BS: US does NOT kill journalists...

Subject: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: InOBU
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 10:30 PM

Press comfrence:
BBC... Today, you blew up El Jazeer's office, shot a news crew... and fired on the Palistine Hotel where the press is staying.. do you target the Press

Col Cramp: No. There was fire coming from the lobby of the hotel.

NBC. Our corisponents say there was not fire from the loby

Col Cramp, I mispoke, the loby was on fire, we did not know the hotel was the hotel, our tank driver had his map upsidedown...

CNN There is a huge sign on the roof saying Hotel Palistine

Col. Cramp... Oh, that Hotel Palistine, the one with the terrorists in it...

CNN You mean Journalists...

Col Cramp, No, under the Patriot Act, we send a JAG officer along with every unit, to revoke the press credentials of anyone in the area before we open fire.

Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 11:01 PM

Larry:

Ya know I love and respect you, man.

The fog of war often proves lethal to bystanders. It is awful. But I am confident it was not intentional. Attributing it to a general is a little too easy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 11:24 PM

Well, maybe not, but they do kill heads of state. Allende comes to mind. They have tried on some occasions in the past to kill Castro. And they are making every effort now to kill Saddam. It's a peculiar way for a supposedly lawful society to operate, I think, assassinating heads of state. They may also have killed one of their own, through a certain governmental agency, back in 1963.

Saddam is reported to have tried to kill Bush the Elder once. But that, of course, is because Saddam is evil. Evil people do things like that, don't they? Hmmmm....

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 11:29 PM

Yes, LH, evil people do things like that. War is among the evilest of the facts of life.

Once you're in one, of course, that becomes somewhat academic until you get out of it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: mack/misophist
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 12:01 AM

My belief? Although the brass might be happy to see reporters killed, I really don't believe an ordinary tank gunner would do that on purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Troll
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 12:28 AM

I don't believe that there has been a war yet in which journalists did NOT get killed.
When you insert yourself into a war zone, you take your life in your own hands. War zones are dangerous places and people die in them. And some of those people are journalists.
Anyone who deliberately places themselves in harms way, had better be aware that they can be killed, non-combatent or no.
I wonder how many journalists get killed every year right here in the US, just covering routine news assignments?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST,Martha
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 01:22 AM

Whether or not it was deliberate, it was another incident of American "friendly fire" taking out non-combatants, or combatants on the same side.

Cowboy psychology. They fire freely at anything that moves.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: DougR
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 02:35 AM

Reports are that the Iraqi regime designates WHERE the press people may stay. That hotel was the designated one. So what does the regime do? They have snipers on the upper floors of the hotel killing our service men. So what are they supposed to do? Not fire back?

When are you folks going to admit that the Iraqi regime is to blame for this mess? (I know. Foolish question)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:01 AM

This is part of the account from Reuters:

"A tank was receiving small arms fire and RPG fire from the hotel and engaged the target with one tank round," General Buford Blount, commander of the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad, told Reuters on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Central Command, the U.S. war headquarters in the Gulf state of Qatar, said forces received "significant enemy fire" from the hotel and returned fire in self-defense.

Reporters at the scene disputed this account.

"I never heard a single shot coming from any of the area around here, certainly not from the hotel," British Sky television's correspondent David Chater said.

"In all the three weeks I have worked from this hotel I have not heard a single shot fired from here and I have not seen a single armed person enter the hotel," Swiss television correspondent Ulrich Tilgner said in a report from the hotel.

Spain said it had asked for an explanation of the incident and had been told by U.S. commanders that they had warned journalists 48 hours beforehand that Iraqi military commanders were using the building for meetings. Correspondents at the hotel said they were unaware of any such warning.

Central Command spokesman Brigadier General Vincent Brooks said U.S. forces had been fired on from the hotel lobby but, when asked why the tank hit a floor so high up, added: "I may have misspoken on exactly where the fire came from."

Doug, I realize that the journalists who said they never heard a single shot fired from the hotel (let alone "small arms fire and RPG fire") were probably lying, and that Reuters is proably biased because it was one of their reporters who was killed, and the military people always tell the truth, unless they misspeak, of course...but the whole thing doesn't make me very proud to be an American. Just like this whole stinking war. And I'm not so sure the Iraqis feel very good about it, either. Especially the dead ones.

Oh, well, what's the use? My country, right or wrong, right?

