Two Die in Afghan Raid to Free Seized Reporter

[Sidestreamer]

What I am saying is it's a soldier's job to defend the lives of his nation's civilians, or his allies in this case.

And you know what you implied is that you'd expect them to save anyone else but if it happens to be a New York Times reporter that person isn't worth a mission. Should I speculate on why you are making an exception for a NYT reporter?

don't speculate. I'll tell you. The NYT isn't known for being pro soldier.. A lot of negativity from the NYT about American's finest.. Remember GENERAL BETRAYUS?

Wow. So save only those who aren't critical of the military and let the rest rot (forget the fact that you're just screaming a right-wing talking point against the media). You're using your First Amendment rights to piss on the First Amendment I suppose.

Oh, and check this shit out.

The Times kept the kidnappings quiet out of concern for the men's safety, and other media outlets, including The Associated Press, did not report the abductions following a request from the Times.

The AP did not report the abductions following a request from the TImes.. Is that the same AP who published the picture of the dead soldier? against the wishes of his family?? Pretty much spitting in the eye of the family of the dead soldier? Why yes I think it is.. I thought the public had a right to know? We can scream HYPOCRITE NOW.

I was conflicted on the printing myself, but this is apples and doorknobs. Lance Cpl. Bernard was dead, and photo or no photo there was no changing that. The reporter isn't and his translator wasn't at the time. Besides the point, the New York Times is not the Associated Press. The NYT didn't make that decision on Bernard's photo.

 

[WillowTree]

What I am saying is it's a soldier's job to defend the lives of his nation's civilians, or his allies in this case.

And you know what you implied is that you'd expect them to save anyone else but if it happens to be a New York Times reporter that person isn't worth a mission. Should I speculate on why you are making an exception for a NYT reporter?

don't speculate. I'll tell you. The NYT isn't known for being pro soldier.. A lot of negativity from the NYT about American's finest.. Remember GENERAL BETRAYUS?

Wow. So save only those who aren't critical of the military and let the rest rot (forget the fact that you're just screaming a right-wing talking point against the media). You're using your First Amendment rights to piss on the First Amendment I suppose.

Oh, and check this shit out.

The Times kept the kidnappings quiet out of concern for the men's safety, and other media outlets, including The Associated Press, did not report the abductions following a request from the Times.

The AP did not report the abductions following a request from the TImes.. Is that the same AP who published the picture of the dead soldier? against the wishes of his family?? Pretty much spitting in the eye of the family of the dead soldier? Why yes I think it is.. I thought the public had a right to know? We can scream HYPOCRITE NOW.

I was conflicted on the printing myself, but this is apples and doorknobs. Lance Cpl. Bernard was dead, and photo or no photo there was no changing that. The reporter isn't and his translator wasn't at the time. Besides the point, the New York Times is not the Associated Press. The NYT didn't make that decision on Bernard's photo.

Our soldiers are not just disposable throw away people. They are real people with real live and real families.. They should not have to give their lives so some reporter can get a story. Maybe it's time reporters started giving a second thought to whom they might place in danger.

 

[Sidestreamer]

... I figured as much. The moment an American picks up a notepad and a voice recorder he's worth throwing away over there to you?[/QUOTE

so in your view he was worth saving at the sacrifice of the other two..

What I am saying is it's a soldier's job to defend the lives of his nation's civilians, or his allies in this case.

And you know what you implied is that you'd expect them to save anyone else but if it happens to be a New York Times reporter that person isn't worth a mission. Should I speculate on why you are making an exception for a NYT reporter?

The reporter is British, even though he works for the NYT.

Not that that matters...how sad that the soldier died, I hope his family is comforted that he died doing his job and saving another.

Ah. I stand corrected then. So the British was saving one of its own citizens. That actually makes more sense.

 

[WillowTree]

What I am saying is it's a soldier's job to defend the lives of his nation's civilians, or his allies in this case.

And you know what you implied is that you'd expect them to save anyone else but if it happens to be a New York Times reporter that person isn't worth a mission. Should I speculate on why you are making an exception for a NYT reporter?

don't speculate. I'll tell you. The NYT isn't known for being pro soldier.. A lot of negativity from the NYT about American's finest.. Remember GENERAL BETRAYUS?

