Kill 'em all and let Allah sort them out.

Exigent.

And I always thought of you as a moran.

Embedded journalist have always seen themselves as people looking through a window, reporting what they see. They view it as a part of doing their job, reporting as things progress.

However, when a journalist is seen holding a grenade and actively participating, they are no longer "looking out the window" and need to be treated like the terrorist and killers that they are reporting on.

CDUB98 said:

---

Amen

---

Exactly, this is war, not "hang on, let Hamas kill me because there's a CNN reporter with them"

Propaganda vs journalism is in the eye of the beholder. See MSM in America.

AggieMD95 said:

---

Did cnn aid and abet the attacking journo ?

---

I think the families of the American dead should sue them.

fka ftc said:

---

Propaganda vs journalism is in the eye of the beholder. See MSM in America.

---

I have a deep and abiding loathing for journalists, but there is an enormous difference between the MSM and a terrorist organization, which is why it is important to know what CNN knew and when they knew it.

Yea, see Antifa/BLM riots. It's not as big of a leap as you think.

For those who want a good story that covers war time journalism, Benjamin Halls book was a great read, particularly with Veterans Day as much of the book is about his recovery in San Antonio.

fka ftc said:

---

Yea, see Antifa/BLM riots. It's not as big of a leap as you think.

---

It would have been easier to just say you were being intentionally obtuse.

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

So we can kill journalists now? Wow....Bibi is a lil Putin.

---

They are not journalists if they actively collude with a military force attacking unarmed civilians.

They are the propaganda arm of terrists and are traitors if they are US citizens and had active knowledge of a pending terrorist attack

---

Until hamas starts wearing uniforms to distinguish them from civilians, then every living thing within shooting range of a hostile confrontation needs killing. Call yourselves journalists, medics, whatever but if intentionally put yourself among these terrorist ****bags then you need to die.

Sorry not sorry. Kill them all.

One thing y'all seem to forget is that objective journalism (yeah, I know what you're going to say) is a decidedly American/Western European thing that most of the world has no interest in taking part in.

The kind of people you hire for video/photos in the worst parts of world are folks who have access, which probably means some sort of connection to the local government/terrorist group/outlaw gang, whichever has the power to allow or deny access. They might not agree with the people they get access from, but they also might be card-carrying members of said group, too.

There are definitely journalists and photojournalists who come from the West or were trained by Westerners and who see themselves as unbiased reporters. But there are no guarantees those folks can get access.

You may be right about them hiring nefarious characters... but it doesn't matter. They should be completely exterminated along with the rest of the vermin in that **** hole.

The biggest mistake Israel ever made was not expelling the Palestinians in 1967. By now, the world would have forgotten Gaza just as it forgot Breslau.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Exigent.

And I always thought of you as a moran.

---

Benefits of classical education.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_as_a_lunar_deity#:~:text=Allah%20as%20a%20Lunar%20deity%20refers%20to%20a%20historical%20postulation,originated%20as%20a%20moon%20god.

Old May Banker said:

---

You may be right about them hiring nefarious characters... but it doesn't matter. They should be completely exterminated along with the rest of the vermin in that **** hole.

---

That's my point they are more likely to be combatants than what springs to mind when someone says "journalist."

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

So we can kill journalists now? Wow....Bibi is a lil Putin.

---

When they not only know before hand what's about to happen but also participate, they should be targeted and killed. They're not journalists, they're terrorists and should be treated as such.

Savrola said:

---

Guys,

Note that these are contract journalists. Literally idiots who answered a CNN want ad in Gaza to contribute content.

I'm as anti-CNN as it gets, but as of this story, there is no evidence that CNN knew or approved. These are locals, think of them almost as volunteer bloggers, that CNN hired because they probably know any western journalist they sent to Gaza would be killed.

The question is whether or not CNN was aware and still used any of this content. That would be extremely disgusting and possibly could result in criminal action against the network if it did so, because Hamas has been recognized by this government as a foreign terrorist organization since the 1990s (under Clinton). Don't get me wrong, CNN is guilty of horrible journalistic malpractice for hiring people without vetting, but that is not the same as knowing these people would do this ahead of time. If it comes out that they did in fact know them, nail them to the wall and put major CNN high-ups on trial for aiding and abetting terrorism.

---

I guess I would rather think of them as terrorists with a camera trying to make a little easy money on the side!

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

So we can kill journalists now? Wow....Bibi is a lil Putin.

---

This might be the stupidest post ever posted on here, and that's really saying something

---

As a BQ do you know the ROEs regarding medics and civilians?

---

F the ROE.

---

It was at that moment the cries of "war crimes" was drown out by western hypocrisy.

---

Boo ****in hoo. Wars aren't won using ROE. Wars are won by completely destroying the enemy...every single fighter. All ROE does is put our men and women in harm's way. Don't fire unless fired upon, give me a ****ing break. Oh look, that person has an AK. Oh look they are aiming it at me. Gees, sure wish I could fire first so i don't have to dodge this bullet. How about you go into that environment and follow these ROE? Oh, let me guess, here comes the "I was a soldier and I did" line. And if that was actually true and you truthfully still believe in the ROE then you aren't worth arguing with because you'd rather give our enemies an upperhand to do the job of winning a war.

Spotted Ag said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

So we can kill journalists now? Wow....Bibi is a lil Putin.

---

This might be the stupidest post ever posted on here, and that's really saying something

---

As a BQ do you know the ROEs regarding medics and civilians?

