• Fox News Publishes Name Of SEAL Who Led Bin Laden Raid, Possibly Endangering His Safety
    69 replies, posted
I'd say I hope that there are serious repercussions for this, but I have a feeling whatever repercussions do happen will happen to the seal.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;37382721]I'd say I hope that there are serious repercussions for this, but I have a feeling whatever repercussions do happen will happen to the seal.[/QUOTE] Now that you called him "the seal" I have the horrible feeling that he will be clubbed [IMG]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-ohdear.png[/IMG]
Shockingly this is not the first time Fox has pulled this kind of shit and put our troops in legitimate danger. [url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-1-2003/networks-of-the-battle-stars---quality-journalism-wins-out[/url]
Fox News is actually DEVGRU Please blow them up instead
at least he gets credit and people will be all like SHIT THIS NIGGA KILLED BIN LADEN and he will party hard and have the time of his life
This is the same network that still has Geraldo Rivera on staff after he drew a map of a town in Iraq and pointed out where he and US forces were on live national television during the invasion in 2003.
And of course the offending article is still up. Fuck yourselves, Fox News. Maybe you need to join "Usama bin Laden" (yes they spelled it that way near the top), and quit bothering the world.
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;37382495]Let's hope that the government will punish Fox for this.[/QUOTE] They can't. The Pentagon released the name to the journalists and [i]requested[/i] that the name be kept anonymous. The journalist has no official obligation to keep the name anonymous, it's just an arguably shitty thing to publicize.
Evidence that Fox News is secretly run by terrorists. How many times will you here that out of a Republican. Just this once, right now. That's probably the only time now, ever.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;37383000]usama is also a correct spelling theres A BUNCH of spellings for his name[/QUOTE] Just like Gaddafi. That's the beauty of trying to transcribe a name into another alphabet, you often end up with several "correct" ways to spell a name. [editline]24th August 2012[/editline] Arabic in particular. I'm not exactly sure why, but that language and alphabet seems very strange to transcribe and translate.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;37382947]And of course the offending article is still up. Fuck yourselves, Fox News. Maybe you need to join "[B]Usama bin Laden[/B]" (yes they spelled it that way near the top), and quit bothering the world.[/QUOTE] That's just an alt spelling
Really? Never seen it before. They should at least be consistent then. Osama or Usama, pick one damn it.
NOT ONLY DID THEY SAY HIS NAME, BUT WHERE HE FUCKING LIVES FFFFFFFFFFFFF[B]FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF[/B]
fuck off fox news
Fox News hates US soldiers :cryingeagle:
[QUOTE=Forumaster;37383051]Really? Never seen it before. They should at least be consistent then. Osama or Usama, pick one damn it.[/QUOTE] They've been saying Usama since September 01.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;37383051]Really? Never seen it before. They should at least be consistent then. Osama or Usama, pick one damn it.[/QUOTE] Arabic names can be spelled in a trillion ways, since its not latin based i guess its open to interpretation.
Wasn't every SEAL in that raid shot down a week later?
[QUOTE=DentalDoctor;37383212]Wasn't every SEAL in that raid shot down a week later?[/QUOTE] no
[QUOTE=DentalDoctor;37383212]Wasn't every SEAL in that raid shot down a week later?[/QUOTE] That was Gold Team that got shot down. Red Team is the one that killed Osama.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;37382469]When the Pentagon tells you not to reveal someone's name then there's probably a good reason as to why.[/QUOTE] Facepunch when Wikileaks releases top secret information against the wishes of the Pentagon: Protect Assange, he's doing the right thing! American government is evil! :downs: Facepunch when Fox News releases top secret information against the wihses of the Pentagon: Fox News is run by terrorists! Arrest them! Seriously guys, do you want people to be allowed to leak classified shit or not? Make up your minds.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;37383299]Facepunch when Wikileaks releases top secret information against the wishes of the Pentagon: Protect Assange, he's doing the right thing! American government is evil! :downs: Facepunch when Fox News releases top secret information against the wihses of the Pentagon: Fox News is run by terrorists! Arrest them![/QUOTE] A major difference is that one was intentional to provide transparency and awareness to government actions. The other seemed to have been done carelessly with no real motive or benefit to be gained.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;37383299]Facepunch when Wikileaks releases top secret information against the wishes of the Pentagon: Protect Assange, he's doing the right thing! American government is evil! :downs: Facepunch when Fox News releases top secret information against the wihses of the Pentagon: Fox News is run by terrorists! Arrest them![/QUOTE] Here's the difference: one exposes corruption and atrocities whilst mantaining identities confidential, the other just reveals idenities to rake in cash.
If they make an apology, $20 says it was Obama's fault they said it.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;37383330]Here's the difference: one exposes corruption and atrocities whilst mantaining identities confidential, the other just reveals idenities to rake in cash.[/QUOTE] Except Wikileaks [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38441360/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/report-afghan-leaks-dangerously-expose-informants-identities/#.UDcUwNZlSH8]failed to maintain confidentiality[/url]
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;37383360]Except Wikileaks [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38441360/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/report-afghan-leaks-dangerously-expose-informants-identities/#.UDcUwNZlSH8]failed to maintain confidentiality[/url][/QUOTE] Again, there is a legitimate difference between something clumsily and recklessly handled versus something purposefully handled with an easily discernible motive. Not to mention I agree with the wikileaks motive and not with the journalist's possible motives. I make no claim to be impartial or neutral to all world events and organizations.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;37382947]Fuck yourselves, Fox News. [b]Maybe you need to join "Usama bin Laden" (yes they spelled it that way near the top),[/b] and quit bothering the world.[/QUOTE] usama and osama are both correct possible romanizations of his name, i see no problem with that
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37383403]Again, there is a legitimate difference between something clumsily and recklessly handled versus something purposefully handled with an easily discernible motive. Not to mention I agree with the wikileaks motive and not with the journalist's possible motives. I make no claim to be impartial or neutral to all world events and organizations.[/QUOTE] I agree with Wikileaks motives, but the point is that to achieve an end, be it transparency or money, these two have equally endangered people's lives. It's not right to delineate these cases just because Fox is Fox. Also, each journalist, sub editor, executive editor etc. acts on their own accord, so it may have been down to their discretion.
lmao didn't fox have people going on air and calling for the assassination of Julian Assange for endangering american lives by leaking info?
[QUOTE=Mlisen14;37383714]I agree with Wikileaks motives, but the point is that to achieve an end, be it transparency or money, these two have equally endangered people's lives. It's not right to delineate these cases just because Fox is Fox. Also, each journalist, sub editor, executive editor etc. acts on their own accord, so it may have been down to their discretion.[/QUOTE] I don't have to be unbiased when reviewing and coming to a conclusion regarding certain actions. I only have to fairly assess the motives, methods, and results. Wikileaks brought transparency and knowledge, was chiefly motivated by those factors(there are easier ways to get money, trust me). This situation only brought endangerment, did it through clumsy methods, and with either no motive or an unagreeable motive. I'm not saying the two cases are not comparable. I'm fairly comparing them and deciding that I much prefer one over the other.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.