US warplanes bomb Al Jazeera office, kill journalist
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Even if people are shooting at you from said building? the journalists i've heard, who were living in said building, said they'd never heard any gunfire coming from the building. the only thing they could think of was that some journalists have been on the top of the building with binoculars. and, what kind of intelligence service doesn't know where the journalists are staying? -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1503&e=3&u=/afp/20030408/ts_afp/iraq_war_baghdad_media_030408145143[^]
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhino surprises. the military defends what it did. the journalists have a different story. you choose one side; i choose the other. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
no surprises. the military defends what it did. the journalists have a different story. you choose one side; i choose the other. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Visual evidence good enough for you? "Abu Dhabi TV aired harrowing live footage Tuesday showing its camera position under attack. As they filmed the arrival of two US tanks on a major bridge in central Baghdad close to their offices overlooking the river, what appeared to be Iraqi machinegun fire clattered out from just beneath the camera position." Our troops wouldn't just fire on a journalist for the heck of it.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Joe Woodbury wrote: They ARE in a W-A-R Z-O-N-E. they are also in a city full of civillians. you can't just blow up buildings on a hunch. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Sure you can- watch the news - Richard In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. Orson Welles
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: They ARE in a W-A-R Z-O-N-E. they are also in a city full of civillians. you can't just blow up buildings on a hunch. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Chris Losinger wrote: they are also in a city full of civillians. And if they had been hanging around those civilians, they wouldn't have been killed. Instead they were in the middle of the battle! Watching it! (I would have chosen the "hide in basement" option.) Chris Losinger wrote: you can't just blow up buildings on a hunch. The American forces weren't. They were firing at what they believed to be the source of the opposing fire. The money quote is: General Buford Blount, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division said: "The tank was receiving fire from the hotel, RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) and small-arms fire, and engaged with one tank round. The firing stopped." Please note: "The firing stopped." (Far too many of these so-called "war" journalists have displayed such extreme ignorance of all aspects of war, I simply don't trust their statements of where sniper fire may have originated. Apparently, they aren't even aware that the soldiers being fired upon aren't responding to sound, but muzzle flash and other indicators.)
-
Visual evidence good enough for you? "Abu Dhabi TV aired harrowing live footage Tuesday showing its camera position under attack. As they filmed the arrival of two US tanks on a major bridge in central Baghdad close to their offices overlooking the river, what appeared to be Iraqi machinegun fire clattered out from just beneath the camera position." Our troops wouldn't just fire on a journalist for the heck of it.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhimaybe we're talking about two different incidents here. i'm talking about the hotel where journalists have been staying, not al-J's offices.
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
Chris Losinger wrote: they are also in a city full of civillians. And if they had been hanging around those civilians, they wouldn't have been killed. Instead they were in the middle of the battle! Watching it! (I would have chosen the "hide in basement" option.) Chris Losinger wrote: you can't just blow up buildings on a hunch. The American forces weren't. They were firing at what they believed to be the source of the opposing fire. The money quote is: General Buford Blount, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division said: "The tank was receiving fire from the hotel, RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) and small-arms fire, and engaged with one tank round. The firing stopped." Please note: "The firing stopped." (Far too many of these so-called "war" journalists have displayed such extreme ignorance of all aspects of war, I simply don't trust their statements of where sniper fire may have originated. Apparently, they aren't even aware that the soldiers being fired upon aren't responding to sound, but muzzle flash and other indicators.)
Joe Woodbury wrote: And if they had been hanging around those civilians, they wouldn't have been killed. err. what? yes yes, i know what the military said. i also know what the journalist said. feel free to believe who you want, and i'll do the same. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: And if they had been hanging around those civilians, they wouldn't have been killed. err. what? yes yes, i know what the military said. i also know what the journalist said. feel free to believe who you want, and i'll do the same. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Do you refuse to believe that Saddam loyalists would hide behind journalists and civilians? Iraqi "minders" are still monitoring the journalists in Baghdad and I've noticed those journalists reporting from there are tilted way more towards the Iraqi point of view. I would rather believe our well trained soldiers than journalists with guns in their backs.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Do you refuse to believe that Saddam loyalists would hide behind journalists and civilians? Iraqi "minders" are still monitoring the journalists in Baghdad and I've noticed those journalists reporting from there are tilted way more towards the Iraqi point of view. I would rather believe our well trained soldiers than journalists with guns in their backs.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiJason Henderson wrote: Do you refuse to believe that Saddam loyalists would hide behind journalists and civilians? no. but i also know that 75% of every "breaking" news story that's been posted here in the past weeks has turned out to be utterly false. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MPZEBYHT2SKIOCRBAELCFEY?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2528603[^] "Reports indicate the coalition force operating near the hotel took fire from the lobby of the hotel and returned fire." But when asked why the tank hit a floor so high up, he said: "I may have misspoken on exactly where the fire came from." -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Do you refuse to believe that Saddam loyalists would hide behind journalists and civilians? no. but i also know that 75% of every "breaking" news story that's been posted here in the past weeks has turned out to be utterly false. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MPZEBYHT2SKIOCRBAELCFEY?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2528603[^] "Reports indicate the coalition force operating near the hotel took fire from the lobby of the hotel and returned fire." But when asked why the tank hit a floor so high up, he said: "I may have misspoken on exactly where the fire came from." -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Chris Losinger wrote: But when asked why the tank hit a floor so high up, he said: "I may have misspoken on exactly where the fire came from." That was General Brooks at Cental Command explaining the report from the field. It does nothing to diminish the original report. Other quote from cited article: "Clearly the war, and all its confusion, have come to the heart of Baghdad, but the incident nonetheless raises questions about the judgment of the advancing U.S. troops who have known all along that this hotel is the main base for almost all foreign journalists in Baghdad," Linnebank said. Yeah and so do the Iraqis, dumbass. (And the Iraqi military has no qualms about killing journalists, they have already killed several, both targeted and as "collateral damage", or using woman and children as shields, for that matter. They've also hidden in, and shot from, some of Islam's holiest sites which, unlike hotels, ARE "prohibited" targets.)
