| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/12/2003 12:07:13 PM · #651 |
as i recall from the aftermath of this situation...coalition troops say they were taking fire from the palestine hotel, and were responding to that fire with fire. this is nearly impossible to prove on either side, but given the iraqi troops prior ability to show that they are willing to fight in a guerilla fashion, the possibility of some irregular troops firing from a hotel is hardly a long shot. it would be the perfect oppurtunity for them because they would assume that the troops wouldn't fight back because of the human shield reporters that could be unwittingly thrown into the situation.
on another note, it isn't the responsibility of the military to protect journalist. certainly they shouldn't kill them for no reason. but what would be the benefit of the coalition troops killing reporters intentionally? we would have certainly welcomed any reporter in baghdad to show the regime fall and show the jubilation on the faces of the iraqi people. in the snip that you posted in the forum, it says a reporter in the building watched as a tank targeted the 14th floor. what kind of idiot is going to stand around while a tank is targeting the building they are in. there is common sense involved here. we could just as easily argue that media reporters are driven by competition and trying to beat everyone else to the punch and get the story before any other news channel in order to get recognition. this involves taking extreme risks like filming a tank targeting the building they were in. they knew the risks of reporting from the middle of baghdad. many worse things could have happened. errant cruise missiles could have struck the building. chem weapons could have been dispersed by saddam, both situations where the dead would be far higher than 3. in any case, the reporters have a responsibility to protect themselves. or at least stop watching a tank target the building you're in and get to the other side. |
|
|
|
04/12/2003 12:28:35 PM · #652 |
General, the reporters were being used as human shields by a sniper in that building... they were in a war zone and that's dangerous in itself... if they don't want to be in a building where troops fire on the building, then they should have thought about that before going over there... they all knew the risks.. they are lucky a bomb was not dropped on that building
|
|
|
|
04/12/2003 12:31:12 PM · #653 |
So, you have the word of several dozens of reporters in the building, in the area where the US fire was directed, against the word of some soldiers in a tank some distance away and fourteen floors below. I make no assumptions, and the article requests an inquiry rather than passing judgement.
You certainly must accept the possibility that a US tank fired into that hotel either by mistake, or deliberately as either an unauthorized, impulsive act, or that the crew was in fact following (misguided) orders. Even if they were under "attack," to respond to small arms fire with a tank shell seems disproportionate to me.
If you read the entire article, I believe it does reference exactly which provisions of international law relate to the military's obligation to protect (or at least not target) journalists. They do also condemn the Iraqis for using civilians as shields and soldiers in disguise. |
|
|
|
04/12/2003 12:38:10 PM · #654 |
| i believe that we certainly fired with tank fire on the building. i'm not willing to go out on a limb and say we targeted journalist intentionally, because it makes no sense. it is a bigger leap in my mind to say that we intentionally targeted journalists than to think that journalists were unknowingly being used as human shields |
|
|
|
04/12/2003 01:28:34 PM · #655 |
| But we agree that both scenarios are possible, if not which is more likely, which is fine and healthy -- mutual skepticism has the best chance of reaching an "objective truth"...now we can wait for additional (accurate) information and go on to other stuff... |
|
|
|
04/12/2003 04:03:46 PM · #656 |
Originally posted by achiral:
anyway my point is if i called you a monkey i would be banned from the site. |
Why would you call me a monkey and how would that get you kicked off the site? Hum... could it be because that would be taken as a racial slur? Yeah, thank goodness you didn't refer to me that way, oh wait you just did. I made no racial remarks toward you. I tell you what archial, How about you respectifully over look my posts and i'll do the same.
Anyway, what do you guys think would happen if they actually don't have any WMD's? He would, by law, have the right to reclaim the country, right? There a political nightmare! Ykes.
Message edited by author 2003-04-12 17:26:44.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2003 04:43:59 PM · #657 |
Originally posted by Antithesis:
Originally posted by Geocide:
If i were saddam (maybe i am;)) ...we must not forget Saddam is a very smart man ....
|
I think you ARE Saddam. Or you're the only other person who thinks this.
The ability to rule by fear does not take brains. If he ever did anything that suggested intelligence, I think it was luck; and all the incredibly stupid things he's done far outweigh them. |
I think i'm, saddam? Wow, i've never heard that before. Why do you think that?
This whole time i've been saying, take a step back remove yourself from emotion and look at the bigger picture. It's as though because i'm not saying ra ra ra i support the US no matter what, i'm some sort of villan. WTF?
My goodness, Look at history, fear is the most effective form of people management. Infact, this war is the result of fear, fear of terrorism. Fear in the US is rampant. It's only when fear isn't present that revolutions occur.
Rodger More's Bowling for Coumbine talks about this very point.