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:40 AM

It's beginning to sound like Tom Lehrer's "Hunting Song":-

Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: gnu
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:59 AM

I laughed out loud when one young lady at the Centcom briefing asked if they should hang white sheets out of their windows. I would have answered, "Yes. It would make targeting easier." I was truly amazed at the stupidity and audacity of some of the press.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 05:01 AM

Relative to the numbers involved, it's a great deal more dangerous being a journalst out in Iraq than it is being in the US/UK miltaryv forces. Fifteen times as likely to get killed or injured is I believe the current ratio.

And either way the chances are it's going to be the US/UK who are actually the ones doing the shooting.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 05:05 AM

The BBC and ITV have daily reports sometimes 8 times a day from the rooftop of the Hotel Palestine, the information minister held press meetings from the roof of the Palestine Hotel, other foreign journalists other than American have their base at the Hotel Palestine -it is not nor ever has been a venue for snipers as would have been blatantly obvious to any US listening post or forward intelligence. The infiltration of the centre of Baghdad seems gungho and erratic and the minimisation of civilian casualties appears to have been set aside. We may be winning the war, but we are very nearly about to lose the peace before it even starts!

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:24 AM

probably saw someone pointing a fucking big tv camera at the tank as it was being hit with small arms fire, and they responded with a shot.
Please remind all media not to point things that look like a T.O.W. at tanks during a war.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Nemesis
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:43 AM

From the Observer (UK) 6 April 2003

"A French cameraman injured in the shooting attack that killed ITN correspondent Terry Lloyd believes US troops fired on press vehicles to "wipe out troublesome witmesses". IN an interview to be broadcast today, Daniel Demoustier said: "We were travelling along the route to Basra when we overtook some American tanks. We continued for several kilometres until we crossed two vehicles with Iraqui soldiers. We decided to turn around and it was then the Americans started firing shells at all four vehicles. I just had time to leap out. Terry was killed on the spot. The Americans contined to fire at him and at another vehicle which contained second French cameraman, Fred Nerac, who is still missing. "I don't want to imagine the worst, but I have the impression that the Anmericans wanted to wipe out troublesome witnesses" he said.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:46 AM

witness to what?

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:59 AM

BTW, the day before the incident a German journalist was killed by Iraqi fire.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:24 AM

Maybe not journalists, but the U.S. sure does the job on British soldiers- they've killed more than the Iraquis by last count- Liberated the hell out of 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: InOBU
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:41 AM

For the true story, look at the post Lrc add: Victory Song for the USA...
here is a taste


The crowds that cheered for Sadam now cheer for our Bush
You see that they love us, for cheering is the proof
They cheered their dictator before his armed ranks
But we came in peace in our humvees and tanks

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:44 AM

Jaysus, folks, fire ain't ever "friendly." Casualities from what is called "friendly fire" have been going on since war began -- it's impossible in the heat of combat to distinguish friend from foe. This applies to the US, the UK, the Russians, the Iraqis, EVERYONE. When your adrenaline's up, when you hear the "CRACK" of the bullet breaking the sound barrier next to your head (and you're damned glad you heard it!), technology or a white flag ain't a-gonna save the butt of the person you think fired the round.

This is especially true if you've seen your buddies die or be wounded. It's not hate, either -- it's rage.

Remember too that when a shell or bullet is fired it's going to land *someplace*. That might be a hospital or a hotel if it misses the target.

Why all the fuss when soldiers are killed? someone asked. After all, it's their job. The same can be said of journalists, who, unlike most soldiers, put themselves in harm's way voluntarily. Or perhaps we should blame the editors or producers, who after all insist on the stories which get their reporters killed. Or people who want to see the gore and carnage in their living rooms.

Me, I'm against this war, but I support the grunts, tankers, and others (on both sides) who have been told to do the job. I pity the civilians and will send whatever comfort I can to them. Sorry, but the reporters are doing what they are paid (and told) to do.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Grab
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:58 AM

Hille, sounds a load of rubbish to me. They drive past the US army, across into the front line, and run into the Iraqi army. The US army catches up and blitzes everything. And this guy's surprised he was in the crossfire?! What an arsehole!

Re the hotel, I'd be surprised if there was sniper fire from there. But when they're under fire, it's not completely surprising that stuff like this happens.

Re the "targetting the press" thing, get real - they've got tanks and shit, they could demolish the entire building in a couple of minutes if "targetting the press" was the aim!

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST,hotdog
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:39 AM

It is believed that journalists from the arab world, ie aljazeera, have tipped off the iraqi forces as to the movements of US troops and sent coded messages to the iraqis.. If that is the case, we should blow their nuts off.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:43 AM

Re the "targetting the press" thing, get real - they've got tanks and shit, they could demolish the entire building in a couple of minutes if "targetting the press" was the aim!

It might have been intended to force the jounalists to get their heads down and stop filming though !

