it is a bad idea to point things and/or intently watch military forces that are being actively fired upon.
With this reasoning we could just say it's a bad idea to be in Iraq right now, and if you are, the Military can do whatever they want because they have a built in excuse.
And you shouldn't go to peace rallies because the police might beat you and shoot you with rubber bullets. Sure they don't fire into the ground as they're trained to do, but if you don't want to get hurt you shouldn't be at the rally anyway.
It's an excuse, but not a good one. Just because we send the military somewhere doesn't mean they're absolved of all responsibility.
With this reasoning we could just say it's a bad idea to be in Iraq right now, and if you are, the Military can do whatever they want because they have a built in excuse.
And you shouldn't go to peace rallies because the police might beat you and shoot you with rubber bullets. Sure they don't fire into the ground as they're trained to do, but if you don't want to get hurt you shouldn't be at the rally anyway.
It's an excuse, but not a good one. Just because we send the military somewhere doesn't mean they're absolved of all responsibility.
Don't be silly. Some 'unpleasant, crappy things might occur'? If this were an accident then I could understand your position. But it wasn't. The Military targeted a building with civilians. Why on earth should anyone accept that?
How, exactly, is saying - that in a warzone being fought hard and dirty in a city setting - that "unpleasant, crappy things might occur" being silly? Probably the most accurate, truthful statement made on this forum in years.
I don't know the whole story about why or why not the military "targetted" this building. And you don't either, I'm sure. What I AM sure of (and this goes back to my initial response to sammi jo above) is that - despite her tone and implications in her original post - our troops aren't going around actively "gunning for civilians", be it reporters, kids, etc.
I can't second-guess or armchair command the military. Are you 100% sure that all they saw was a guy with binoculars?
For whatever reason, they obviously believed this to be a threat. Yes, it sucks. No one here is happy that people are dying.
I'm not "accepting" it as much as going "I trust our troops to protect themselves" and - AGAIN - I don't think I'd be tempting fate by hanging out in downtown Baghdad at this particular time.
I simply can't get too torqued up about this. If that makes me a bad fella, well...
Actually, I read your links, and there was no mention of using human sheilds in it at all. Gee suprise. IT did mention however that they are using schools that had been abandoned since the war began, and that it was near a church and stuff. But Hmmmm. Abandoned school building does NOT equal human shields, nor a running hospital.
Not quite, sorry. The US has long been complaining about Iraq stationing military hardware in residential areas...citing that "human shield" justification....and that is what we have been doing too. 2000lb JDAM bombs do not just take out one building...they can level entire city blocks and cause major damage within 1000 yards of detonation..
the difference is that if there was someone on the roof watching the forces with binoculars while they're being fired upon, they perfectly match a military target.
a spotter is, by defition " 1. A military or civil defense lookout."
know what a spotter does?
they find the high ground in or around a battle field. they locate enemy targets and transmit the data to their forces. those forces then fire upon the enemy target. often times with small arms (short range) or artillery (long range).
sorry, this person/persons should know better than this. this isn't a built in excuse for everything. it just so happens that this person's behavior, location, equipment and situation all matched up to a military target.
With this reasoning we could just say it's a bad idea to be in Iraq right now, and if you are, the Military can do whatever they want because they have a built in excuse.
And you shouldn't go to peace rallies because the police might beat you and shoot you with rubber bullets. Sure they don't fire into the ground as they're trained to do, but if you don't want to get hurt you shouldn't be at the rally anyway.
It's an excuse, but not a good one. Just because we send the military somewhere doesn't mean they're absolved of all responsibility.
Pointing cameras at tanks from your hotel window isn't likely to be a good idea when bullets are flying at said tanks (whether those bullets came from a Fedayeen soldier 5 floors above you, or in the building next to you). Is there any responsibility expected on the journalists side?
It's a war zone. People die. The journalist assumes the risk when accepting the assignment.
Some of you people want perfection and cleanness in an enterprise that is anything but. No one (President Bush, the military brass, commentators, etc.) ever said, going in to this, that there wouldn't be mistakes or injuries/deaths to civilians.
I asked this a couple of weeks ago though: if any of you can cite a war in the history of this planet where awful, tragic things didn't happen to innocent, undeserving people, I'll buy you a steak dinner.
You SHOULD be thankful that the casualties are far less than they would've been 10, 20, 50 years ago. If the U.S. is as brutal and bloodthirsty as many like to portray, there wouldn't be a single soul alive in Baghdad. Think about that.
By all accounts, we've gone out of our way - to the peril of our own troops at times - to ensure that we're not indiscriminately killing people left and right, women, children, non-combatants.
