No way. Not at all. Nothing to really "fire away" with at the moment. I'm not Scott.
It just dawned on me a while ago: the structure of your posts, the content, the linkage, etc. Then I looked at the name and was reciting "sammi jo, sammi jo..." to myself (I don't know why) and then - like a monkey in a bumper car - I suddenly went "Samantha Joanne...I get it!"
Still confused about the male/female thing. Someone in another thread was explaining how an "i" at the end means one thing or another. But "Samantha"...I'm going out on limb and assume what I always did.
Chick. Dame. Tomato.
Captain Oblivious, at times. I guess I was the only person here who didn't notice the name change.
JDAMS causing disaster 1000 yards away... riiighht, more like 5-10 yards they are meant for going through bunkers not exploding on the surface... So if you you are saying 2+2=7 I guess that since we have more losses by accidents from our own forces is not an accident, that those soldiers were spies and we shot them too... yeah uh huh thats right. You aren't a spy are you?
I called her Sammi Jo in another thread awhile back...guess when the new version of the board went up she changed it to that. Much more fun name for these board, less strident sounding <ducking>....but the foot-stomping petulant message is still the same
...but opinions are good here in the old Fireside Chat forum (conveniently disguised as the AppleOutsider forum). Boy o boy do I miss those lighthearted conversations about television programs and comic books in AppleOutsider. Now there's just war, war, war. Sorry, didn't mean to grind that axe.
Why would they fire on the journalists in a non-threatening building?
There are two wars going on here. The first is the one involving guns, bombs, missiles, napalm, blood, peoples' brains being blown all over the streets, city blocks being leveled, ..etc etc...you know...the juicy stuff that absolutely must not reach the television sets of (the huge majority of) American homes.
For the US, its also the war for public opinion that must never be conceded. Of course the Coalition are winning the 'military war', that is a given. But if you happen to have a satellite feed which can receive news relays out of Iraq, Jordan, Abu Dhabi, Syria, Egypt, Iran etc etc, watch the live feeds and news reports...it is extremely ugly and paints a picture of the war drastically different from that painted by the bland soundbites of Fox, CNN and the US networks. The destruction in Baghdad, Mosul Basra and other Iraqi towns and villages is horrendous and many more civilians are getting killed than the 1200 or so published on http://www.iraqbodycount.net . Central Command gets this material too, and so do 300 million people in the Arab world, and it's a big factor in fomenting more and more hatred towards the US and UK as each day passes. Much of the material is provided by European reporters as well as Arab sources. The Iraqis are winning the war of public opinion as far as the Arab world is concerned.
For a US military commander's point of view, it would be paramount to eliminate media which gives "aid and comfort" to the enemy...and the people of the numerous Arab nations in the region. In fact before the war started the Pentagon did categorically state that foreign journalists may be targeted. We all saw those reports. For what other reason would they target the foreign press if it wasn't to do with unwelcome PR? Not forgetting of course, that 80% of the rest of the world (yes, it does exist) were already against the war before it even started.
[B]No way. Not at all. Nothing to really "fire away" with at the moment. I'm not Scott.
It just dawned on me a while ago: the structure of your posts, the content, the linkage, etc. Then I looked at the name and was reciting "sammi jo, sammi jo..." to myself (I don't know why) and then - like a monkey in a bumper car - I suddenly went "Samantha Joanne...I get it!"
The first name I went under (in here) was "SJOLLEN" (Abbreviation for S.J.Ollendale). Perhaps you remember that one?
Every so often, I can't sign in and I have to make a new handle and password.
The seventh post in this thread references the fact that the Feyadeen are well known to be operating in the building. And they're not delivering fresh baked cookies to the press room.
By definition then, it's no longer a strictly civilian target.
True, the lives of the reporters inside cannot just be written off, but it's unrealistic to expect coalition forces to simply ignore it.
I think the blast was a message to the Feyadeen to let the reporters leave and abandon attacks from the building. CentCom is sending a not-so-subtle message that they won't be deterred by the presence of non-combatants there.
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.
The army must suck at killing journalists then, because all they got out of the Palestine Hotel attack was an AP cameraman and a wacky Spaniard.
And the Al-Jazeera office is right across the river from the Palestine Hotel, so I wouldn't call it a separate attack.
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.
Again, there's going to be an investigation into this, I'm quite sure. It's not at all clear what happened. Why did the military shell a hotel known to house basically all the journalists in Baghdad? Why did two GPS-guided missiles hit al-jazeera? You must be against any investigation. What's funny about that is that I'm sure the Pentagon also be part of the investigation into exactly what happened. I doubt they'll take your "stop asking questions" attitude.
The Palestine hotel was probably just stupidity. But do you really find it absolutely impossible to believe that we would intentionally try to take out Arab news media, in this war of "hearts and minds?" I don't. It's unlikely, perhaps, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out like you.
You're a journalism student right? I can see your column now: "groverat, the credulous journalist. Read all about the government's line on everything right here."
For a US military commander's point of view, it would be paramount to eliminate media which gives "aid and comfort" to the enemy...and the people of the numerous Arab nations in the region.
So how does that explain attacking a hotel full of WESTERN journalists?
Destroying al-Jazeera, sure, if you're a conspiracy buff you can swing with that, but dead Reuters reporters? What sense does that make?
Quote:
In fact before the war started the Pentagon did categorically state that foreign journalists may be targeted.
Targeted?
Put at risk, sure, in a war zone they are at risk.
But actively targetting journalists because they are journalists, I'd love to see some evidence of that.
The seventh post in this thread references the fact that the Feyadeen are well known to be operating in the building.
I went back and didn't see that. What am I missing?
I realize that when a military target is put next to a civilian target (or inside as the case may be) the civilian target becomes a military target. According to several of the links provided, the info the bombers went on was spotting someone with binoculars. That might be 'enough' evidence for an ambiguous target, but not one that is known to hold civilians.
If someone has evidence that's contrary, that's fine. The argument changes. I for one believe the civilians inside should be notified because risking X number of civilians in an attempt to bomb Y number of Feyadeen is wrong.
Comments
Originally posted by pscates
Wait a minute...is sammi jo the former Samantha Joanne Ollendale? I'm confused. I was gone for a while.
And why did someone say in another thread that it's a guy? Is it?
Somebody help me!
Yes, pscates...it is me. Now you know, fire away with everything you have!
It just dawned on me a while ago: the structure of your posts, the content, the linkage, etc. Then I looked at the name and was reciting "sammi jo, sammi jo..." to myself (I don't know why) and then - like a monkey in a bumper car - I suddenly went "Samantha Joanne...I get it!"
Still confused about the male/female thing. Someone in another thread was explaining how an "i" at the end means one thing or another. But "Samantha"...I'm going out on limb and assume what I always did.
Chick. Dame. Tomato.
Captain Oblivious, at times. I guess I was the only person here who didn't notice the name change.
Originally posted by groverat
Why would they fire on the journalists in a non-threatening building?
I'm sure now Aljazeera will be running an op-ed piece on that pertaining to Afghanistan & Iraq....
Originally posted by groverat
Why would they fire on the journalists in a non-threatening building?
They thought it was Geraldo? Better safe than sorry.
Captain Oblivious, at times. I guess I was the only person here who didn't notice the name change.
yeah, you always were a little slow there 'scates.
just kidding.
Goes right over my head half the time and I catch on about a week or so later!
"Wait, Tampa Bay won the Super Bowl? When was this?" - me in early March
I called her Sammi Jo in another thread awhile back...guess when the new version of the board went up she changed it to that. Much more fun name for these board, less strident sounding <ducking>....but the foot-stomping petulant message is still the same
...but opinions are good here in the old Fireside Chat forum (conveniently disguised as the AppleOutsider forum). Boy o boy do I miss those lighthearted conversations about television programs and comic books in AppleOutsider. Now there's just war, war, war. Sorry, didn't mean to grind that axe.
Originally posted by groverat
Why would they fire on the journalists in a non-threatening building?
There are two wars going on here. The first is the one involving guns, bombs, missiles, napalm, blood, peoples' brains being blown all over the streets, city blocks being leveled, ..etc etc...you know...the juicy stuff that absolutely must not reach the television sets of (the huge majority of) American homes.
For the US, its also the war for public opinion that must never be conceded. Of course the Coalition are winning the 'military war', that is a given. But if you happen to have a satellite feed which can receive news relays out of Iraq, Jordan, Abu Dhabi, Syria, Egypt, Iran etc etc, watch the live feeds and news reports...it is extremely ugly and paints a picture of the war drastically different from that painted by the bland soundbites of Fox, CNN and the US networks. The destruction in Baghdad, Mosul Basra and other Iraqi towns and villages is horrendous and many more civilians are getting killed than the 1200 or so published on http://www.iraqbodycount.net . Central Command gets this material too, and so do 300 million people in the Arab world, and it's a big factor in fomenting more and more hatred towards the US and UK as each day passes. Much of the material is provided by European reporters as well as Arab sources. The Iraqis are winning the war of public opinion as far as the Arab world is concerned.