HItler, Stalin etc.. were all evil people yet very very smart, If they wern't smart they would have never gained the power of these individuals. I realize, Saddam is the bad guy and we all know this but the whole reason the war got a bloody as it did is because of gross under estimation of the "regeime."
Am i the only person in this thought pattern?
Message edited by author 2003-04-12 17:05:26.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2003 05:54:17 PM · #658 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So, you have the word of several dozens of reporters in the building, in the area where the US fire was directed, against the word of some soldiers in a tank some distance away and fourteen floors below. I make no assumptions, and the article requests an inquiry rather than passing judgement.
You certainly must accept the possibility that a US tank fired into that hotel either by mistake, or deliberately as either an unauthorized, impulsive act, or that the crew was in fact following (misguided) orders. Even if they were under "attack," to respond to small arms fire with a tank shell seems disproportionate to me.
If you read the entire article, I believe it does reference exactly which provisions of international law relate to the military's obligation to protect (or at least not target) journalists. They do also condemn the Iraqis for using civilians as shields and soldiers in disguise. |
well the word of the journalists means little... since those reporting are not unbiased journalists and most often the report with not only a left wing slant, but an anit-american slant... their only agenda is to say anything they can to do harm to the current administration... especially the reports from Al-Jazzera and the French.. same as the anit-american groups organizing the protesting here in this USA... (the socialist party, etc..)
as for responding to small arms fire with a tank, I find it perfectly acceptable... if the sniper ducks out of cover in a room, targeting the room with a heavy weapons is the tanks only recourse... other wise the sniper will be able to move to a new position and shoot again... the sniper was simply using the hotel and it's occupants as a shield... that's the risk they all took by staying in a hotel in the middle of a war zone where the enemy has proven willing to use innocents as a shield... journalists are killed in every war.. they know the risk ahead of time.. they just need to stop whining about it because I seriously doubt our troops intentionally targeted journalists without reason... now if Al Jazeera was broadcasting images that could compromise an operation or jepardized troops lives, then I feel the troops have an obligation to take out the camera and or it's operator... because at that point, the cameraman is aiding enemy forces...
Message edited by author 2003-04-12 17:58:49. |
|
|
|
04/12/2003 05:57:31 PM · #659 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by achiral:
anyway my point is if i called you a monkey i would be banned from the site. |
Why would you call me a monkey and how would that get you kicked off the site? Hum... could it be because that would be taken as a racial slur? Yeah, thank goodness you didn't refer to me that way, oh wait you just did. I made no racial remarks toward you. I tell you what archial, How about you respectifully over look my posts and i'll do the same.
Anyway, what do you guys think would happen if they actually don't have any WMD's? He would, by law, have the right to reclaim the country, right? There a political nightmare! Ykes. |
nope, WMD's are not the only violation of the UN resolutions... the missles that have been fired and found are themselves a violation.. they should never have been developed in the first place... |
|
|
|
04/12/2003 06:42:51 PM · #660 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
[quote=Antithesis][quote=Geocide]
Rodger More's Bowling for Coumbine talks about this very point. |
I wouldn't take alot out of that (Micheal Moore's)"documentary" as fact. He spliced. dubbed, and rearranged tons of things in it to fit his agenda. Most notably things with the NRA. ie: the meeting that was held a few months after Coumbine. Everything was cancelled, except the top guys getting together. Then he spliced in showing Charlton Heston holding a vintage musket given to him over his head. When in fact this happened many months later...I think in NC. He showed trucks "supposedly" carrying nuclear material through the streets. Does not happen. And other things involvong an "arms maker" that does not make arms.
//www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000117.html
//www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
//www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2040&catcode=11
Message edited by author 2003-04-12 18:51:07.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2003 07:25:11 PM · #661 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
well the word of the journalists means little... since those reporting are not unbiased journalists and most often the report with not only a left wing slant, but an anit-american slant... |
...as opposed to those completely neutral, unbiased reports from the military who would be the subject of the investigation...
What, just what, if there was no sniper, no gunfire? What if there's just a few guys in a tank sick and tired of hearing from all those left-wing/commie/anti-American reporters, who decide to shoot off their tank instead of a video camera. I know that is a possibility. I do not know what happened. If you do not consider that scenario a possibility, then you are sadly lacking in knowledge of recent (and not so recent) history of the US military (and all the other armies as well...).
I wasn't there, and suspect you weren't either, so what's your objection to wanting to hear from someone other than the shooters and the shootees? |
|
|
|
04/12/2003 07:45:29 PM · #662 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I wasn't there, and suspect you weren't either, so what's your objection to wanting to hear from someone other than the shooters and the shootees? |
and who would that be? basically you're down to random iraqis walking around during a firefight, which would be few and far between. although i believe it's a possibility, the way the media works, this would have been a huge issue already if what you suggest is true. |
|
|
|
04/12/2003 08:43:31 PM · #663 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
well the word of the journalists means little... since those reporting are not unbiased journalists and most often the report with not only a left wing slant, but an anit-american slant... |
...as opposed to those completely neutral, unbiased reports from the military who would be the subject of the investigation...