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:48 AM

The camera crews at the Palistine Hotel put themselves at risk when they try to film the battle scene around them from the balconies of the hotel. It's not surprising to me that a tank commander on a bridge would order a round shot at the hotel bacony where he saw a flash from a camera which could well have been something more sinister. Regrettable but not surprising. One high-rise hotel pretty much looks like another in a battle situation, and even if the tank commander was briefed that this particular building was full of journalists it could also have been infiltrated by Iraqi soldiers/militants. What a stupid mess!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:50 AM

hotdog - believed by whom? You?

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: InOBU
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:08 AM

Here is another taste of the Victory song of the USA... kinda on point to this thread...

You yellow dogs who whine about civil liberty
How dare you criticize the land of the free
Two million we've put in our nations proud jails
We have room enough for our critics as well

Final Chorus:
Our Powerful Tanks and our glorious bombers
Spreading the joys of the land of the free
The foes of Christ and our Capitalist Union
Will rue the day we crossed the sea
or the northern boarder
or the southern boarder
Will rue the day WE CROSSED OUR SEA!

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:05 AM

It seems to have been well reported in Arab news sources, but not so many western ones, but there have been accusations that the US military have been detaining and mistreating non-embedded reporters allegedly making them stand for long periods, denying them water, and even beating one of them. The particular story I have read concerns two Israeli and two Portugese reporters. The Portugese were called Castro and Silva. Stick their names into Google news to find out what they say happened to them.

It certainly makes me suspect that the military are deliberately targetting places where non embedded journalists are staying - not with the intention of causing a huge loss of life or injury (that would provoke too much of an outcry), but to deliberately persuade these people that they are in too much danger to stay.

Peace

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:16 AM

If "friendly fire" occurs because of the confusion of war, why have only the Americans killed people with friendly fire? Why haven't the British?

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Beardy
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:16 AM

The Hotel Palestine has been the base for the majority of Western journalists since day 1 of the conflict. The US forces have been watching the TV coverage from that hotel and as stated in the initial post on this thread there is a bloody great sign on the hotel so to confuse it or believe that all hotels are alike is naive. Also for the General to say the tank driver had his map upside down is an astonishing admission but doesn't imply a raging battle where bullets and shells flying in your direction may lead to panic.

If Al-jazeera journalists were spying on the coalition and passing the information to the Iraqi's why were they expelled last week?

As for 'friendly fire'it would be more understandable if there was an opposing air force. The coalition forces are clearly identified by a large reversed lamda sign on all vehicles as well as being a different colour. Recognition training on shapes, sizes and silhouettes has been ongoing for months. Why is it the US forces seem to be making all these 'friendly fire' errors on British forces but there have been no reports of British forces attacking US forces? When a British Chinook helicopter was fired on by US gunners and the pilot landed and 'reprimanded' the gunners by asking when they had last seen any Iraqi aircraft you question whether a US pilots response would have been so restrained.


Beardy

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:42 AM

Does anyone remember, back in March, news stories about the Pentagon threatening to target journalists in Iraq? I do. This is the only reference I was able to find just now with a Google search though.

March 12, 2003: Pentagon threatens to target journalists in Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST,hotdog
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 12:55 PM

Believed by me and many in the military and many journalists who have had contact with these people or who listen to their biased anti-American views. It is simple. You DO listen to the news...

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 01:10 PM

Losing journalists and media types is a good idea, they are just crap anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 01:27 PM

"It is believed" - unless there is some reason for believing things, the fact that they are believed doesn't add up to much. If it is true that people were passing those kind of rumours around among the military, that would strengthen the case for suspecting that this killing at the Palestine Hotel wasn't an acident.

This is the main hotel where the press seems to operate from, and where broadcasts to the world's media seem to come from. I just now saw an interview with an American marine reporting on scenes in Baghdad. He was, of course, speaaking from the roof of the Palestine Hotel.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Nemesis
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 03:18 PM

The Guardian report into media attacks
Click here

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:34 PM

I don't know why we Brits are siding with the rebel colonists in the first place. We should have taken out that terrorist Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:31 PM

This is just another discussion where people's views and conclusions will again be determined by their preconceived prejudices, quite regardless of the available evidence, pro or con. People ignore, dispute or discount evidence that doesn't fit their customary agenda.

So, discuss, disagree, and enjoy...y'all...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: DougR
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 01:35 AM

Not proud to be an American, Mark. Good enough. Just be proud to be an Hawaiian then!