-
-
Chris Losinger wrote: But when asked why the tank hit a floor so high up, he said: "I may have misspoken on exactly where the fire came from." That was General Brooks at Cental Command explaining the report from the field. It does nothing to diminish the original report. Other quote from cited article: "Clearly the war, and all its confusion, have come to the heart of Baghdad, but the incident nonetheless raises questions about the judgment of the advancing U.S. troops who have known all along that this hotel is the main base for almost all foreign journalists in Baghdad," Linnebank said. Yeah and so do the Iraqis, dumbass. (And the Iraqi military has no qualms about killing journalists, they have already killed several, both targeted and as "collateral damage", or using woman and children as shields, for that matter. They've also hidden in, and shot from, some of Islam's holiest sites which, unlike hotels, ARE "prohibited" targets.)
the only way to deal with the situation was to shoot the building with a cannon? you don't think there might have been a way to take out these reported snipers in a way that wouldn't kill journalists? Joe Woodbury wrote: "collateral damage" let's not get too righteous on that particular point. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
the only way to deal with the situation was to shoot the building with a cannon? you don't think there might have been a way to take out these reported snipers in a way that wouldn't kill journalists? Joe Woodbury wrote: "collateral damage" let's not get too righteous on that particular point. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
I'm going to get down-modded for this, but it has to be said. American troops as a unit are very "jumpy", for lack of a better term; despite all their training they have a predisposition to act first and think later when they are in a situation where they feel their life is directly threatened. If I successfully shot an air gun at a unit of American artillery I would not wholly unexpect to have an air strike called upon me – that is the way of thinking that they push forward with, and is this James-Bond-Goldeneye "I am invincible" mindset that causes so many of the unfortunate incidents that we have seen not just in the past few weeks but in the past hundred odd years. They go to such apparent measures to ensure the safety of themselves at the expense of all others -- an American soldier will get the job done, they have the sheer force, firepower and arrogance to do almost anything, but they are as dangerous by your side as they are on top of you. Why is this? I am not a historian nor an expert, but I suspect it is largely due to the image the nation has of itself with respect to all others, even so far as down to the individual themselves, and in no small part to the Ian-Malcolm-in-Jurassic-Park "they did not earn the respect for themselves" attitude. (N.B: as in respect "for and in" themselves). Like I said, I am going to be down-modded for this; I can already hear the misquotes and name-calling.
David Wulff
"i said no to noddy like 20 times but in the end i just couldnt say no to him anymore" - Wishful Thinking
-
the only way to deal with the situation was to shoot the building with a cannon? you don't think there might have been a way to take out these reported snipers in a way that wouldn't kill journalists? Joe Woodbury wrote: "collateral damage" let's not get too righteous on that particular point. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
They were in the middle of a fire fight! They returned fire from what they believed to be the source and that firing stopped. For all their reporting prowess, the journalists are being rather naive about this entire incident. In some cases they are lying (one reporter stated he hadn't heard shots coming from that part of the hotel but later stated he watched the attack from the lawn in front of the hotel!) More importantly, the hotel HAS had armed Iraqis occupying it for days. It is not likely that an opportunistic Iraqi realized it was a great place to initiate an attack? I wish this incident, and other friendly fire incidents, hadn't happened, but this is war. Furthermore, the journalists were their because they chose to be. I'll also add that if it can be shown that the tank commander fired on the hotel out of any motivation but to defend himself and his troops, then he should be punished to the fullest extent possible. (Or if he disobeyed orders NOT to fire on the hotel even if fired upon.) Concerning my use of "collateral damage"; did you deliberately misread what I stated? Two days ago, several journalists were killed south of Baghdad. I seriously doubt the Iraqis attacked them specifically or even knew they were there. It was meant in that context.
