Now is it just me, or is your outrage over this dampened a little bit by the fact that these guys wanted to be there? I would be much more upset about the deaths of civilians than journalists.
I mean, the soldiers are there because they were ordered to go. The civilians are there because they live there. But the journalists came looking for "the big scoop" and high ratings. They wanted to be there. A combat zone is a dangerous place, and if you are not willing to take the risk, don't go!
So I say to the news networks that sent these guys, don't spend such a disproportionate time wailing about the deaths of journalists, compared to the time you spend on the deaths of others. It's like whining about a high-wire artist splattering himself on the pavement - If you are not ready to accept the risk of being killed, don't go out on the wire, or don't go someplace where you know there is going to be an awful lot of shooting and explosions.
PROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5439 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1002 times:
I pretty much agree.
"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
Erj190 From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 965 times:
Oh my God, Are you serious?
Well,
The International Federation of Journalists is calling for an international inquiry on what is happening with journalists.
The US has informed AL JAZEERA TELEVISION that they have targeted their installation on Afghanistan, because there were targets in the building, which were considered to be of military importance.
According to international law that was an admission of committing an illegality, because you are not supposed to target civilian buildings.
It is part of the "Rules of Engagement"
Now, again we see a TV station being targeted and it's reporters slaughtered by the Cowboys.
Again the excuse is going to be the same, again an illegal excuse.
The US goons are showing their despicable face. They will lie, they will kill, they will murder, whatever it takes. At this point all non American TV stations are questioning the report of Central Command and their claims. There was no warning shot, nothing just plain deliberate intention of hitting reporters.
It is a shameful day for America. The military really didn't need to do this. The blood in their hands will be very very difficult to clean.
But of course, there is no problem. All American war criminals can murder at will, and slaughter whoever they want. The International Tribunal for War Crimes is not recognized by the Nazis in Washington.
How convenient. I wonder what they were thinking when they decided not to sign...
We should have guessed.
And, don't worry...
...This is just the beginning.
Clipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 933 times:
Oh there will be an investigation all right. If the U.S. is involved there's always an investigation.
According to international law that was an admission of committing an illegality, because you are not supposed to target civilian buildings.
It is part of the "Rules of Engagement"
Please show me where it says that along with the exact wording. I would like for you to back up your statement.
Please do!
Shameful day for America? Hardly!
Someone seems to be taking these events rather harsh in Portugal? Why is that??? Success breeds contempt is a phrase I am reminded of.
Andreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 34 Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 904 times:
I agree. Media seems to be so hot to be in the front row to watch the killing as close as possible, it is just their professional risk to get killed in the battle.
Unfortunately this brings up the question WHY they want to be there: Of course because people want to see this, and the one news channel with the hottest pics is the winner. But I guess this is equal to the question who was first: the hen or the egg...
SR117 From Mexico, joined Jun 2000, 754 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 880 times:
I mean, the soldiers are there because they were ordered to go. The civilians are there because they live there. But the journalists came looking for "the big scoop" and high ratings. They wanted to be there. A combat zone is a dangerous place, and if you are not willing to take the risk, don't go!
I don't know about you guys but I would rather prefer having journalists tell us what happens from another point of view that isn't American or Iraqi, otherwise it would be hard for us to see what's really happening in Iraq.
But indeed, journalists do take a risk when going into a war zone, however, one should expect that a hotel which is known to be occupied by journalists is not fired at for no reason. The americans say there were sniper shots, but the journalists say they weren't any. Obviously, someone is confused or not telling the whole truth.
Let's hope this incident is investigated and not shrugged off as "oh well it's war, shit happens"
People died here, and I think it deserves a bit of respect.
Mhsieh From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 332 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 876 times:
When the Iraqi military decided to use civilian compounds to shoot and kill US/ UK troops, doesn't that make the compounds a legitimate target? It is the Iraqi's action that is criminal.
Maybe the journalist's should mount an uprising against their Iraqi captors. The Iraqis are putting their lives in jeopardy by using their offices to mount attacks.
Silverfox From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1058 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 858 times:
I have just sen a report on the BBC where aUS convoy way hit by a US plane.Graphic stuff, the camera had blood on the lens.
Irrespective of whether or not journos are supposed to be where they are, and lets face it they have been in the front line since reoprting started, it was a rather irrational thing to do.
Yes i know that its ok to say after the event, 'we thought we saw sniper fire', but surely there is some intelligence somewhere that MIGHT have told that crew that the building was used by the press?