Wow. So save only those who aren't critical of the military and let the rest rot (forget the fact that you're just screaming a right-wing talking point against the media). You're using your First Amendment rights to piss on the First Amendment I suppose.

Oh, and check this shit out.

The Times kept the kidnappings quiet out of concern for the men's safety, and other media outlets, including The Associated Press, did not report the abductions following a request from the Times.

The AP did not report the abductions following a request from the TImes.. Is that the same AP who published the picture of the dead soldier? against the wishes of his family?? Pretty much spitting in the eye of the family of the dead soldier? Why yes I think it is.. I thought the public had a right to know? We can scream HYPOCRITE NOW.

I was conflicted on the printing myself, but this is apples and doorknobs. Lance Cpl. Bernard was dead, and photo or no photo there was no changing that. The reporter isn't and his translator wasn't at the time. Besides the point, the New York Times is not the Associated Press. The NYT didn't make that decision on Bernard's photo.

that's what I said,, the AP gave deference to the NYT and held back a story,, wouldn't give the soldiers family the time a day.. What happened to the public has a right to know?

 

[Sidestreamer]

don't speculate. I'll tell you. The NYT isn't known for being pro soldier.. A lot of negativity from the NYT about American's finest.. Remember GENERAL BETRAYUS?

Wow. So save only those who aren't critical of the military and let the rest rot (forget the fact that you're just screaming a right-wing talking point against the media). You're using your First Amendment rights to piss on the First Amendment I suppose.

Oh, and check this shit out.

[/B]







The AP did not report the abductions following a request from the TImes.. Is that the same AP who published the picture of the dead soldier? against the wishes of his family?? Pretty much spitting in the eye of the family of the dead soldier? Why yes I think it is.. I thought the public had a right to know? We can scream HYPOCRITE NOW.

I was conflicted on the printing myself, but this is apples and doorknobs. Lance Cpl. Bernard was dead, and photo or no photo there was no changing that. The reporter isn't and his translator wasn't at the time. Besides the point, the New York Times is not the Associated Press. The NYT didn't make that decision on Bernard's photo.

Our soldiers are not just disposable throw away people. They are real people with real live and real families.. They should not have to give their lives so some reporter can get a story. Maybe it's time reporters started giving a second thought to whom they might place in danger.

We could extend that argument and say a contractor should not be working in a warzone, or the civilians and children in Afghanistan need to stay well out of the Taliban's way. Doesn't happen though. Are we going to blame all them for putting themselves in danger and asking the military to save their asses?

Or for that matter, should we bother sending ambulances to people that get into accidents? That trip is a risk, driving fast enough so that the victim can reach the hospital in time to get stitched up and avoid some fatal infection or amputation or whatnot. But it was their damn fault so why should we put an EMT's safety at risk rushing them to the hospital?

Not sure I like the logic here.

 

[WillowTree]

Wow. So save only those who aren't critical of the military and let the rest rot (forget the fact that you're just screaming a right-wing talking point against the media). You're using your First Amendment rights to piss on the First Amendment I suppose.


I was conflicted on the printing myself, but this is apples and doorknobs. Lance Cpl. Bernard was dead, and photo or no photo there was no changing that. The reporter isn't and his translator wasn't at the time. Besides the point, the New York Times is not the Associated Press. The NYT didn't make that decision on Bernard's photo.

Our soldiers are not just disposable throw away people. They are real people with real live and real families.. They should not have to give their lives so some reporter can get a story. Maybe it's time reporters started giving a second thought to whom they might place in danger.

We could extend that argument and say a contractor should not be working in a warzone, or the civilians and children in Afghanistan need to stay well out of the Taliban's way. Doesn't happen though. Are we going to blame all them for putting themselves in danger and asking the military to save their asses?

Or for that matter, should we bother sending ambulances to people that get into accidents? That trip is a risk, driving fast enough so that the victim can reach the hospital in time to get stitched up and avoid some fatal infection or amputation or whatnot. But it was their damn fault so why should we put an EMT's safety at risk rushing them to the hospital?

