Cowboy troops & Dead Journalists

[<Angry>]

So the toll rises.

Al Jazeera office destroyed by US Missile one journalist dead but this is not the first attack on them by US forces. Al jazeera suffered a similar fate when a bureau was destroyed in Kabul.
Both times the Pentagon said it as a mistake.

Reuters were also hit in a hotel known to contain foreign jornalists, we know none of the locals can afford to stay there. After watching the BBC footage you can hear no gunfire eminating from the building but the intention from the tank is plain to see. The results speak volumes.

http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2162&version=1&template_id=277&parent_id=258

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2928153.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/08/sprj.irq.hotel/index.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2147&version=1&template_id=263&parent_id=258

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s827705.htm

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=B0FNBA0IZ5ICACRBAEZSF EY?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2531462

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83503,00.html

War zones are dangerous but this attack has left me felling really pissed with the US military.
Or maybe the Pentagon does not want any independant covreage in Bahdad?

More and more the scene with Jack Nicholson in Easy rider where the guys are talking about freedm in the diner is coming to mind. More and more I see those red necks in US military uniforms.

You can have as much media freedom as you want, as long as it toes the offical line from the White House.
:mad:

[KahunaPhotog]

You know, my heart goes out to all the journalist families that have loved ones killed. But, the idea of media being in the way isn't that unknown. It happens in every WAR. Al-Jazeer(SP?) and other independant media folks are getting killed because they are "independant." Most of the American media people know not to get in the way or they know not where to be when the shooting or bombing starts. Thats the whole point of media military escorts. And you have to admit, how smart is it to stand next to an anti-aircraft gun while there are planes going overhead. Thats how one Al-Jazeer photographer and reporter got fatally wounded. But it all comes down to one simple fact, "All journalist know the risk while reporting during a WAR."

[<dumb ass>]

funny thing .... many of the tank commanders i have seen have been black.
black, red neck does it matter?
i will put you in a tank or on the ground and see what kind of decisions you make....
if i'm a grunt, i would light up a hotel full of journalists any day if it meant one sniper get killed before my buddies do .....
remember its called "war" for a reason
if you cover it you may not come home

many in our business look through that little black and white view finder too long and feel they are not part of what they cover
but we all know that is not true

i'm sorry some good people got killed today
but dumb asses in tanks and dumb asses who work in tv are a reality

[<flash>]

ever see a gun flash in the distance?
could the back and fourth panning of the cameras
in the hotel have made flashing reflections that could have been mistaken for gunfire?
tripods .... guys with gear on balconies in a war zone? do you think the poor sap in the tank got the memo about which hotel you can't shoot at?

[<stayin alive>]

Originally posted by &lt;Angry&gt;:
So the toll rises.Just think of it as Darwinian natural selection. They should have moved quicker. They should have been smarter. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. You pay your money and you take your chances. There is no safe war. You want a guarantee of not being hurt or killed? Don't go to a war zone. I stayed home for a reason.

[Terry E. Toller]

CNN showed that room the other night. They showed how they had cameras on tripods out on the landing. they said that the journalists would gather in the other room where it was safe. Could it be that an Iraqi creeped into the room the thought the US would not fire on to pop off a few rounds?

Anyway, it's a war. People die.

[Sycophant]

I strongly doubt that there was anyone shooting from the hotel Palestine. However the tank was quite likely taking fire, and I am sure it's not easy to identify the source of fire from the controls of an Abrams. If you look at a building and see glints off lenses in your direction, it's understandable that you might make that mistake.

I am more interested in the bombing of the Al Jazera building - they had provided the Pentagon with exact GPS coordinates so that 'accidents' wouldn't happen again as they did in Afghanistan. However, as the US forces have deliberately targetted Iraqi Television (something forbidden by the Geneva Convention) because they claim the Iraqi authorities were using facilities of the TV station to communicate with their forces - I wonder if a similar assessment was made about Al Jezera?

I keep suspecting we are going to see a correspondant be killed while doing a live cross - I wonder what that will do for the networks and viewing audience?

[<????>]

The US did NOT attack the journalist. Those guys put themselves in danger by choosing to be there-even if it was a hotel where journalist are based. I certainly do not want to see any of my colleagues injured or worse killed out there, but come on it is a frikkin war zone and that is the risk you take when you cover a WAR. ESPECIALLY URBAN WARFARE!!!

As far as the Al Jazeer issue, if someone could provide the text in the Geneva convention that states communications cannot be eliminated during war, I would appreciate it.

Al Jazeer puts its people with the enemy.
Ummmmm..... the enemy is the target of the coalition..... why on earth would they think they are bulletproof? No the journalist is not the target, but hey, once again, they are choosing to put themselves in a VERY dangerous situation and that is the risk...hang out with the enemy and you may be taken out too.

[Sycophant]

The point with respect to the Geneva Convention is that a television station is a civilian entitiy. It is against the Geneva Convention to delibrately target civilan entities.

The US justification was that the Iraqi TV station was also used by the military as communications tool. A similar claim would be very hard to level against Al Jazera.

Here is an article about the issue after the Iraqi TV station was attacked: The Guardian (http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,922860,00.html)

[<steede>]

While I'm totally against this war, when the media treats something as horrific as what's happening in Iraq as football game coverage, casualties are inevitable. My condolences go out to the families and friends of the victims.

-steede

[<19K20>]

Originally posted by Sycophant:
[QB]The point with respect to the Geneva Convention is that a television station is a civilian entitiy. It is against the Geneva Convention to delibrately target civilan entities.I think the case can be made that Iraqi television wasn't civilian at all. AFAIK, it was run by the government, not some independent civilian entity.