The Guardian report: (paraphrased) "Central Command reported that the tank crew was responding to enemy fire. Witnessess on the scene refuted this." So we are to believe the un-named witnesses, right? Because the Guardian reported it?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Nemesis
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 04:08 AM

Why not believe the "un-named witnesses because the Guardian reported it, Doug?

Reporters are trained observers/recorders of events .. Central Command have a situation to defend .. Reporters have a situation to report .. just because a truth may be unpalatable doesn't mean it must be untruthful.

And from the Guardian a few days earlier .. a picture of an un-named American soldier wearing a helmet disgracefully emblazoned with the slogan "Kill 'em all" .. perhaps, the Guardian altered the image to suit some anti-American/military agenda?

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:35 AM

"Un-named witnesses" who are named a paragraph or so later... Try reading it again and you might find the names of Sky correspondent David Chater and BBC correspondent Rageh Omar.

You can't dismiss everything just on the grounds that it was reported in the Guardian - especially if you can't be bothered to read the piece properly.

Peace

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:38 AM

Doug, the witnesses are named in the Reuters report. Your clever rhetorical question is a misrepresentation of the facts.

I'm tired of all this. The looters are taking over, there will be martial law soon, and thousands more Iraqi children will die for lack of food and basic medicines. But we'll own the oil. Hooray for our side.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: DougR
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 09:26 AM

Hille: IF one could be assured that reporting by "professionals" is without prejudice, I would more likely agree with your statement. However, that does not always happen, and in my opinion, "The Guardian" does not hesitate to print something anti-American whether it is accurate or not.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 09:34 AM

Perceptions can be very different. Whenever in Britain I prefer the Guardian to other newspapers. My impressions was that it may have its share of errors but they tend to print what they consider to be accurate whether it is anti-whoever or not.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 09:53 AM

I believe the international journalists, most of whom refused to be in bed with the Anglo American military forces, paid a high price for their attempts to report independently.

It is nigh on impossible to see an anti-press jihad conspiracy from Washington when looking at isolated instances of journalists being singled out and targeted by the US military. Fog of war on the ground makes for very good cover for the military's not so valiant tactics to control the propaganda war on the airwaves.

However, if you turn off your TV news and use only the print media to get your news, a very different picture emerges. That picture is pretty damning, in that it shows that targeting independent (or what the military referred to as "unilateral") journalists has been a deliberate strategy in Iraq.

I'm not buying the "a poor, frightened 18 year old boy reacted in panic" defense for the shelling of the Palestine Hotel, or for taking out the Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi journalists the first day in Baghdad. Uh uh. Too convenient. The network television pictures of the "jubilant Baghdadis" were too orchestrated (did no one notice whose tank was being used to pull that statue down?), too propagandist, to show what was truly happening.

It is truly frightening to see how desperate the Bush/Blair military is to beam those "liberation" propaganda images to the world. Let us hope that desperation has the positive result of the US genuinely returning to the international community now, and allowing the international community in to do their job of rebuilding Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: MC Fat
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 09:57 AM

Interesting that it was a French crew that got the brunt of the attack. Could be just cynical of me but as you Yanks were not happy at the French trying to stop the war.......Anyway all the Us needs to do now is send in Arnold Swarzenneger and Sylvester Stallone to mop up the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 10:04 AM

I also find it odd that there aren't any pictures of the US soldiers hoisting the US flags up--as is reported to have occurred in Um Qasar, Baghdad, and elsewhere.

To me, that speaks volumes about the doublespeak of the military. Say what the world wants to hear to the press, but then do what we truly intended on the battlefield.

There seems to be a "our boys will be boys" attitude about the hoisting of the American flag after battles, that reveals a bit darker intent than "liberation". Words like subjugation and pacification spring to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 10:13 AM

In the dreaded Guardian, you can see pictures that show the mixed response of the Iraqi people yesterday. Along with pictures of jubilant scenes there is one picture of Iraqis holding up a banner saying "Go Home, you US wankers". But of course being the Guardian, they probably made the banner and set up the photo themselves, right Doug?

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 10:31 AM

Bagpuss, there are Iraqis being bribed by the military to do things just like that, and Rumsfeld not only said so in his briefing yesterday, he begged Iraqis to come forward and aid the American troops in any way they could.

As I watched the pictures of the statue being toppled, and the banner which was not about "US wankers" but about the US peace activists who went to Baghdad to act as human shields, I wondered how much the military had paid all those men to create the photo ops that were shown on the nightly news as the "historic television moment" of the day.

Those TV pictures were pure Anglo American propaganda. They were so obviously staged, I can't believe the "jubilant liberation" crap is being swallowed by so many otherwise intelligent people.