---

F the ROE.

---

It was at that moment the cries of "war crimes" was drown out by western hypocrisy.

---

Boo ****in hoo. Wars aren't won using ROE. Wars are won by completely destroying the enemy...every single fighter. All ROE does is put our men and women in harm's way. Don't fire unless fired upon, give me a ****ing break. Oh look, that person has an AK. Oh look they are aiming it at me. Gees, sure wish I could fire first so i don't have to dodge this bullet. How about you go into that environment and follow these ROE? Oh, let me guess, here comes the "I was a soldier and I did" line. And if that was actually true and you truthfully still believe in the ROE then you aren't worth arguing with because you'd rather give our enemies an upperhand to do the job of winning a war.

---

Rules of Engagement are an exercise by politicians to fight a "clean" war in order to project their moral superiority. The gun fodder, who actually put their life on the line, realize the whole concept of a clean, moral war is so much utter bull****. Morality in war comes down to an individual fighter's morality in the instant of action. What a politician says in his safe office has zero to do with it. Their ROE are simply rules which can be used, after the fact, to hang a combatant who ignored their rules.

Trying to understand how the "f the rules of engagement" crowd reconciles with the Hamas conducted a terrorist act and not an act of war / military operation.

You either have a gentlemanly war or you have a free for all. Keep in mind that its typically only after the war that has the victors retroactively determining what is a war crime and what is not and who is to be held accountable.

The current rules of war & ROE may be BS (I don't know because I have not read them), but there have to be some rules, don't there?

I mean, killing an entire village because of one Partisan has to be wrong under any circumstances, right?

Killing several hundred enemy soldiers who just surrendered to you is not excusable, right?

And to go full Godwin on you, killing 13 million people in concentration camps can never be justified, right?

Spotted Ag said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

So we can kill journalists now? Wow....Bibi is a lil Putin.

---

This might be the stupidest post ever posted on here, and that's really saying something

---

As a BQ do you know the ROEs regarding medics and civilians?

---

F the ROE.

---

It was at that moment the cries of "war crimes" was drown out by western hypocrisy.

---

Boo ****in hoo. Wars aren't won using ROE. Wars are won by completely destroying the enemy...every single fighter. All ROE does is put our men and women in harm's way. Don't fire unless fired upon, give me a ****ing break. Oh look, that person has an AK. Oh look they are aiming it at me. Gees, sure wish I could fire first so i don't have to dodge this bullet. How about you go into that environment and follow these ROE? Oh, let me guess, here comes the "I was a soldier and I did" line. And if that was actually true and you truthfully still believe in the ROE then you aren't worth arguing with because you'd rather give our enemies an upperhand to do the job of winning a war.

---

What wars did the U.S. kill every single fighter? I'm pretty sure we took prisoners when the situation presented itself. Wars aren't won when politicians get involved.

Wars do happen to start when politicians get involved FWIW.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

The biggest mistake Israel ever made was not expelling the Palestinians in 1967. By now, the world would have forgotten Gaza just as it forgot Breslau.

---

morally or not, in the real world that was not an option.

the Soviet Union was already threatening to get into the war which forced Israel to halt on the Golan Heights.

There is a reason the war lasted only six days.

dangit I can't get the photo of Debra Lea in Israel holding an M-4 so you have to vote on which do we want to support in the USA.

Either this



or this....

This video shows American journalists (back when there was such a thing as real journalism) discussing hypothetical culpability of being embedded in a North Vietnamese army unit ambushing fellow American citizens. pic.twitter.com/DW898roNLt

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) November 10, 2023

I remember this show from a long time ago. A great series and this particular exchange dealt specifically with the hypothesis of American journalists embedded in an enemy force. A very good clip with a kicker at the end.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

---

Disagree, I don't hate journalists. I just haven't seen one in awhile. I've seen a lot of leftist propagandists wearing the skin of journalists like Buffalo bill.

Hogties said:

---

This video shows American journalists (back when there was such a thing as real journalism) discussing hypothetical culpability of being embedded in a North Vietnamese army unit ambushing fellow American citizens. pic.twitter.com/DW898roNLt

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) November 10, 2023

I remember this show from a long time ago. A great series and this particular exchange dealt specifically with the hypothesis of American journalists embedded in an enemy force. A very good clip with a kicker at the end.

---

Fantastic find and thank you for sharing. Captures much of the debate in this thread. It caused me to rethink about my earlier comments.

I think first one has to separate out a journalist vs an enemy combatant / soldier. From the OP, the guy in the pictures certainly appears to have crossed the line and should be treated as an enemy.

Then if you determine they are a pure journalist, then you get into the debate captured in that video. And I find myself surprised a bit that hearing that debate I side not with protecting the journalist but with Peter Jennings original take and wholeheartedly with the position taken by Col Connelly (sp?) at the end.

Folks should spend the 7 minutes and watch that clip. Heck, probably deserves it own thread.

APHIS AG said:

---

Embedded journalist have always seen themselves as people looking through a window, reporting what they see. They view it as a part of doing their job, reporting as things progress.

However, when a journalist is seen holding a grenade and actively participating, they are no longer "looking out the window" and need to be treated like the terrorist and killers that they are reporting on.

---

At some point, you're still a human being with respective obligations to your fellow man. It's peak narcissism to be in a position to kill a terrorist before he murders a bunch of folks and hide behind your "profession."

You're basically saying that others should face their jaws because you're too special to risk stabbing them in their exposed back.