the investigation about the Marine shooting the "wounded" terrorist was wraped up. The Marine was cleared of any wrongdoing.

And WHO was responsible for the investigation? The US Military roll%20eyes%20(sarcastic).gif. But no, the US Military wouldn't do anything wrong, right?




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,261 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago
NemmerleWhat exactly is the problem here?

What about you take out a group of unsurgents, take away their arms, tend to their wounded a bit then leave them be to be picked up my backup troops (all very good up to here) then return the followingday and shoot them (the one shot on tape is 1 out 4 for that was shot when the marine returned) with only 1 survivor... ? You do NOT simply walk in and shoot somebody that is wounded and you disarmed the previous day. Especially not when you walk in and you still can not find any guns on them as expected. And the worst thing is that the marines didnt even got punished for this. If it were 5 american marines who would be "taken out" aka wounded badly, be disarmed and left only to get shot at point blank range the next day people would be screaming all over the place telling to hang all iraqies, cut off the balls of insurgents etc.

These people are the enemy, in war you kill your enemies and destroy their ability to make war.

wrong, your goal is to stop the enemy, this CAN be done by shooting, wounding them so they can no longer fight, force them to retreat (not the best option thogh since they will return) or to surrender (and they did). Those marines killed 4 wounded unarmed insurgents. And no i dont think all these insurgents are innocent people who like to trow flowers and the american soldier, but i do know that there is no reason to kill people that surrendered to you. If the roles were swapped the insurgents would me labeled as fucking inhuman nazi dogs.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,291 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,141 Posts

5 Threads

#10 13 years ago
Großadmiral DönitzWhat about you take out a group of unsurgents, take away their arms, tend to their wounded a bit then leave them be to be picked up my backup troops (all very good up to here) then return the followingday and shoot them (the one shot on tape is 1 out 4 for that was shot when the marine returned) with only 1 survivor... ? [/QUOTE] Then my only mistake would have been in tending to their wounds in the first place and not simply shooting them there and then.
Großadmiral DönitzYou do NOT simply walk in and shoot somebody that is wounded and you disarmed the previous day. Especially not when you walk in and you still can not find any guns on them as expected. [/QUOTE] Why? Not any of this moralistic preaching claptrap about it simply being wrong because it is. Why?
Großadmiral DönitzAnd the worst thing is that the marines didnt even got punished for this. If it were 5 american marines who would be "taken out" aka wounded badly, be disarmed and left only to get shot at point blank range the next day people would be screaming all over the place telling to hang all iraqies, cut off the balls of insurgents etc.
And people would be wrong. Beheading civilians, that's wrong, burrning someone alive for the fun of it, that's wrong. This is war, if you go to war you accept that risk, I wont say it's right but it isn't wrong. [QUOTE=Großadmiral Dönitz]wrong, your goal is to stop the enemy, this CAN be done by shooting, wounding them so they can no longer fight, force them to retreat (not the best option thogh since they will return) or to surrender (and they did). Those marines killed 4 wounded unarmed insurgents.
If you take someone captive you still have not stopped the enemy, we are at war here, war is about resources and men and maneuvering and a whole host of other things. Prisoners cost money, while these people live in your custody they are still fighting you, they are a drain upon your resources and are hurting your ability to wage war. War isn't just about who has a gun, shooting these men makes sound tactical sense. [QUOTE=Großadmiral Dönitz]And no i dont think all these insurgents are innocent people who like to trow flowers and the american soldier, but i do know that there is no reason to kill people that surrendered to you. If the roles were swapped the insurgents would me labeled as fucking inhuman nazi dogs.

Not by me they wouldn't. There is reason to kill people who surrender to you, when people surrender they instantly become a burden to you if you take them prisoner, you have to feed them from your food, treat them with your medical supplies, transport them on your vehicles with your fuel, guard them with extra troops, detain them in extra facilities. Being taken captive is one of the most hurtful things an enemy can do to your war effort.