Sort of like the SARS fear mongering. Thousands of people die of influenza every year. So why is it this year, that "international travel" is being used to whip up global hysteria and frenzy about "foreigners" spreading a new (sic) deadly disease?

It seems to me the US mainstream media in particular is doing all it can to whip up xenophobic and anti-internationalist sentiments at every turn.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 11:04 AM

Yesterday's response appears to reflect the real mood in Iraq. (The Guardian of today)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 02:12 PM

Guardian Home Page

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: InOBU
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 02:21 PM

I have to say, I was moved by Linda Kelly's remark about winning the war and losing the peace, and for those of you who don't think we intentionaly used the coordinates El Jazera gave us, to hit them... we don intentionalally blow up journalists? remember the la penga bombing in Costarica? What am I saying, the US has a 15 minute memory of it's crimes and misdeeds.
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 02:37 PM

I recent weeks the Guardian has had articles by Richard Perle, Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair and numerous other people who are wholly opposed to the editorial line taken by the Guardian. The letter pages carry correspondence from people on both sides in this disagreement. Here is a link to the paper if anyone wants to check up on that kind of thing - The Guardian

That is the kind of thing that good newspapers do. Now I don't have any idea as to what newpapers Doug would favour, but it might be interested to know if it regularly fomnds space for articles and letters from people who are opposed to American policy on the war.

Getting shot at is one of the risks of the business for a war reporter, and inevitably some of them get killed. But the sniping that is really dirty is the stuff that comes sometimes comes from press briefings and from politicians, when they pretend that a refusal to be prejudiced is the same as being hostile, and when they rubbish reporters whoi are risking their lives for resisting being made into propagandists.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: DougR
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 02:58 PM

I assume, Larry, that your tongue was planted firmly in your cheek when you posted your last message.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST,Raedwulf
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 03:56 PM

"If "friendly fire" occurs because of the confusion of war, why have only the Americans killed people with friendly fire? Why haven't the British?"

Sadly, we have. One Challenger managed to hit another last(?) week, blowing the turret off, killing two crew & seriously injuring the remainder. However that was someone in the middle of a ground battle making a mistake.

One has to seriously question how the fly-boys manage to make so many mistakes, though, especially in situations where there is little or no hostile fire coming at them. Such as that idiot who not only managed to shoot up a British unit, but did it twice, having possibly previously passed over them a few minutes before.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Peter T.
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:05 PM

Come on. I think the war is a disaster, and have no time for the American army or the rest of that bunch, but the Americans are doing everything to manipulate journalists at great cost and effort, they are not going to try and kill Reuters staff in full view of hundreds of reporters. They would do everything to avoid the kind of accusations you can read further up on this site. It was a stupid mistake. yours, Peter

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:08 PM

It's on record that the stress of battle leaves men acting discombobulated and "drunk", even though they've been drinking water and eating MREs. 'Nuff said.

A

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: InOBU
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 11:35 PM

Amos, I reread your first post about the Frog of war killing the journalists, damn, that's cold, everyone is anti French these days, the French aren't even there! So, don't blame it on the frog of war, the frog of war hasn't left Algeria!
Cheers, with Perrier
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: DougR
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 02:17 AM

No, Larry, you're right. The French arent' there. But they damn well want to be there to enjoy the spoils of war, don't they? They are already in line to gobble up any contracts they can to rehabilitate Iraq. If the U. S. and GB governments have any balls at all, they will tell the French to go fry potatoes. IMO, of course.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 07:20 AM

Sometimes if you just shift your frame of reference a little bit, things fall into place.

Douggie thinks this whole thing is a high-school football game.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 09:03 AM

The French-hating stuff really is infantile.

The whole idea of "spoils of war" and profitable contracts is disgusting. Trying to make-do the wreckage should be recognised as a way of providing service, costing the people who do it rather than rewarding them, and a privilege at that.

I keep on thinking of that little boy Ali, with both his arms gone, his father and his pregnant mother and his brother and seven other members of his family.

It's not a game and a big funny joke. It's an appalling tragedy which has happened to a lot of gentle harmless people, because of a succession of wicked mistakes made by a lot of powerful people over the past decades.

We can disagree about what should have been done and what shouldn't have been done. But noone can for a moment feel happy it ever got to this stage.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 09:29 AM

But noone can for a moment feel happy it ever got to this stage.

I beg to disagree. Douggie, Troll, Claymore, Mr. Neff &c.- not to mention the BuShite Junta- seem positively gleeful, Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 10:19 AM

" One has to seriously question how the fly-boys manage to make so many mistakes, though, especially in situations where there is little or no hostile fire coming at them."