What, just what, if there was no sniper, no gunfire? What if there's just a few guys in a tank sick and tired of hearing from all those left-wing/commie/anti-American reporters, who decide to shoot off their tank instead of a video camera. I know that is a possibility. I do not know what happened. If you do not consider that scenario a possibility, then you are sadly lacking in knowledge of recent (and not so recent) history of the US military (and all the other armies as well...).
I wasn't there, and suspect you weren't either, so what's your objection to wanting to hear from someone other than the shooters and the shootees? |
I would trust the troops there who are being welcomed by a majority of the citizens much more than I would trust al-jazzera, the french, and the others who have a history of reporting untruths and twisted truths in order to further their own agenda.... they have a lengthy history of being anti-american or slanted to the extreme left... why would we want to hear from someone with a proven past of lies and false reporting?
what about the spokesman for the Spanish defence ministry said on Tuesday that the hotel had been designated a military target 48 hours in advance?? they had their chance to leave!
Both sides in the Iraq war have been condemned for the deaths of reporters by The International Federation of Journalists... that to me is crazy.. they would be alive had they not gone into a war zone, unbelievable that they complain now...
I would love to hear from someone other than the shooters, and we will after the investigation... the "what if, what if, what if's" serve no purpose... if, ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a merry christmas...
|
|
|
|
04/12/2003 08:56:02 PM · #664 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
I would love to hear from someone other than the shooters, and we will after the investigation... the "what if, what if, what if's" serve no purpose... if, ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a merry christmas... |
...or a chappy chanukah! Wait and see but consider all possiblities is all I said in my original post. The accuracy and veracity of the various parties will hopefully be proven out in due course...the journalists I heard on the radio were from the BBC and CBS. |
|
|
|
04/12/2003 11:21:15 PM · #665 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
I would love to hear from someone other than the shooters, and we will after the investigation... the "what if, what if, what if's" serve no purpose... if, ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a merry christmas... |
...or a chappy chanukah! Wait and see but consider all possiblities is all I said in my original post. The accuracy and veracity of the various parties will hopefully be proven out in due course...the journalists I heard on the radio were from the BBC and CBS. |
while I am not sure about the BBC, CBS usually, if not always, leans towards the far left of things... rarely do they present both sides of a story...
while I don't discount any possibilities, I have my doubts as you know... hopefully the investigation will lay to rest any claims of direct unprovolked attacks on the journalists...
|
|
|
|
04/13/2003 02:16:03 AM · #666 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by Geocide:
[quote=Antithesis][quote=Geocide]
Rodger More's Bowling for Coumbine talks about this very point. |
I wouldn't take alot out of that (Micheal Moore's)"documentary" as fact. He spliced. dubbed, and rearranged tons of things in it to fit his agenda. Most notably things with the NRA. ie: the meeting that was held a few months after Coumbine. Everything was cancelled, except the top guys getting together. Then he spliced in showing Charlton Heston holding a vintage musket given to him over his head. When in fact this happened many months later...I think in NC. He showed trucks "supposedly" carrying nuclear material through the streets. Does not happen. And other things involvong an "arms maker" that does not make arms.
//www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000117.html
//www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
//www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2040&catcode=11 |
Oh yeah, sorry about the typo, i was thinking about micheal more's douc, Rodger and me. hehe.
I have to say that i don't view news with an ovbious bias, that why i don't watch fox news.
Interesting articles none the less. Oh but my point was on fear not Micheal More.
Message edited by author 2003-04-13 02:17:52.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2003 03:02:52 AM · #667 |
I have to say that i don't view news with an ovbious bias, that why i don't watch fox news. (Geocide)
You don't watch Fox news BECAUSE they are biased? YIKES! I believe that they have the fairest reporting on at this time. CNN seems to have the BBC on at night (when I am awake). All the reporters seem to be British. And something to think about. How come the BBC was covering a "non-lethal" earthquake instead of "world history" when Saddam's statue was taken down.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2003 11:23:02 AM · #668 |
Well, i beleive that multiple sources seems to do the trick, I follow a little Cnn, A litle BBC, a little NPR and Al-jezzera (sp?). In my opinion NPR is doing the best job in america because their listeners arn't afraid to write a letter or two.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2003 11:50:08 AM · #669 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Well, i beleive that multiple sources seems to do the trick, I follow a little Cnn, A litle BBC, a little NPR and Al-jezzera (sp?). In my opinion NPR is doing the best job in america because their listeners arn't afraid to write a letter or two. |
LOL NPR is one of the most left wing media outlets in America.. CNN? (Communist New Network.. did you forget Turner is a card carrying commie? along with his ex wife)
you get your news from Al Jazzera? your kidding right?