Not sure I like the logic here.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS tttttttttttttt rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee tttttttttttttttttttt ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Ravi]

What I am saying is it's a soldier's job to defend the lives of his nation's civilians, or his allies in this case.

And you know what you implied is that you'd expect them to save anyone else but if it happens to be a New York Times reporter that person isn't worth a mission. Should I speculate on why you are making an exception for a NYT reporter?

The reporter is British, even though he works for the NYT.

Not that that matters...how sad that the soldier died, I hope his family is comforted that he died doing his job and saving another.

Ah. I stand corrected then. So the British was saving one of its own citizens. That actually makes more sense.

I don't think it would have mattered to the British soldiers. Allies are allies and I don't think they stopped to consider the man's nationality.

I imagine if the guy worked for FOX Willow would be dancing a different tune.

 

[Sidestreamer]

don't speculate. I'll tell you. The NYT isn't known for being pro soldier.. A lot of negativity from the NYT about American's finest.. Remember GENERAL BETRAYUS?

Wow. So save only those who aren't critical of the military and let the rest rot (forget the fact that you're just screaming a right-wing talking point against the media). You're using your First Amendment rights to piss on the First Amendment I suppose.

Oh, and check this shit out.

[/B]







The AP did not report the abductions following a request from the TImes.. Is that the same AP who published the picture of the dead soldier? against the wishes of his family?? Pretty much spitting in the eye of the family of the dead soldier? Why yes I think it is.. I thought the public had a right to know? We can scream HYPOCRITE NOW.

I was conflicted on the printing myself, but this is apples and doorknobs. Lance Cpl. Bernard was dead, and photo or no photo there was no changing that. The reporter isn't and his translator wasn't at the time. Besides the point, the New York Times is not the Associated Press. The NYT didn't make that decision on Bernard's photo.

that's what I said,, the AP gave deference to the NYT and held back a story,, wouldn't give the soldiers family the time a day.. What happened to the public has a right to know?

I'd have to look back at other hostage stories to see how the AP and NYT covered them. Right now though I'm starting to fall asleep on the keyboard... I'd like to think since they argued this was a case of someone being in imminent danger info might have been withheld in other hostage situations. I know most papers won't identify rape victims even if they get a hold of their names for instance... but I see your point.

 

[WillowTree]

The reporter is British, even though he works for the NYT.

Not that that matters...how sad that the soldier died, I hope his family is comforted that he died doing his job and saving another.

Ah. I stand corrected then. So the British was saving one of its own citizens. That actually makes more sense.

I don't think it would have mattered to the British soldiers. Allies are allies and I don't think they stopped to consider the man's nationality.

I imagine if the guy worked for FOX Willow would be dancing a different tune.

stay off the mushrooms, your imagination will enter reality. maybe.

 

[Sidestreamer]

Our soldiers are not just disposable throw away people. They are real people with real live and real families.. They should not have to give their lives so some reporter can get a story. Maybe it's time reporters started giving a second thought to whom they might place in danger.

We could extend that argument and say a contractor should not be working in a warzone, or the civilians and children in Afghanistan need to stay well out of the Taliban's way. Doesn't happen though. Are we going to blame all them for putting themselves in danger and asking the military to save their asses?

Or for that matter, should we bother sending ambulances to people that get into accidents? That trip is a risk, driving fast enough so that the victim can reach the hospital in time to get stitched up and avoid some fatal infection or amputation or whatnot. But it was their damn fault so why should we put an EMT's safety at risk rushing them to the hospital?

Not sure I like the logic here.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS tttttttttttttt rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee tttttttttttttttttttt ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It's not really. Officers put themselves on the line all the time dealing with family violence cases, some get shot and usually these issues wouldn't even happen if one of the family members just learned to get out of the damn relationship.

You're falsely arguing reporters are the only people in war zones that voluntarily get themselves in harm's way, aside from the soldiers themselves.

 

[WillowTree]

We could extend that argument and say a contractor should not be working in a warzone, or the civilians and children in Afghanistan need to stay well out of the Taliban's way. Doesn't happen though. Are we going to blame all them for putting themselves in danger and asking the military to save their asses?