The number of 'friendly fire' incidents is getting far too commonplace. Someone somewhere should be able to tell these guys to ease up a bit.Trigger Happy is not the way to win over the people, as we are continually being told by Bush.
There was a quote by one of the soldiers of D squadron of the Household Cavalry (yes our cavalry still uses horses!!) that was attacked and lost one guy to a A10 tankbuster
'I am trained for combat. I can command my vehicle. What i am not trained to do is look over my soldier and see if an American is firing at me'.
The last question also provokes some thought
How many Americans or non Iraqis have been killed by British friendly fire?
Radarbeam From Canada, joined Mar 2002, 1310 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 858 times:
I for one, don't agree with Cfalk,
I think journalist in the heat of a combat zone are doing an extremely important and courageous job to bring the latest developments to us, ordinary people who at 100 or 1000 miles away from the war. If journalists weren't doing what they are doing, in Baghdad or all over Iraq for that matter, we'd only have infos from what Centcom or the Iraqi minister of disinformation and what they are willing to let us know.
Radarbeam
Note that I'm not comparing Centcom to the Iraqi minister of information, there's a huge difference between both of them.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 840 times:
Erj190,
Sorry, but you are wrong. Any building, even a hospital, becomes a legitimate target if that building is used by the enemy.
Just a few exerpts from the Geneva Convention concerning the Protection of Civilians:
Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
That takes care of the human shields issue. If military assets are placed in civilian areas, or, as in this case (according to the U.S. Army), Iraqis were shooting from the hotel, the hotel becomes a valid military target, and can be fired upon.
Reinforcing this, an excert from Annex I:
Art. 2. No persons residing, in whatever capacity, in a hospital and safety zone shall perform any work, either within or without the zone, directly connected with military operations or the production of war material.
Art. 3. The Power establishing a hospital and safety zone shall take all necessary measures to prohibit access to all persons who have no right of residence or entry therein.
Art. 4. Hospital and safety zones shall fulfil the following conditions:
(a) they shall comprise only a small part of the territory governed by the Power which has established them
(b) they shall be thinly populated in relation to the possibilities of accommodation
(c) they shall be far removed and free from all military objectives, or large industrial or administrative establishments
(d) they shall not be situated in areas which, according to every probability, may become important for the conduct of the war.
Art. 5. Hospital and safety zones shall be subject to the following obligations:
(a) the lines of communication and means of transport which they possess shall not be used for the transport of military personnel or material, even in transit
(b) they shall in no case be defended by military means.
In other words, even a hospital can become a legitimate target if people start shooting from its windows.
As described at length in the Conventions, it is up to the power controlling the area to ensure that its troops do not use protected areas from which to mount any sort of military activity, which might result in the summary revokation of its protected status by the enemy. Thus, if Iraqi soldiers shoot from a hospital, and the U.S. responds by blowing up the hospital, the Iraqi Army is responsible for the deaths of protected persons inside.
Knowing how Saddam and his followers have always "fought dirty", breaking laws left right and center, is it any surprise to anyone here that they would shoot from a hospital, or from similarly protected places, hoping that either the American troops won't shoot, or that if they do, the U.S. would suffer in the eyes of the world press, especially if it the press was housed in this supposedly protected area.
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2582 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 827 times:
Since I'm a journalist, I'll weigh into this.
Reporters who wade into front line coverage don't expect any special consideration when the bullets start flying. They know the risks and they accept them. Lots have been killed or hurt in this war, and lots have been killed or injured throughout history. Not every journalist is prepared to take that risk -- I'm not. But the ones who do aren't coerced into it, and it does take a degree of courage to get in harms way when you have no training, and no way to defend yourself if someone starts shooting at you. I admire the wretches who are over there now -- even the CNN cheerleaders.
If they are staying in a hotel that gets fired on by "friendly fire" or through someone's mistake, they expect that to be an issue for investigation -- nothing more, nothing less. The fact that they are reporters who chose to be there doesn't lessen the impact.
The media always pays more attention to its own people getting killed than anyone else. That's human nature. It doesn't mean they are special.
Take away all those front-line reporters -- and you'll know bugger-all about what's going on over there. That would not be a good thing.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 822 times:
The media always pays more attention to its own people getting killed than anyone else. That's human nature. It doesn't mean they are special.
It's a bit annoying though when the media makes a meal out of a specific journalist dying.....the media does not do the same for each specific soldier killed.