|
|
|
|
04/13/2003 12:28:16 PM · #670 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
...did you forget Turner is a card carrying commie? along with his ex wife)? |
Careful, that's a pretty specific accusation I doubt you have concrete evidence to support. Instead of labeling someone with a trite and stereotypical label, please state exactly which of Mr. Turner's practices or policies you find abhorrent...I mean, owning a baseball team and a worldwide news organization are not things I ordinarily associate with Communist philosophy, although I'm sure many Party leaders lusted after Jane...and even the "tomahawk chop" is merely offensive but not un-American... |
|
|
|
04/13/2003 12:46:50 PM · #671 |
What does left wing media do diffrently from right wing media?
It seems Left wing media will report on anything and everything and try to represent every group fairly.
It would seem to me the right wing media would say what the left wing would and then add a moral judgement to the equation.
I was listening to one of the radio talk shows here in kansas (clan land to say the least) and they were talking about how crazy it is that women and gays serve in the military. They had washington reporters and everything building this case toward decrimination. I was a bit shocked.
Message edited by author 2003-04-13 18:16:00.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2003 01:40:04 PM · #672 |
lol I just spent about 30 minutes responding to general and geo... lol.. uggg.. that was a long posting! when I clicked the post button I got an error message... I gotta get back to work guys.. maybe I can try again later :o)
Note to Self: Copy to Clipboard before clicking POST
|
|
|
|
04/13/2003 02:58:19 PM · #673 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Note to Self: Copy to Clipboard before clicking POST |
Been there, done that, occasionally reconsidered whether it was that important to say anyway! Sorry for your bad luck there... I sometimes open a separate text window with the browser and compose in that... |
|
|
|
04/13/2003 08:27:39 PM · #674 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
well the word of the journalists means little... since those reporting are not unbiased journalists and most often the report with not only a left wing slant, but an anit-american slant... |
Maybe. But why do you think that most of them are left wing and anti-american? I mean every journalist is free to report from there. It's not like the right-wing and patriotic american journalists are left out. So I guess it should be even.
Originally posted by Anachronite:
their only agenda is to say anything they can to do harm to the current administration... |
No. The primary of every journalist is to find news which can be sold to as much people as possible.
Originally posted by Anachronite:
same as the anit-american groups organizing the protesting here in this USA... (the socialist party, etc..) |
Can you explain why groups organizing protests are anti-american?
Originally posted by Anachronite:
as for responding to small arms fire with a tank, I find it perfectly acceptable... |
Acceptable... Of course. I mean he maybe could have made a scratch into the nice finish of the tank. That wouldn't be acceptable. So we better blast the whole building full of journalists to take him out.
All journalists said that there was no gunfire. Military spokesmen said they were shot from the lobby. Well, I read that the lobby leads to the south. The tank was in the north. Duh!
And of course it makes sense to shoot into the 15th floor when you're being shot at from the lobby...
Originally posted by Anachronite:
journalists are killed in every war.. |
Yes, but normally not by the "good guys".
Originally posted by Anachronite:
they just need to stop whining about it because I seriously doubt our troops intentionally targeted journalists without reason... |
I can only hope that someday we'll know the reason.
Originally posted by Anachronite:
now if Al Jazeera was broadcasting images that could compromise an operation or jepardized troops lives, then I feel the troops have an obligation to take out the camera and or it's operator... because at that point, the cameraman is aiding enemy forces... |
I'm really curious what images that could be. POWs on the american side? Now _that_ is bad but nobody questions the images of Iraqi's being forced to sit naked (!!) on the floor with guns pointed to their head? Geneva Convention? Not for them!
The Al Jazeera TV building was hit by several _missiles_ fired from an aircraft. That just can't be an accident. What reason could there be to make the use of missiles against a known TV station?
Disclaimer: I don't say that the Iraqi regime is/was good. I do not like Saddam Hussein. I'm just fed up with the hypocisy and double standards used. |
|
|
|
04/13/2003 08:28:01 PM · #675 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
nope, WMD's are not the only violation of the UN resolutions... |
What WMD's? I didn't hear about any findings. And that's especially strange because the US government said they have evidence that they know about the WMD's. Unfortunately they didn't share these information but eventually they started the war with the WMD's a a primary reason. So if they know about the places then why they just take some press people and go there?
Originally posted by Anachronite:
the missles that have been fired and found are themselves a violation.. they should never have been developed in the first place... |
What missiles? The ones which hit Kuweit? These were no Scud missiles. Iraq was allowed to have smaller missiles. |
|