Because the zoomies go so damned fast that they don't have time to distinguish friend from foe. True ground support aircraft, such as the A-10 or the venerable Cosair or any number of others, fly and flew much more slowly and gave the pilots time to determine who was who. This was true in Korea, in 'Nam, and in the first Gulf war. It was because of the experiences in the past where the jet jockies laid napalm or bombs on the friendlies that the US Army started to develop its own air-to-ground support aircraft (helicopters); the USAF then brought out the A-10 to keep them in the ground support role -- and the A-10 was slated to go to the Army in 1993, but the its role in Gulf I convinced the AF to keep it instead.

The USMC adopted the Harrier jump-jet because it didn't need long runways to work and could therefore provide more immediate support.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 11:12 AM

Rapaire-One of the worst friendly fire incidents, where a British armoured column was overflown and then strafed twice, was commited by an A-10 pilot. I wonder what his excuse was.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 01:46 PM

"spoils of war"

--DougR

Now we get down to the real reasons the US and UK went to war with Iraq, and that's why they're so adamant that the French shouldn't get any. This plunder rightly belongs to the plunderers, right DougR?

(A-viking we will go, a-viking we will go, hi ho the der-i-o a viking we will go... )

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST,Raedwulf
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 02:59 PM

Rap - as Lurker says, the instance I was particularly referencing was an asshole in a Warthog. Allegedly (i.e. according to the blokes that got strafed), they were overflown by half-a-dozen of the bloody things, then a few minutes later one came back & blew the crap out of them, killing two. [Note - this is why I say 'allegedly' - I've seen no proof that the one that did the shooting was actually one of the original six]

He shot them up twice, despite all his hi-tech sights, identification panels on the vehicles, the total lack of resemblance between UK & Iraqi armour, UK troops desperately waving at him to stop on the second pass, & the presence of at least one civilian within 20 yards of the column. Makes you wonder, dunnit?

Nevertheless, I'd agree up to a point about the zoomies. To be fair though, your historical comparison is a touch false. AFAIK, in Korea they were still basically relying on eyesight, & 'Nam wasn't much better was it? And, pardon me for being a pedant, but "they don't have time to distinguish friend from foe" surely means they don't fire?! I understood their rules of engagement to be "do not fire unless you are absolutely certain of your target", or words to that effect? There is an awful lot of high-tech gear that's supposed to stop this happening on all the planes.

So what's going wrong, I wonder?

I'd be interested to see (though I don't suppose I ever shall) a comparison between the number of sorties flown/number of blue-on-blue incidents for the American flyers, against the Brit's stats. AFAIK, we haven't inflicted any FF on anyone from the air (at least not to the extent of fatalities), & I don't remember one from GWI either. Of course we've flown a far smaller number of sorties in both conflicts, which is why I'm curious about the proportion. I can't shake the feeling that the entire American military ethic is simply more gung-ho & trigger happy.

As the British commander of that column said, "I'm trained to get my tank in & out of combat safely. I'm not trained to look over my shoulder to see if an American is about to shoot me!"

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 03:32 PM

Not having been a pilot, but rather having been one of those who crawled in the mud and prayed that the pilot didn't drop short, I can't say specifically why they do what they do.

I *do* know that they release bombs or fire guns manually when they are doing close air support.

I also know that anyone who thinks that technology is the answer (insted of being a tool) is severely deluded. The finger on the trigger has the ultimate responsibility -- and I've always wondered if the pilots were taught what "our" vehicles and uniforms, as opposed to "theirs," look like, and how to distinguish them from the air.

The failure is not in the A-10. We build 'em too good for that.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:14 PM

Rapaire-I believe that there were several weeks of friend-foe target identification training for the pilots prior to the invasion. Mention was made of such in one of the articles regarding this incident, but I don't remember where the link was.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: GUEST,Another Voice
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:15 PM

The A-10 is about as low tech as they come. Its a down and dirty ground support aircraft with no high tech targeting systems. It uses the camera in its missles to ID targets for missle fire. Its 30 mm depleted uranium rounds fired at low angle will traverse multiple vehicles as they are designed to penetrate tank armor. The USAF has moved them all to Reserve units as they believe the F16 can do close air support (their mindset is air-to-air) as well as is needed in the future and the army is forbidden fixed wing aircraft per agreements seperating the Air Forces after WW2. So the drivers of the A10 that hit the Brits is a reservist.
As to the fire on the hotel, both of the KIA's were camera men... Put a TV camera on a mans shoulder and next to him put a man with a shoulder fired anti-tank missile. Now at 200 meters identify them instantly while under fire and be certain to hit the one firing a missile. Don't let the fact that both are dressed in civilian clothes fool you! Until you have had to react while rounds are popping all around you it is easy to judge but difficult to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 05:14 PM

Fire at Will, hey, which one's Will. Far from the war, here in New Hampshire, US, we know about these friendly fire situations. For years now during hunting season we haven't allowed any military personal to carry fire arms, espically automatics & weapons of mass destruction. This seems to have cut back on the loss of human life, cars, cattle, horses, dogs & cats to say nothing of the possitive effect on the environment. We did wait until they got rid of the rat population first though, ya gotta know where & when to draw the line. We should all keep our killing in our own backyards, tend our own gardens. Looking through Rosy glasses, I don't think so. We've been very successful at killing off our own. So lets spread about some of the joy. It's all collateral damage untill it hits home. Bush should've given the war money his war on drugs. Humm not to aggresive there & what did ever happen to that war. He'd sure be helping his own,,,,,daughters. I guess that war got left behind with the for new battles, the war on terrorism, oh, forgot that one for this latest war which will probably be tossed aside for the next war which I think I can predict. The war on education, all kids will get left behind or will it be against health, let's kill off the old/poor/new borns/etc. Christ, I miss the good ol days & the wars on poverty & inner city violence & single parent households & Mother Murphy Brown & teen pregnancy & infant mortality & & &. Where have all the wars gone, gone to graveyards everywhere. Hey but we're slowly learning, RIGHT. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 07:13 PM

Rap - I'd agree in spades about tech, but if you listen to the PR... Well, no I don't believe the PR either. I can accept the Patriot battery shooting down the Tornado as a sad mistake. When more details emerged (or the details that have been released over here, anyway), it turned out that the software mis-identified the Tornado as a missile, & the battery had a couple of seconds to make a decision on whether or not to fire. It's not enough time for cast iron certainty, but more than enough for a mistake... A bad day for the RAF & a bad day for the Patriots, but shit happens, especially in war. I still can't get over the Warthog, though.

AV - I ought to clarify. When I say 'hi-tech' I don't necessarily mean satellite- laser- guided from release to impact, or similar. My understanding is that the A-10s won't have that level of tech (they don't need it). Nevertheless, they still have have high powered optical sights & so on (such was quoted in the reports of the incident that I saw, anyway). The man was in a position where he shouldn't have made such a godawful mistake. Why did he? I don't suppose any of us will ever find out. Interesting (& slightly worrying) points you make about the use & crewing of A-10s, though. Thanks for that.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: DougR
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 07:27 PM

Carol C: Equating my remarks with the "reason" for the war is ridiculous. But yes, companies in those countries that freed Iraq should receive priority for any fix-up work that has to be done. Why should the French, the Germans and the Russian companies be considered
Their governments did all that was in their power to ensure that the Iraqi people remained slaves to Saddam!

Greggie: you are half right (which is closer to "right" than you usually do in my opinion).

I am gleeful that the Iraq people are free of Saddam, I'm gleeful that the war took far fewer lives than the liberals projected it would, I am gleeful that it's almost over. I am not gleeful that the Iraqi people suffered during the twenty some odd years they were under the thumb of Saddam.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: MARINER
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 07:32 PM

Ithought that some of you might be interestd in this, mind you others of you might be pissed off with it. But it is worth remembering that Ms. Adie is a well respected journalisthttp://www.GuluFuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm

PENTAGON THREATENS
TO KILL INDEPENDENT
REPORTERS IN IRAQ

10th March, 2003
by Fintan Dunne, Editor
http://www.GuluFuture.com

The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war correspondent, Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio, Ms. Adie said that questioned about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions, a senior Pentagon officer had said: "Who cares.. ..They've been warned."

According to Ms. Adie, who twelve years ago covered the last Gulf War, the Pentagon attitude is: "entirely hostile to the the free spread of information."

"I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs," she told Irish national broadcaster, Tom McGurk on the RTE1 Radio "Sunday Show."

Ms. Adie made the startling revelations during a discussion of media freedom issues in the likely upcoming war in Iraq. She also warned that the Pentagon is vetting journalists according to their stance on the war, and intends to take control of US journalists' satellite equipment --in order to control access to the airwaves.

Another guest on the show, war author Phillip Knightley, reported that the Pentagon has also threatened they: "may find it necessary to bomb areas in which war correspondents are attempting to report from the Iraqi side."

Transcript follows below.

Audio of this very frank discussion of the problems facing reporters in Iraq.
Guests: Kate Adie, BBC; Phillip Knightley, author of The First Casualty, a history of war correspondents and propaganda; Chris Hedges, award winning human rights journalist, and former Irish Times Editor Connor Brady on the Sunday Show, RTE Radio1 9th March, 2003.

Listen
K. Adie
Realplayer      3 mins Listen full Gulf media freedom segment Audio
26 minutes[ Realplayer] Links valid until 16 March
DOWNLOAD ENTIRE SHOW HERE
Tom McGurk:
" Now, Kate Adie, you join us from the BBC in London. Thank you very much for going to all this trouble on a Sunday morning to come and join us. I suppose you are watching with a mixture of emotions this war beginning to happen, because you are not going to be covering it."
Kate Adie:
" Oh I will be. And what actually appalls me is the difference between twelve years ago and now. I've seen a complete erosion of any kind of acknowledgment that reporters should be able to report as they witness."

" The Americans... and I've been talking to the Pentagon ...take the attitude which is entirely hostile to the free spread of information."

" I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks --that is the television signals out of... Bhagdad, for example-- were detected by any planes ...electronic media... mediums, of the military above Bhagdad... they'd be fired down on. Even if they were journalists ..' Who cares! ' said.. [inaudible] .."
Tom McGurk: "...Kate ...sorry Kate ..just to underline that. Sorry to interrupt you. Just to explain for our listeners. Uplinks is where you have your own satellite telephone method of distributing information."
Kate Adie: " The telephones and the television signals."
Tom McGurk: " And they would be fired on? "
Kate Adie: " Yes. They would be 'targeted down,'
said the officer."
Tom McGurk: " Extraordinary ! "


Listen full Gulf Media Freedom segment Audio

26 minutes[ Realplayer]

Kate Adie: " Shameless! "

He said:
' Well... they know this ...
they've been warned.'

This is threatening freedom of information, before you even get to a war.

The second thing is there was a massive news blackout imposed.

In the last Gulf war, where I was one of the pool correspondents with the British Army. We effectively had very, very light touch when it came to any kind of censorship.

We were told that anything which was going to endanger troops lives which we understood we shouldn't broadcast. But other than that, we were relatively free.

Unlike our American colleagues, who immediately left their pool, after about 48 hours, having just had enough of it.

And this time the Americans are: a) Asking journalists who go with them, whether they are... have feelings against the war. And therefore if you have views that are skeptical, then you are not to be acceptable.

Secondly, they are intending to take control of the Americans technical equipment ...those uplinks and satellite phones I was talking about. And control access to the airwaves.

And then on top of everything else, there is now a blackout (which was imposed, during the last war, at the beginning of the war), ...ordered by one Mr. Dick Cheney, who is in charge of this.

I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs. You will get it later.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 07:35 PM

Carol C: Equating my remarks with the "reason" for the war is ridiculous.

That's a matter of opinion, DougR. I don't happen to think it's ridiculous.

But yes, companies in those countries that freed Iraq should receive priority for any fix-up work that has to be done. Why should the French, the Germans and the Russian companies be considered
Their governments did all that was in their power to ensure that the Iraqi people remained slaves to Saddam!

If the US was purely motivated by humanitarian and/or security issues, the US government wouldn't care who got the contracts. The only approach the US government could take that would be above suspicion of conflict of interest would be to have all companies qualified to to the work put in a bid regardless of country of origin, and have them selected by lottery or by a neutral country.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 07:53 PM

The only things that matters is that the work should be done as well as possible and as quickly as possible.

Nothing else is relevant here, and the very suggestion that it should be is, when you get down to it, pretty sick.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: DougR
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 01:05 AM

Carol C; Kevin: perhaps, someday, both of you will join us in the "real" world.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 02:53 AM

hahahahahahahahaha...

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 02:54 AM

The real world!!!

Ahhh hahahahah!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 06:21 AM

The real world is complicated.

It contains many people who are willing to carry out dangerous and difficult activities for no practical benefit for themeselves, because they believe it is their duty, and because they believe if they do not the world will be a worse place.

It also contains people who go through their lives trying to take advantage of every situation to benefit themselves, and seeking to exploit other people and profit from their difficulties and suffering.

When people say things like "join the real world" they are not thinking of the first bunch. They are thinking of the second - the parasites who could not exist if it weren't for the people who hold the world together.

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 03:50 PM

This old thread is interesting on a number of levels. I am proud that so many so early saw with such clarity and have remained true to their initial assessment. (And sure, DougR, I am proud of you too. *G*.)


"More journalists have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003 than during the 20 years of conflict in Vietnam, media rights group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said on Sunday."

In Harm's Way...

Subject: RE: BS: US does NOT kill journalists...
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 02:17 AM

I'll give this thread another day. It is well worth re-reading.