Because we haven't perfectly met that goal, some of you want to pack it in or denounce the whole thing? Or assume that we're just in there killing anything and everything that moves?
The fact that that beautiful, historic city is still standing and functioning is a testament to our true objective/mission there. We could've completely flattened it over two weeks ago. It would be the world's largest pile of rubble if we wanted it to be.
Not quite, sorry. The US has long been complaining about Iraq stationing military hardware in residential areas...citing that "human shield" justification....and that is what we have been doing too. 2000lb JDAM bombs do not just take out one building...they can level entire city blocks and cause major damage within 1000 yards of detonation..
Actually the problem with the Iraqi's is that they are still using buildings with civilians in them. Hospitals,ect.. I noticed that the article did mention they were in abandoned buildings(the U.S.). and guess what, if you have to fight an urbin war, you are going to have to use some places as a base.. if you can find an abandoned building.. why not.. it isnt the same...
the difference is that if there was someone on the roof watching the forces with binoculars while they're being fired upon, they perfectly match a military target.
But...when that's on a building you know is full of civilians, that is no longer a perfect military target. If the military had never been notified of the journalist's presence, then it'd just be an accident. Knowing that everyone is in there and attacking is irresponsible.
They could have easily called the journalists and warned them. Given them an hour to clear out and destroyed the building. Would the one potential spotter have gotten away? Probably.
And of course all of this is speculation. Everything we talk about her is speculation. So if tomorrow we get a story that says the opposite, all of our views will most likely change. There's no harm in that.
Hey SJO where were/are you when that photojournalist went/is missing at the hands of Saddam's people. You were no where to be found. You kept your big ****ing trap shut. Why?
There were three separate attacks on journalists at approximately the same time this morning: An al-jazeera office, an Abu-dahbi TV office, and the Palestine Hotel where journalists had been moved from the al-rasheed hotel. You must admit it seems suspicious, even if it does all turn out to be accident and coincidence.
There will definitely be an investigation into this.
Q. How do you feel about "embedded reporters," a phrase that's now, I guess a permanent entry in the journalistic lexicon?
A. It's not as good as what we did in the Vietnam War. Remember, I was in the Johnson White House at that time. We made a very conscious decision that reporters were to go where they wanted to go. Sometimes they had to go with the military because there was no other way to get there. But Johnson was actually presented with a recommendation from the Pentagon -- we didn't think to call it "embedded," but it would have created the same situation. He said we shouldn't put that kind of limit on them. He railed against the press! He loathed the press, when they reported information that was at odds with him. But it was an important moment in journalistic history, because we didn't try to manage the press. We challenged the press, and we would snipe at the press, but we didn't try to manage the press.
Of course things got worse after that: the incursions in Panama and Grenada, and Gulf War I. It was total censorship. So this is an improvement over what has been happening. But it's not as good as Vietnam, where reporters had total and unrestricted access. Morley Safer was out there filming GIs torching huts with their lighters. He wasn't embedded; he just went along. Or Peter Arnett, who was then working for A.P. out of Asia; he could go where he wanted to.
So this is an improvement, and I greatly admire the courage and bravery of people who are embedded. I wish I knew that I had that kind of courage. I mean, I've covered minor wars. I went to Central America, I went to Africa. But I've never been exposed to the kind of fire that these guys are being exposed to.
It does mean that you're seeing through the eyes of the military. That's a problem, in a sense. But it's an advantage over anything else we've seen in the last 20 to 25 years. The other disadvantage is that you see what that unit of military is seeing, and you only see that.
But I'm glad the military is doing it. Overall, it's a plus. It's better to be there (in the field) than not to be there, relying only on military briefings, which is what we got in Gulf War I.
Anyone who allows for a moment the idea that US armed forces intentionally attacked journalists to exist in their minds is just foolish.
Just an amazingly stupid implication. Amazingly stupid.
Anyone who ignores that the military intentionally attacked a civilian target is amazingly stupid.
EDIT: You'll call people stupid and foolish, but you don't support your opinion in any way. That makes your point less credible than the one you're attacking. Just thought I'd point that out.
Hey SJO where were/are you when that photojournalist went/is missing at the hands of Saddam's people. You were no where to be found. You kept your big ****ing trap shut. Why?
Scott...how long ago was that? How many journalists had been killed at that point? Were there enough to warrant a thread about a disproportionate number of (non-western) reporters getting killed, either accidentally or deliberately? Can you add a link to the thread, please?
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
it is a bad idea to point things and/or intently watch military forces that are being actively fired upon.
With this reasoning we could just say it's a bad idea to be in Iraq right now, and if you are, the Military can do whatever they want because they have a built in excuse.
And you shouldn't go to peace rallies because the police might beat you and shoot you with rubber bullets. Sure they don't fire into the ground as they're trained to do, but if you don't want to get hurt you shouldn't be at the rally anyway.
It's an excuse, but not a good one. Just because we send the military somewhere doesn't mean they're absolved of all responsibility.
If not, someone should let them know.
Originally posted by groverat
Did someone tell them there's a war going on?
If not, someone should let them know.
With this reasoning we could just say it's a bad idea to be in Iraq right now, and if you are, the Military can do whatever they want because they have a built in excuse.
And you shouldn't go to peace rallies because the police might beat you and shoot you with rubber bullets. Sure they don't fire into the ground as they're trained to do, but if you don't want to get hurt you shouldn't be at the rally anyway.
It's an excuse, but not a good one. Just because we send the military somewhere doesn't mean they're absolved of all responsibility.
Originally posted by bunge
Don't be silly. Some 'unpleasant, crappy things might occur'? If this were an accident then I could understand your position. But it wasn't. The Military targeted a building with civilians. Why on earth should anyone accept that?
How, exactly, is saying - that in a warzone being fought hard and dirty in a city setting - that "unpleasant, crappy things might occur" being silly? Probably the most accurate, truthful statement made on this forum in years.
I don't know the whole story about why or why not the military "targetted" this building. And you don't either, I'm sure. What I AM sure of (and this goes back to my initial response to sammi jo above) is that - despite her tone and implications in her original post - our troops aren't going around actively "gunning for civilians", be it reporters, kids, etc.
I can't second-guess or armchair command the military. Are you 100% sure that all they saw was a guy with binoculars?
For whatever reason, they obviously believed this to be a threat. Yes, it sucks. No one here is happy that people are dying.
I'm not "accepting" it as much as going "I trust our troops to protect themselves" and - AGAIN - I don't think I'd be tempting fate by hanging out in downtown Baghdad at this particular time.
I simply can't get too torqued up about this. If that makes me a bad fella, well...
Originally posted by The General
Actually, I read your links, and there was no mention of using human sheilds in it at all. Gee suprise. IT did mention however that they are using schools that had been abandoned since the war began, and that it was near a church and stuff. But Hmmmm. Abandoned school building does NOT equal human shields, nor a running hospital.
Not quite, sorry. The US has long been complaining about Iraq stationing military hardware in residential areas...citing that "human shield" justification....and that is what we have been doing too. 2000lb JDAM bombs do not just take out one building...they can level entire city blocks and cause major damage within 1000 yards of detonation..
a spotter is, by defition " 1. A military or civil defense lookout."
know what a spotter does?
they find the high ground in or around a battle field. they locate enemy targets and transmit the data to their forces. those forces then fire upon the enemy target. often times with small arms (short range) or artillery (long range).
sorry, this person/persons should know better than this. this isn't a built in excuse for everything. it just so happens that this person's behavior, location, equipment and situation all matched up to a military target.
Originally posted by bunge
With this reasoning we could just say it's a bad idea to be in Iraq right now, and if you are, the Military can do whatever they want because they have a built in excuse.
And you shouldn't go to peace rallies because the police might beat you and shoot you with rubber bullets. Sure they don't fire into the ground as they're trained to do, but if you don't want to get hurt you shouldn't be at the rally anyway.
It's an excuse, but not a good one. Just because we send the military somewhere doesn't mean they're absolved of all responsibility.
Pointing cameras at tanks from your hotel window isn't likely to be a good idea when bullets are flying at said tanks (whether those bullets came from a Fedayeen soldier 5 floors above you, or in the building next to you). Is there any responsibility expected on the journalists side?
It's a war zone. People die. The journalist assumes the risk when accepting the assignment.
I asked this a couple of weeks ago though: if any of you can cite a war in the history of this planet where awful, tragic things didn't happen to innocent, undeserving people, I'll buy you a steak dinner.
You SHOULD be thankful that the casualties are far less than they would've been 10, 20, 50 years ago. If the U.S. is as brutal and bloodthirsty as many like to portray, there wouldn't be a single soul alive in Baghdad. Think about that.
By all accounts, we've gone out of our way - to the peril of our own troops at times - to ensure that we're not indiscriminately killing people left and right, women, children, non-combatants.
Because we haven't perfectly met that goal, some of you want to pack it in or denounce the whole thing? Or assume that we're just in there killing anything and everything that moves?
The fact that that beautiful, historic city is still standing and functioning is a testament to our true objective/mission there. We could've completely flattened it over two weeks ago. It would be the world's largest pile of rubble if we wanted it to be.