-
I'm going to get down-modded for this, but it has to be said. American troops as a unit are very "jumpy", for lack of a better term; despite all their training they have a predisposition to act first and think later when they are in a situation where they feel their life is directly threatened. If I successfully shot an air gun at a unit of American artillery I would not wholly unexpect to have an air strike called upon me – that is the way of thinking that they push forward with, and is this James-Bond-Goldeneye "I am invincible" mindset that causes so many of the unfortunate incidents that we have seen not just in the past few weeks but in the past hundred odd years. They go to such apparent measures to ensure the safety of themselves at the expense of all others -- an American soldier will get the job done, they have the sheer force, firepower and arrogance to do almost anything, but they are as dangerous by your side as they are on top of you. Why is this? I am not a historian nor an expert, but I suspect it is largely due to the image the nation has of itself with respect to all others, even so far as down to the individual themselves, and in no small part to the Ian-Malcolm-in-Jurassic-Park "they did not earn the respect for themselves" attitude. (N.B: as in respect "for and in" themselves). Like I said, I am going to be down-modded for this; I can already hear the misquotes and name-calling.
David Wulff
"i said no to noddy like 20 times but in the end i just couldnt say no to him anymore" - Wishful Thinking
I disagree with your characterization, but there may be some general truth in it (save the last paragraph.) Part of this is due to what is called "The Powell Doctrine" which states that IF we go to war, we should go with overwhelming force. Beyond that generality, though, I don't think this theory has much validity and the conduct of the war to date pretty much disproves it. Your suggestion that American soldiers are "as dangerous by your side" as being your enemy is simply ludicrous and betrays a profound ignorance of history.
-
They were in the middle of a fire fight! They returned fire from what they believed to be the source and that firing stopped. For all their reporting prowess, the journalists are being rather naive about this entire incident. In some cases they are lying (one reporter stated he hadn't heard shots coming from that part of the hotel but later stated he watched the attack from the lawn in front of the hotel!) More importantly, the hotel HAS had armed Iraqis occupying it for days. It is not likely that an opportunistic Iraqi realized it was a great place to initiate an attack? I wish this incident, and other friendly fire incidents, hadn't happened, but this is war. Furthermore, the journalists were their because they chose to be. I'll also add that if it can be shown that the tank commander fired on the hotel out of any motivation but to defend himself and his troops, then he should be punished to the fullest extent possible. (Or if he disobeyed orders NOT to fire on the hotel even if fired upon.) Concerning my use of "collateral damage"; did you deliberately misread what I stated? Two days ago, several journalists were killed south of Baghdad. I seriously doubt the Iraqis attacked them specifically or even knew they were there. It was meant in that context.
Joe Woodbury wrote: I'll also add that if it can be shown that the tank commander fired on the hotel out of any motivation but to defend himself and his troops, then he should be punished to the fullest extent possible. then let's leave it at that until the full story comes out. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
I'm going to get down-modded for this, but it has to be said. American troops as a unit are very "jumpy", for lack of a better term; despite all their training they have a predisposition to act first and think later when they are in a situation where they feel their life is directly threatened. If I successfully shot an air gun at a unit of American artillery I would not wholly unexpect to have an air strike called upon me – that is the way of thinking that they push forward with, and is this James-Bond-Goldeneye "I am invincible" mindset that causes so many of the unfortunate incidents that we have seen not just in the past few weeks but in the past hundred odd years. They go to such apparent measures to ensure the safety of themselves at the expense of all others -- an American soldier will get the job done, they have the sheer force, firepower and arrogance to do almost anything, but they are as dangerous by your side as they are on top of you. Why is this? I am not a historian nor an expert, but I suspect it is largely due to the image the nation has of itself with respect to all others, even so far as down to the individual themselves, and in no small part to the Ian-Malcolm-in-Jurassic-Park "they did not earn the respect for themselves" attitude. (N.B: as in respect "for and in" themselves). Like I said, I am going to be down-modded for this; I can already hear the misquotes and name-calling.
David Wulff
"i said no to noddy like 20 times but in the end i just couldnt say no to him anymore" - Wishful Thinking
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: They ARE in a W-A-R Z-O-N-E. they are also in a city full of civillians. you can't just blow up buildings on a hunch. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Chris Losinger wrote: you can't just blow up buildings on a hunch. i would assume that it takes more than a "hunch" to make those decisions. or maybe not. I mean if a train is coming down the track and I had a "hunch" that it would derail before it hit me i'd still get off the track. the point being, whatever you choose to believe (unless of course you were there) will be tainted nonetheless. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
David Wulff wrote: American troops as a unit are very "jumpy", for lack of a better term i.e. They're cowards!
anonymous wrote: David Wulff wrote: American troops as a unit are very "jumpy", for lack of a better term i.e. They're cowards! Naaa.... Think "Playstation". Q3, Unreal, ... Now that's not cowardice, that's training! :-D - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Even if people are shooting at you from said building? the journalists i've heard, who were living in said building, said they'd never heard any gunfire coming from the building. the only thing they could think of was that some journalists have been on the top of the building with binoculars. and, what kind of intelligence service doesn't know where the journalists are staying? -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler