That kid's life wasn't worth the life of one reporter. Had they 50 reporters? Yeah, maybe. But, one? No way.
Not 1 Life Lost, for the Media. Period.Let them die, as their own choosing.) The more, the merrier.
A liberal Butt-Wipe ignores warnings, gets captured, and gets a Warrior killed.:
Army anger as soldier killed saving journalist who ignored Taliban warning - Telegraph
Senior Army figures have expressed disquiet over the death of a British soldier killed helping to free a reporter who had been kidnapped in Afghanistan after ignoring security advice against entering a Taliban stronghold.
Let the idiot Liberal Butt-Wipes die in the Future. They've been Warned.
Brain dead Bastards.
A liberal Butt-Wipe ignores warnings, gets captured, and gets a Warrior killed.:
Army anger as soldier killed saving journalist who ignored Taliban warning - Telegraph
Senior Army figures have expressed disquiet over the death of a British soldier killed helping to free a reporter who had been kidnapped in Afghanistan after ignoring security advice against entering a Taliban stronghold.
Let the idiot Liberal Butt-Wipes die in the Future. They've been Warned.
Brain dead Bastards.
I'm curious as to why we even let those bastards near the war zones. I realize they want to get a really good story so they can sell tons of papers or get ratings, but this is ridiculous. They have no business there.
Because the media has everyone suckered into believing it's their 1st Amendment right to have full access to the battlefield.
Well, it technically is, but regardless they shouldn't be allowed to infringe on any military missions or put the lives of soldiers at risk. Putting themselves in harms way does this and this incident is a prime example of that. They have no business there at all.
I guess every reporter is a "liberal" now, and every soldier is a "conservative".
:lol:
Statistically speaking, that would be true.
Apparently, you don't know jack **** about the military then.
Or the press, for that matter.
Because the media has everyone suckered into believing it's their 1st Amendment right to have full access to the battlefield.
Statistically speaking, that would be true.
I'd say that getting captured by enemy Primitives and getting you head cut off while the act is being video recorded for the web pretty much constitutes "full access to the battlefield."Because the media has everyone suckered into believing it's their 1st Amendment right to have full access to the battlefield.
No where in the article does it even use the word "liberal". Why do you have to try and turn everything into some hyper-partisan issue?
That pretty much say's "Liberal."Stephen Farrell, from the New York Times
Like that's going to happen. :roll: Imagine what the NYT headlines would have been.Can we really lay all the blame on the reporter? Someone had to make the decision to send ppl in to get him. They could have told the guy to go there at his own risk, that they wouldn't be able to help him if captured.
I'm curious as to why we even let those bastards near the war zones. I realize they want to get a really good story so they can sell tons of papers or get ratings, but this is ridiculous. They have no business there.
One senior Army source said: “When you look at the number of warnings this person had it makes you really wonder whether he was worth rescuing, whether it was worth the cost of a soldier’s life. In the future special forces might think twice in a similar situation.”
Another military source said: “This reporter went to this area against the advice of the Afghan police. So thanks very much Stephen Farrell, your irresponsible act has led to the death of one of our boys.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?