For a US military commander's point of view, it would be paramount to eliminate media which gives "aid and comfort" to the enemy...and the people of the numerous Arab nations in the region. In fact before the war started the Pentagon did categorically state that foreign journalists may be targeted. We all saw those reports. For what other reason would they target the foreign press if it wasn't to do with unwelcome PR? Not forgetting of course, that 80% of the rest of the world (yes, it does exist) were already against the war before it even started.
Originally posted by pscates
[B]No way. Not at all. Nothing to really "fire away" with at the moment. I'm not Scott.
It just dawned on me a while ago: the structure of your posts, the content, the linkage, etc. Then I looked at the name and was reciting "sammi jo, sammi jo..." to myself (I don't know why) and then - like a monkey in a bumper car - I suddenly went "Samantha Joanne...I get it!"
The first name I went under (in here) was "SJOLLEN" (Abbreviation for S.J.Ollendale). Perhaps you remember that one?
Every so often, I can't sign in and I have to make a new handle and password.
I am not Danish btw!
The seventh post in this thread references the fact that the Feyadeen are well known to be operating in the building. And they're not delivering fresh baked cookies to the press room.
By definition then, it's no longer a strictly civilian target.
True, the lives of the reporters inside cannot just be written off, but it's unrealistic to expect coalition forces to simply ignore it.
I think the blast was a message to the Feyadeen to let the reporters leave and abandon attacks from the building. CentCom is sending a not-so-subtle message that they won't be deterred by the presence of non-combatants there.
Originally posted by sammi jo
I am not Danish btw!
No, I said daMe in most post above. With an "m". As in woman. Dame.
Not Dane.
Originally posted by BRussell
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.
The army must suck at killing journalists then, because all they got out of the Palestine Hotel attack was an AP cameraman and a wacky Spaniard.
And the Al-Jazeera office is right across the river from the Palestine Hotel, so I wouldn't call it a separate attack.
Originally posted by groverat
No, doesn't seem suspicious at all.
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.
Again, there's going to be an investigation into this, I'm quite sure. It's not at all clear what happened. Why did the military shell a hotel known to house basically all the journalists in Baghdad? Why did two GPS-guided missiles hit al-jazeera? You must be against any investigation. What's funny about that is that I'm sure the Pentagon also be part of the investigation into exactly what happened. I doubt they'll take your "stop asking questions" attitude.
The Palestine hotel was probably just stupidity. But do you really find it absolutely impossible to believe that we would intentionally try to take out Arab news media, in this war of "hearts and minds?" I don't. It's unlikely, perhaps, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out like you.
You're a journalism student right? I can see your column now: "groverat, the credulous journalist. Read all about the government's line on everything right here."
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=5975
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...8-115152-5640r
The liberal media must be considered a real threat.
While accusing U.S. forces of deliberately targeting al-Jazeera, White accused the Iraqi regime of using journalists as human shields.
"The Baghdad authorities are just as culpable with their reckless disregard for civilian lives," he said.
For a US military commander's point of view, it would be paramount to eliminate media which gives "aid and comfort" to the enemy...and the people of the numerous Arab nations in the region.
So how does that explain attacking a hotel full of WESTERN journalists?
Destroying al-Jazeera, sure, if you're a conspiracy buff you can swing with that, but dead Reuters reporters? What sense does that make?
In fact before the war started the Pentagon did categorically state that foreign journalists may be targeted.
Targeted?
Put at risk, sure, in a war zone they are at risk.
But actively targetting journalists because they are journalists, I'd love to see some evidence of that.
-------
BRussell:
You must be against any investigation.
Must I be?
What an idiotic thing to say.
Originally posted by Frank777
The seventh post in this thread references the fact that the Feyadeen are well known to be operating in the building.
I went back and didn't see that. What am I missing?
I realize that when a military target is put next to a civilian target (or inside as the case may be) the civilian target becomes a military target. According to several of the links provided, the info the bombers went on was spotting someone with binoculars. That might be 'enough' evidence for an ambiguous target, but not one that is known to hold civilians.
If someone has evidence that's contrary, that's fine. The argument changes. I for one believe the civilians inside should be notified because risking X number of civilians in an attempt to bomb Y number of Feyadeen is wrong.