US warplanes bomb Al Jazeera office, kill journalist
-
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
-
David Wulff wrote: American troops as a unit are very "jumpy", for lack of a better term i.e. They're cowards!
Not what I meant, no. I honestly believe that most of them do what they do out of good intentions, with seperates them from the cowards who do what they do because they want to; I'd find it hard to conceive it could be the other way around as to be impossible.
David Wulff
"i said no to noddy like 20 times but in the end i just couldnt say no to him anymore" - Wishful Thinking
-
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
maybe 'hunch' was the wrong word. but, when i heard the story, it was from journalists who said there was no shooting coming from the building. believing them, i assume that the military was shooting at the building for some reason other than a direct threat. but, if it turns out that there actually was someone there shooting, i'm still a little puzzled as to why the US would shoot a building that it knew was full of journalists. but, whatever. i'm a Bush-hating liberal Saddmite, so don't pay any attention to me. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
maybe 'hunch' was the wrong word. but, when i heard the story, it was from journalists who said there was no shooting coming from the building. believing them, i assume that the military was shooting at the building for some reason other than a direct threat. but, if it turns out that there actually was someone there shooting, i'm still a little puzzled as to why the US would shoot a building that it knew was full of journalists. but, whatever. i'm a Bush-hating liberal Saddmite, so don't pay any attention to me. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Chris Losinger wrote: i'm still a little puzzled as to why the US would shoot a building that it knew was full of journalists. sounds perfectly logical to me ;P Chris Losinger wrote: i'm a Bush-hating liberal Saddmite, so don't pay any attention to me. :rolleyes: I think we know that by now. :laugh: - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
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
David Wulff wrote: They go to such apparent measures to ensure the safety of themselves at the expense of all others So what would you do in their situation, invite them down for tea? David Wulff wrote: an American soldier will get the job done, they have the sheer force, firepower and arrogance to do almost anything You are forgetting that they need to compensate for other country's missing spines. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
David Wulff wrote: They go to such apparent measures to ensure the safety of themselves at the expense of all others So what would you do in their situation, invite them down for tea? David Wulff wrote: an American soldier will get the job done, they have the sheer force, firepower and arrogance to do almost anything You are forgetting that they need to compensate for other country's missing spines. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
Nitron wrote: You are forgetting that they need to compensate for other country's missing spines. it's not spine, it's fist. there are few countries in the world who can seriously even consider taking on another country the way the US does, simply because of the overwhelming size of the US military. imagine if the US had an army the size of, say, Canada's: do you think we'd be liberating anyone ? and if we tried this Iraq thing with an army that size, do you think the rest of the world would sit by and watch ? -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler