Shooting Civies?

Cadet Seaman said:
Really. Did you know a 2LT died on the MOUT site? Did you know a role player was injured by a smoke grenade, and had 33 stiches? Getting smacked in the head with a 5.56mm SIM round isn't fun. I was just comparing the "REAL THING" with the training.
Click to expand...


You are a 17 year old kid talking to a group that includes many combat veterans. Sometimes it is better to sit back and listen to those who know rather than try to impress someone with what you think you do. In fact that is a good idea ALL the time.

Stay on topic, this side discussion ends now.
 
just let those reporters who critisize this marine to go into Iraq, carry a gun, tell them insurgents like to pretend to die and hit you in the back, and tell them go into a building and search for insurgents

and we shall see what they do
 
there are a select few of comabt reporters who do just more than that.

try walking into a combat zone with nothing more than a camera and a blue flak jacket to protect you. THAT's a different kind of bravery
 
if they know how much dangers a soldier has to face and how much pressure he has to endure during the decision making, the reporter should really think twice before critisizing this marine's choice.
 
Guys sorry about all this mess didnt think it would turn into a fight.Also the topic should be called shooting wounded Insurgents, once againe im sorry. :(
 
Green, I am curious. Could you go a little further with that line of thought. In what way are you thinking they should be screened and for what benefit? I know how you feel about imbedded whiners, erm, I mean, reporters so I would like to hear your thoughts in a little more detail here.
 
greenarmy1980 said:
Journalists should really be screened prior to attending any military event in my opinion
Click to expand...


Journalists should go through the same Etnac screening. They are privy to Operational knowledge of what units that they are reporting on are doing. Why not make all of them have to go through a security screening so that way they will be able to process and maybe even better understand what they can inform the people at home without endangering the troops. Also some of them go absolutely nuts when they get shot at. If they will not allow soldiers to be deployed if they are prescribed medication for mental problems, why do they allow reporters to be deployed when if they do not get their medication they go Schizo or what not at the most unopportune time.
 
got anything to back up what your saying? the journalists that go to combat zones aren't the weathergirls you know! and it also pays to remember that not all combat journalists are embedded in the "big green machine" (IMHO the single WORST thing to happen to combat journalism)

many pay the ultimate price for their passion to make the world aware of the horrors of war...just think, without responsible Journalists we may not have found out about Darfour so quickly.

lets make a destinction here for clarity.


there are "reporters" and there are "journalists".
in most cases journalists hold themselves to a higher professional standard than reporters...they research the stories, reporters are often nothing much more than a pretty face/voice to get the news from.
 
Some reporters call themselves Journalists and fabricate the truth to their own means.

I am not saying that they are all bad, I am just saying that many of them need to go through the same credentialling process to be deployed with us overseas so that we do not have to worry about them.
 
I did see that some suggested that you should shoot to wound, what a twit. Now just what would happen if you shot and wounded a suicide bomber, he would just wait till you are close enough and detonate his bomb killing you and any one else close by. In the forces you don't play about, if a person is a threat and they don't respond to your challenge then you shoot to kill, hesitate and you and your mates are history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top