We don't.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Not quite, sorry. The US has long been complaining about Iraq stationing military hardware in residential areas...citing that "human shield" justification....and that is what we have been doing too. 2000lb JDAM bombs do not just take out one building...they can level entire city blocks and cause major damage within 1000 yards of detonation..
Actually the problem with the Iraqi's is that they are still using buildings with civilians in them. Hospitals,ect.. I noticed that the article did mention they were in abandoned buildings(the U.S.). and guess what, if you have to fight an urbin war, you are going to have to use some places as a base.. if you can find an abandoned building.. why not.. it isnt the same...
Originally posted by alcimedes
the difference is that if there was someone on the roof watching the forces with binoculars while they're being fired upon, they perfectly match a military target.
But...when that's on a building you know is full of civilians, that is no longer a perfect military target. If the military had never been notified of the journalist's presence, then it'd just be an accident. Knowing that everyone is in there and attacking is irresponsible.
They could have easily called the journalists and warned them. Given them an hour to clear out and destroyed the building. Would the one potential spotter have gotten away? Probably.
And of course all of this is speculation. Everything we talk about her is speculation. So if tomorrow we get a story that says the opposite, all of our views will most likely change. There's no harm in that.
Originally posted by pscates
Some of you people want perfection and cleanness in an enterprise that is anything but.
No one, especially me, is asking for perfection. But bombing a building you know is housing civilians is not right.
And why did someone say in another thread that it's a guy? Is it?
Somebody help me!
There will definitely be an investigation into this.
Not even my most socialist, anti-war professor (Mr. Robert Jensen) saw this as anything more than the unfortunate results of being in a war situation.
Anyone who allows for a moment the idea that US armed forces intentionally attacked journalists to exist in their minds is just foolish.
Just an amazingly stupid implication. Amazingly stupid.
Q. How do you feel about "embedded reporters," a phrase that's now, I guess a permanent entry in the journalistic lexicon?
A. It's not as good as what we did in the Vietnam War. Remember, I was in the Johnson White House at that time. We made a very conscious decision that reporters were to go where they wanted to go. Sometimes they had to go with the military because there was no other way to get there. But Johnson was actually presented with a recommendation from the Pentagon -- we didn't think to call it "embedded," but it would have created the same situation. He said we shouldn't put that kind of limit on them. He railed against the press! He loathed the press, when they reported information that was at odds with him. But it was an important moment in journalistic history, because we didn't try to manage the press. We challenged the press, and we would snipe at the press, but we didn't try to manage the press.
Of course things got worse after that: the incursions in Panama and Grenada, and Gulf War I. It was total censorship. So this is an improvement over what has been happening. But it's not as good as Vietnam, where reporters had total and unrestricted access. Morley Safer was out there filming GIs torching huts with their lighters. He wasn't embedded; he just went along. Or Peter Arnett, who was then working for A.P. out of Asia; he could go where he wanted to.
So this is an improvement, and I greatly admire the courage and bravery of people who are embedded. I wish I knew that I had that kind of courage. I mean, I've covered minor wars. I went to Central America, I went to Africa. But I've never been exposed to the kind of fire that these guys are being exposed to.
It does mean that you're seeing through the eyes of the military. That's a problem, in a sense. But it's an advantage over anything else we've seen in the last 20 to 25 years. The other disadvantage is that you see what that unit of military is seeing, and you only see that.
But I'm glad the military is doing it. Overall, it's a plus. It's better to be there (in the field) than not to be there, relying only on military briefings, which is what we got in Gulf War I.
Interesting...
Originally posted by groverat
Anyone who allows for a moment the idea that US armed forces intentionally attacked journalists to exist in their minds is just foolish.
Just an amazingly stupid implication. Amazingly stupid.
Anyone who ignores that the military intentionally attacked a civilian target is amazingly stupid.
EDIT: You'll call people stupid and foolish, but you don't support your opinion in any way. That makes your point less credible than the one you're attacking. Just thought I'd point that out.
Originally posted by Scott
Hey SJO where were/are you when that photojournalist went/is missing at the hands of Saddam's people. You were no where to be found. You kept your big ****ing trap shut. Why?
Scott...how long ago was that? How many journalists had been killed at that point? Were there enough to warrant a thread about a disproportionate number of (non-western) reporters getting killed, either accidentally or deliberately? Can you add a link to the thread, please?
Anyone who allows for a moment the idea that US armed forces intentionally attacked journalists to exist in their minds is just foolish.
Just an amazingly stupid implication. Amazingly stupid.
No, Groverat. Absolutely not. If you honestly think that, then you must be as naive as I am cynical.