Yes, a sniper in the US military deploying to a war zone and performing the duty he was trained for is "going on killing sprees" according to one MSNBC "journalist."
With "media" like this, it's no wonder this country is going down the tubes.
Damn, some people will do anything to draw attention to themselves, killing sprees !!!! How in the hell is following orders/protecting your brothers in arms a killing spree ???
The Station Manager should have cut the feed from his Microphone and had the guy escorted off the set.
Just my opinion, but I am surprised Kyle was not recommended by the Navy Seals to the President, to be considered for the Congressional Metal Of Honor. The lives he saved greatly outnumber the enemy lives to took, which was an incredible number.
Originally posted by Formula88: With "media" like this, it's no wonder this country is going down the tubes.
NBC hired that journalist away from CNN, ... who got him from Al Jazeera America. While at Al Jazeera America he wrote a column saying that not only was he to report news for the Arabic audience, that he felt a duty to take their side.
Originally posted by dratts: Compared to say "Fox truth"?
Uh, yeah. You are right though. There is no truth. Who is more truthful ? Comparisons can be made. Comparisons. Nobama, his regime, will avoid Fox scrutiny. Something to hide ? A regime which hides behind softball interviews ? A regime which proclaimed the strategy of controlling the press. Who do you trust ?
Compared to say "Fox truth"? I say again, you can't trust any of them.
Always you try to divert attention away to something else. Nowhere have I said Fox is the end all, be all in honest reporting. YOU bring it up as if to explain away the comments on MSNBC. 'Well, everyone does it, so what does it matter?'
That's a recurring theme with you. You never just agree or disagree with a point - you always have to bring up something unrelated as if that explains or excuses the topic of discussion. Do you actually believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, or is it all relative to whatever someone else is doing?
Always you try to divert attention away to something else. Nowhere have I said Fox is the end all, be all in honest reporting. YOU bring it up as if to explain away the comments on MSNBC. 'Well, everyone does it, so what does it matter?'
That's a recurring theme with you. You never just agree or disagree with a point - you always have to bring up something unrelated as if that explains or excuses the topic of discussion. Do you actually believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, or is it all relative to whatever someone else is doing?
I am just guessing that "fair and balanced" is your news source. "Everyone does it so what does it matter" isn't what I said. That's a long ways from my take. My opinion on the news is pretty much the same as my opinion on the political parties. We are being fed crap by the news and the parties. Apparently you see anything that doesn't support the right as support for the left. I have a very good friend who gets all of his news from fox and he thinks that he is well informed. I use every available source and try to decipher what might be true. It's hard and I don't know how good at it I am. There are lots of people who are way smarter than me. You're probably one of them but that doesn't mean that you are right 100% of the time. I don't know anyone who is. This isn't deflection. It's just me posting whatever comes into my mind. Oh crap! I've missed the start of the game. Later.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-01-2015).]
I am just guessing that "fair and balanced" is your news source.
I read a lot of news sources, including Fox. But I'm not the one talking about Fox - you are.
quote
Originally posted by dratts: "Everyone does it so what does it matter" isn't what I said.
That's why I used single quotes ' instead of double ". It wasn't a direct quote, but it effectively describes the point you communicate.
quote
Originally posted by dratts:
That's a long ways from my take. My opinion on the news is pretty much the same as my opinion on the political parties.
As I said - you always want to point out what someone ELSE is doing as if it is relevant.
quote
Originally posted by dratts: Apparently you see anything that doesn't support the right as support for the left.
I'm less concerned with right and left than I am right and wrong. Calling a soldier performing his designated duty going on "killing sprees" is not in any way shape or form truthful, accurate or right. It's an attack on the person and his service. Last I checked, our armed forces allows both Democrats and Republicans to serve.
quote
Originally posted by dratts:There are lots of people who are way smarter than me. You're probably one of them but that doesn't mean that you are right 100% of the time. I don't know anyone who is. This isn't deflection. It's just me posting whatever comes into my mind. Oh crap! I've missed the start of the game. Later.