This suggests that the media values journalists' lives higher than soldiers.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2582 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 818 times:
It's a bit annoying though when the media makes a meal out of a specific journalist dying.....the media does not do the same for each specific soldier killed.
I agree with you; they should be more professionally restrained. All I'm saying is they react to their own feelings. They're not machines.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 815 times:
I wonder how many people up here who are condemming this could tell the differenc between say a Milan Launcher and a minicam at a half mile while being shot at from a simular general direction.
I am willing to be not a lot.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
9V-SVE From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 2066 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 804 times:
Sure, it is legal to fire upon targets when fired upon from there, but many surviving journalists have said that they saw no Iraqi troops firing from there.
Glenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 801 times:
Centcom reports sniper fire was coming from the lobby of the building. Has the lobby been placed in a higher floor in Iraq as the impact zone looked reasonably high up.
Hamfist From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 614 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 791 times:
The last question also provokes some thought
How many Americans or non Iraqis have been killed by British friendly fire?
Is it
a) something less than one
b) 0
c) a number between -1 and 1
Must be something to do with the training.
As i said it is worth thinking about
Yeah, it provokes some thought, but not in the slanted direction you would probably like everyone to believe. When you consider U.S. forces probably comprise over 90% of the operations, wouldn't you expect the numbers of friendly-fire incidents to be more likely caused by the Americans? And you're fighting an uphill battle to argue who's better trained. Top-to-bottom, all forces considered, nobody is better trained or equipped than American forces!
Clipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 13 Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 771 times:
L-188 That is a compelling photo you posted of the Palestine Hotel. In the fog of war where it is kill or be killed your post of that photo proves that nothing is easy for the coalition in keeping civilian deaths to a minimum.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 748 times:
I don't have any photo's but I can see very easily where a minicam could be mistaken for a Milan or a Hot missle or a laser target designator.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Teva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1868 posts, RR: 17 Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 725 times:
L-188,
The only problems are
1) This hotel was known to be the residence of the western journalists. (Decision by Saddam to group them in one single location)
2) A France 3 team has been filming continuously for 15 minutes, from the room next to the one of the Spannish journalist killed. The sound was on. The only noise you have is when the tank is shooting at the hotel. There was no combat at all.
Then, if it was not a deliberate shooting on journalists and civilians, what was it ?
Is it the way Bush has instructed the troops to install democracy in Irak? (killing all non US journalists, because they are not under control?)
Unfortunately for this strategy and very sadly (because every death is sad) one of them was working for a Brittish agency (Reuters), and the other one was Spannish. The 2 strongest allies of Bush.
Teva
Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 722 times:
Can anyone give a valid reason why the U.S. would want to intentionally target journalists?
Either there WAS shooting from the hotel, or a mistake was made as to where the shots came from.
Charles
25 Teva: Charles, I am sorry, but there was an absolute silence for 15 minutes. Teva
26 Cfalk: Perhaps the shooting was earlier. But there was definately shooting. It may well turn out to be a mistake. But answer the question: WHY would the Army
27 Teva: Chalres, I don't know. Maybe our sons will know in 50 years, when they will open the secret archives? I find strange to see the same day to see journa
28 Cfalk: Maybe is it because they show all the truth,including the suffering kids and women, and not only the part of the truth the US generals want the press
29 Erj190: Well, it would be very interesting to scare the journalists out. Then we have the situation with Al-Jazeera. For the second time the US goes to war,
30 Clipperhawaii: Wow, you are all over the place with this are you not Erj190? You are getting quite emotional over this and people are starting to wonder. Why the ins
31 Erj190: I am sorry. I consider it to be a fact that the so called "hawks" and "new-right" are American Neo-Nazis. I am not hiding that. Actually, although I m
32 L-188: I consider it to be a fact that the so called "hawks" and "new-right" are American Neo-Nazis. I am not hiding that. And that is why your opinions cann
33 Glenn: Oh, please... Those kinds of pictures have been airing for the last 3 weeks, and right when they will soon end, to be replaced with scenes of Iraqis g
34 L-188: A few months later, it's "Those Aresholes broke their promises" what will the Iraqi attitude be when they are no longer riding the wave of Euphoria an
35 Erj190: Well L-188, you are an unfortunate victim of a country where sophisticated night vision goggles have been supplied to the population. You are using th
36 Clipperhawaii: Erj190, I don't know where you have derived such opinions but I dare say they were probably derived from people who have a total disgust against the U
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Jun 2000, 754 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1058 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2002, 1310 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 2066 posts, 
From France, joined Jan 2001, 1868 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