Or for that matter, should we bother sending ambulances to people that get into accidents? That trip is a risk, driving fast enough so that the victim can reach the hospital in time to get stitched up and avoid some fatal infection or amputation or whatnot. But it was their damn fault so why should we put an EMT's safety at risk rushing them to the hospital?

Not sure I like the logic here.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS tttttttttttttt rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee tttttttttttttttttttt ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It's not really. Officers put themselves on the line all the time dealing with family violence cases, some get shot and usually these issues wouldn't even happen if one of the family members just learned to get out of the damn relationship.

You're falsely arguing reporters are the only people in war zones that voluntarily get themselves in harm's way, aside from the soldiers themselves.

you'll have to show me where I said that.

 

[Sidestreamer]

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS tttttttttttttt rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee tttttttttttttttttttt ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It's not really. Officers put themselves on the line all the time dealing with family violence cases, some get shot and usually these issues wouldn't even happen if one of the family members just learned to get out of the damn relationship.

You're falsely arguing reporters are the only people in war zones that voluntarily get themselves in harm's way, aside from the soldiers themselves.

you'll have to show me where I said that.

So if you're not saying that then why the exception for reporters?

They are real people with real live and real families.. They should not have to give their lives so some reporter can get a story. Maybe it's time reporters started giving a second thought to whom they might place in danger.

 

[Sidestreamer]

I'll continue this tonight... I was up way too late.

 

[WillowTree]

It's not really. Officers put themselves on the line all the time dealing with family violence cases, some get shot and usually these issues wouldn't even happen if one of the family members just learned to get out of the damn relationship.

You're falsely arguing reporters are the only people in war zones that voluntarily get themselves in harm's way, aside from the soldiers themselves.

you'll have to show me where I said that.

So if you're not saying that then why the exception for reporters?

They are real people with real live and real families.. They should not have to give their lives so some reporter can get a story. Maybe it's time reporters started giving a second thought to whom they might place in danger.

because this story was about reporters wasn't it? and they are not there as a necessity, they are there to get a story. a good many of the other people you mentioned serve a backup function to the military. so you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[xotoxi]

Not for a reporter... how about any other civilian? How about a child? How about an Afghan civilian? A diplomat? A contractor? A soldier?

anybody but a NYT reporter.

By that comment you just spit on the brave soldiers who are over there or getting ready to go over there Willow.

SHAME ON YOU!

I agree...she's a blind partisan WHORE!

 

[WillowTree]

terrible waste of a good soldier.

 

[xotoxi]

terrible waste of a good soldier.

Why?

Because they were trying to save a civilian hostage?

Do you think that the enemy should just be able to take civilians hostage and we just throw our hands in the air and say" "OH WELL!"?

If you do, then you are siding with the enemy.

 

[Ravi]

terrible waste of a good soldier.

Why?

Because they were trying to save a civilian hostage?

Do you think that the enemy should just be able to take civilians hostage and we just throw our hands in the air and say" "OH WELL!"?

If you do, then you are siding with the enemy.

She was probably thrilled when reporter Daniel Pearl was beheaded.

 

[Ravi]

terrible waste of a good soldier.

Why?

Because they were trying to save a civilian hostage?

Do you think that the enemy should just be able to take civilians hostage and we just throw our hands in the air and say" "OH WELL!"?

If you do, then you are siding with the enemy.

She was probably thrilled when reporter Daniel Pearl was beheaded.

Oh, wait. I was wrong. Here she seems to care about her fellow Americans. Maybe because Pearl worked for the WSJ.

THE DANIEL PEARL BEHEADING VIDEO

Graphic, but fast. Frankly, there are worse ways to die.

I sure as hell can't think of any.. other than burning to death or jumping from 110 stories to my death. I can't for the life of me understand why you lefties wish that on your fellow countrymen.. cause you know the terrorists want to do it bigger and badder.. but you choose to be "good"

 

[bodecea]

Not for a reporter... how about any other civilian? How about a child? How about an Afghan civilian? A diplomat? A contractor? A soldier?

anybody but a NYT reporter.

... I figured as much. The moment an American picks up a notepad and a voice recorder he's worth throwing away over there to you?

Certainly. Some are more equal than others, eh?