I'm not claiming to be right about anything. I posted a commentary that I found irresponsible - that's my opinion. You are free to disagree with that opinion. You didn't answer my question about whether you believe there is such a thing as right and wrong - but I see you have more important things to do. There's a game on. At least you're open about where your priorities lie. Enjoy the game. I'm sure you're rooting for both teams, since they're all the same.
My problem with the guy is his statement about Chris Kyle's attitude towards Muslims being racist. Do these people who make statements like that even realize that Muslim/Islam is NOT a race. When I fill out a form and it asks me to fill in my race, I don't write down Christian or American. Muslim/Islam is a religion, not a race.
What does he think soldiers do while out on patrol... traipse through the countryside singing battle hymns? Of course our troops kill people. That's an integral part of armed conflict. And it just so happens that most (if not all) of the combatants our troops have been facing in Iraq are Arabic and/or Muslim. And by the way, those Arabic and/or Muslim bad guys are trying to kill our troops. So of course our troops are going to feel animosity toward them. DUHHH...
I'm not claiming to be right about anything. I posted a commentary that I found irresponsible - that's my opinion. You are free to disagree with that opinion. You didn't answer my question about whether you believe there is such a thing as right and wrong - but I see you have more important things to do. There's a game on. At least you're open about where your priorities lie. Enjoy the game. I'm sure you're rooting for both teams, since they're all the same.
Game over. I'll try to address all your concerns. First I learned something from you. The quote marks. I won't try to change your mind on anything. I think that you are very secure in your beliefs and anyway I've been wrong lots of times. We both got sidetracked here. I was responding to a remark that was made about msnbc, not attacking Kyle. I backed off my opinion of snipers in a different thread. I hadn't realized the risk that a sniper takes or how much of a target they become. I'm not set in my opinion even though I have big regrets about the killing I did when I was younger and I don't like to hear cheerleading when it comes to war. When I hear anyone wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming god wants us to kill people I get very nervous. That doesn't mean I want us to be defenseless. I did my four years in the military. I know that you misread just about everything that I say and maybe I'm guilty of doing the same thing to you. I'm not the best at expressing myself so I can take some of the blame when people misread me. My team lost but it was a great game and I was on the side of my seat the whole time. Right and wrong, sure there's such a thing. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes not so much and sometimes I've gotten it wrong. If it seemed like I was defending that jerk of a reporter, I wasn't I don't know how to do paragraphs. I didn't need to point that out.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-01-2015).]
Game over. I'll try to address all your concerns. First I learned something from you. The quote marks. I won't try to change your mind on anything. I think that you are very secure in your beliefs and anyway I've been wrong lots of times. We both got sidetracked here. I was responding to a remark that was made about msnbc, not attacking Kyle. I backed off my opinion of snipers in a different thread. I hadn't realized the risk that a sniper takes or how much of a target they become. I'm not set in my opinion even though I have big regrets about the killing I did when I was younger and I don't like to hear cheerleading when it comes to war. When I hear anyone wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming god wants us to kill people I get very nervous. That doesn't mean I want us to be defenseless. I did my four years in the military. I know that you misread just about everything that I say and maybe I'm guilty of doing the same thing to you. I'm not the best at expressing myself so I can take some of the blame when people misread me. My team lost but it was a great game and I was on the side of my seat the whole time. Right and wrong, sure there's such a thing. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes not so much and sometimes I've gotten it wrong. If it seemed like I was defending that jerk of a reporter, I wasn't I don't know how to do paragraphs. I didn't need to point that out.
I take it by mention of your military service and the killing you did when younger refers to your military service. That said, would you think it's a fair and accurate description to talk about your service as going on a "killing spree?" Does that accurately describe what you felt you were doing at the time?
Once in a while, it's okay to agree or disagree with something without having to place it in the context of something else. Either you think the "killing spree" comment was appropriate, or you don't. What another reporter may say at a different time about a different topic doesn't change that.
I take it by mention of your military service and the killing you did when younger refers to your military service. That said, would you think it's a fair and accurate description to talk about your service as going on a "killing spree?" Does that accurately describe what you felt you were doing at the time?
Once in a while, it's okay to agree or disagree with something without having to place it in the context of something else. Either you think the "killing spree" comment was appropriate, or you don't. What another reporter may say at a different time about a different topic doesn't change that.
No, I'm thankful that I never had to take a human life. I was a terror in the woods when I was a teen and no one set me straight. That's where I did my killing. The "killing spree" was inappropriate and I think that's putting it mildly. This whole thing started when I responded to maryjanes post. I stand by my reply. He was talking about the truthiness of msnbc. I didn't disagree.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-01-2015).]
Since you were responding to my post... There are some exceptions but most aligned 'news' organizations don't tell outright lies, the just lie by ommission--tell only part of the story or only the part of a bigger story thatmakes "their side" look good and by virtue of comparison, the other side "bad". then there are those who seemingly just make stuff up at times--(Daily Kos--Mother Jones-World Net Daily-Salon-Politicususa-Matt Grudge's The Grudge Report)
Depending what news page or home page one uses, it is very easy to see only one side of the story. Mine happens to be Google News, where every news headline has a handful of different links to the actual news stories under the main headline--some will be left leaning, some will be right leaning--some will be from a news gathering source like Reuters. IF, my news homepage was Fox, I would probably be exposed to mostly right leaning articles by conservative reporters and writers. IF my news homepage was MSNBC, I would see mostly left leaning articles and news by left leaning writers. Why? because the articles are listed in order of visits--how many times someone clicks on the sub headlines. Fox has mostly conservative readers, so conservative articles get the most exposure, while Huffington Post and MSNBC are home mostly to liberal readers. By reading mostly from MSNBC or Fox, one will usually see only one side of any story unless the story just gets so big that either side is forced to show both sides (or the other side) or risk being exposed as a sham.
Google is large enough to get readers from both sides, as is Reuters and BBC, which is why all 3 are my go to news sources. Unless Fox has something listed on Google News that no one else is reporting on, I do not go to Fox.com. Same is true for the left leaners. I do occasionally look at The Atlantic, just to see a different kind of news--one from "the big city aspect" of things. I look at the news a LOT--if I were to spend 5 hrs on line, as much as 75% of that would be going back and forth to different news pages--I simply like to stay informed.
I'm less concerned with right and left than I am right and wrong. Calling a soldier performing his designated duty going on "killing sprees" is not in any way shape or form truthful, accurate or right. It's an attack on the person and his service. Last I checked, our armed forces allows both Democrats and Republicans to serve.
If what you said is true then ISIS are just simply solders as well and not terrorists, now aren't they !
History is written by the winners of wars and if ISIS wins this we are all going to be called terrorists here in America, we went over there, they didn't come here until we went over there now did we. We invaded them, they didn't invade us, not in the beginning anyway.
Now as far as fair reporting, there is none, they all have their agenda and spin what they want the way they want to show it how they want.
Just thought that should be pointed out.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
I take it by mention of your military service and the killing you did when younger refers to your military service. That said, would you think it's a fair and accurate description to talk about your service as going on a "killing spree?" Does that accurately describe what you felt you were doing at the time?
Once in a while, it's okay to agree or disagree with something without having to place it in the context of something else. Either you think the "killing spree" comment was appropriate, or you don't. What another reporter may say at a different time about a different topic doesn't change that.
There are good men and bad men in any situation, in that one Lieutenant William Calley Jr was the bad guy, but things like that happen in all wars and who are we to say who was right when we only get part of the story and even that is tilted so far to one side or the other, depending on what you read that its hard to tell who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 02-02-2015).]
There are good men and bad men in any situation, in that one Lieutenant William Calley Jr was the bad guy, but things like that happen in all wars and who are we to say who was right when we only get part of the story and even that is tilted so far to one side or the other, depending on what you read that its hard to tell who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
Steve
That might accurately be called a killing spree. They were also court martialed. I may be wrong, but I don't think Chris Kyle's service is a direct comparison to that. Last I heard Kyle wasn't court martialed. There are indeed good and bad men in all situations. It would behoove a journalist to know to the best of available facts at the time which he's talking about.
quote
Originally posted by 84fiero123:
If what you said is true then ISIS are just simply solders as well and not terrorists, now aren't they !
ISIS would far more accurately be compared to your massacre example. Slaughtering entire towns of non-combatants isn't what I call being a soldier. I'm sure you can twist that in some way to point the finger at America as the bad guy if you try hard enough. That seems to be the goal of the MSNBC journalist, as well as some in this thread.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 02-02-2015).]
That might accurately be called a killing spree. They were also court martialed. I may be wrong, but I don't think Chris Kyle's service is a direct comparison to that. Last I heard Kyle wasn't court martialed. There are indeed good and bad men in all situations. It would behoove a journalist to know to the best of available facts at the time which he's talking about.
From my link, only one man was convicted.
"Twenty-six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader in C Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest."
[font=Impact]And he only got 3.5 years under house arrest. [/font] Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 02-02-2015).]
"Twenty-six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader in C Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest."
And he only got 3.5 years under house arrest.
Steve
I'm not following your point. I agree there are bad people in all situations, I don't think that compares to Kyle's service. Are you suggesting it does? Please elaborate.
Since you were responding to my post... There are some exceptions but most aligned 'news' organizations don't tell outright lies, the just lie by ommission--tell only part of the story or only the part of a bigger story thatmakes "their side" look good and by virtue of comparison, the other side "bad". then there are those who seemingly just make stuff up at times--(Daily Kos--Mother Jones-World Net Daily-Salon-Politicususa-Matt Grudge's The Grudge Report)
Depending what news page or home page one uses, it is very easy to see only one side of the story. Mine happens to be Google News, where every news headline has a handful of different links to the actual news stories under the main headline--some will be left leaning, some will be right leaning--some will be from a news gathering source like Reuters. IF, my news homepage was Fox, I would probably be exposed to mostly right leaning articles by conservative reporters and writers. IF my news homepage was MSNBC, I would see mostly left leaning articles and news by left leaning writers. Why? because the articles are listed in order of visits--how many times someone clicks on the sub headlines. Fox has mostly conservative readers, so conservative articles get the most exposure, while Huffington Post and MSNBC are home mostly to liberal readers. By reading mostly from MSNBC or Fox, one will usually see only one side of any story unless the story just gets so big that either side is forced to show both sides (or the other side) or risk being exposed as a sham.
Google is large enough to get readers from both sides, as is Reuters and BBC, which is why all 3 are my go to news sources. Unless Fox has something listed on Google News that no one else is reporting on, I do not go to Fox.com. Same is true for the left leaners. I do occasionally look at The Atlantic, just to see a different kind of news--one from "the big city aspect" of things. I look at the news a LOT--if I were to spend 5 hrs on line, as much as 75% of that would be going back and forth to different news pages--I simply like to stay informed.
Thank you. This was a teaching moment for me. Thanx!
Originally posted by Formula88: I'm not following your point. I agree there are bad people in all situations, I don't think that compares to Kyle's service. Are you suggesting it does? Please elaborate.
Our government covers up a lot of crap they don't want us to know about, for example Colon Powel was involved in the cover-up of That incident, who is to say what we are seeing is just how well they cover crap up of people doing things. Not saying this man in the movie was one of them but I do know many vets who have done things that were not exactly things they would be proud of. Movies can paint people as hero's when they were not, and they can paint people as evil when they are not, they are movies, not reality.
"Colin Powell, then a 31-year-old Army major, was charged with investigating the letter, which did not specifically reference Mỹ Lai, as Glen had limited knowledge of the events there. In his report, Powell wrote, "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between Americal Division[68] soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Powell's handling of the assignment was later characterized by some observers as "whitewashing" the atrocities of Mỹ Lai.[67] In May 2004, Powell, then United States Secretary of State, told CNN's Larry King, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored."[69]"
Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 02-02-2015).]