[<dumb ass>]

"when the media treats something as horrific as what's happening in Iraq as football game coverage"

so right .....
i'm glad i'm not the only one who was bothered by the orignial post

[<M2>]

This whole topic is testing my patience.
Have yu ever driven an Abram's ? NO
have you ever been in a war as soldier, probrably not.
This division had been attacked by Republican Guard dreesed as civilians, they learned there lesson. I am almost positive that there was a threat from the hotel.
The Republican Guard want's nothing more to bring more casualties to civilians to bring bad press about the coalition.
I don't beleive journalsit should be there!!! and I totally agree about the coverage being like a football game...disgusting. People are dieing both sides and here we sit cracking open a beer watching it on TV.
as far as the journalist there they just want to make a name for themselve and further their career at what ever cost! :D

[<reality of war coverage>]

Originally posted by &lt;????&gt;:
Al Jazeer puts its people with the enemy.
Ummmmm..... the enemy is the target of the coalition..... why on earth would they think they are bulletproof? No the journalist is not the target, but hey, once again, they are choosing to put themselves in a VERY dangerous situation and that is the risk...hang out with the enemy and you may be taken out too.Most of the US networks had people there as well. Not just Al Jazeera.

We'll never know the full truth. No matter what it is. Covering a war has it's risks. All it takes is one guy with a rifle from one window and the army will blast the whole complex. It's overkill but that's how they operate. The same as dropping all those bombs to kill Saddam at the restaurant without a care about all the innocent civilians who were there as well.

I don't say it's right. I only say that is the reality of war. It's real sad when a journo gets killed. Still they knew the risks and it was bound to happen.

Even when they were pulling the statue of Saddam down on live tv, someone was shooting at them. This war is far from over no matter how many want to believe a statue being pulled over means something.

The journalists killed will be replaced. Just like troops KIA. It's a fact of life in any war at any time. Thinking it won't happen to you in the same situation is what keeps those positions filled.

[<steede>]

It's all about ratings....

I usually watch BBC 'cause there's no American corporate or political influence. They don't sugarcoat things like American tv news. BBC shows the good, the bad, the pretty, and the ugly when it comes to this war. I think some people's opinions on the war would change if they saw some of the pictures being aired on BBC.

America should also congratulate itself on a well played propaganda war, with the conservative, pro-war media playing an exquisite role. I think that in the race to have the best stories, pictures, and access that the U.S. media isn't presenting a true unbiased look at the war, which is a great disservice. Journalists are supposed to keep a professional distance from the stories, but in the great race to get the story journalists are breaking that rule. It's all about ratings...if say for instance CNN angered Bu$h and the troops with a not so complimentary story their access would be limited. This would give the others an advantage in coverage, and CNN would lose viewers. Even in times of war it's all about $$$$, which is what this war is really about anyway.

-steede

[ELVEE]

All these good journalist died in the war and Geraldo is still alive. Why can't someone mistake him for an Iraqi and drop a bomb on him?

[<sooner>]

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think there should be a single journalist anywhere near the damn war front. People don't need to know what war is like. It's unfortunate that soldiers have to find out the hard way, but the general public has no use for this kind of up close and personal while safe on your couch war experience. I fear it will only make viewers think they know what it is like, and that takes away from the respect do the soldiers that actually do know. As a son of a Vietnam vet, I have some personal feelings about media covering war, I don't like it. No matter what, we can NOT convey what it is all about and what the soldiers are going through. To try is to disrespect them. Sorry for the rant.

[<steede>]

Well said Sooner. I agree 100%. Regardless of where you stand on the war and all the rhetoric surrounding it, the media coverage is making a mockery of a very serious situation.

-steede

[<BlindSpot>]

are you forgetting that everything done there is done in your name - good AND bad??!! how dare you say that the public doesn't need to know! the public not knowing what was being done over the past several years resulted in 09-11. where do you think HE got the gas and weapons in the first place??
it's a dangerous job, given. but we're all better FOR knowing. :mad:

[<steede>]

My biggest gripe as stated earlier is that the coverage seems very sugarcoated and doesn't present both sides. Our (American) journalists are too close to the frontlines, thus comprimising objective reporting. Even though I'm against this war I obviously want to know what's going on and I don't think we're getting that right now.

-steede

[Terry E. Toller]

It is indeed sad that journalists were killed. BUT, it is a WAR zone! Stuff happens.

I think we should be more outraged when journalists are attacked by street punks and even cops in America!

[Sentinel94]

Here, here Terry!!! I'm quite sure they weren't in the tank saying "get the journalist!!!" That's just stupid...if our military was trying to kill civilians and media, it would have all been over in a day...One big flash and BOOM, Baghdad is a parking lot!!! But we are taking every precaution as to not kill non-combatants as much as possible. On a side note, what the hell are you doing out shopping at 1am while B-52's are dropping ordanance all around you. If it were me, I would skip town until it all ends.

[<geek>]

aljazeera is a arm of the terrorist misinformation. You listen to thier coverage and it's very biased barley stopping short of encouraging suicide bombers. I wouldn't be surprised if the kubul office didn't have some kind of taliban activity going on. just like red crecent ambulances being used for military conduct.

I've been spending too much time watching non US news and searching the internet. as local news is not getting as much coverage.

I was very glad to see the statue in front of the hotel go down today. I noticed it was just after the sencom breifing where alot of attention was payed to the media deaths. then the tanks showed up, almost like command said time to park it at the hotel and wait for bagdad bob.

I hope they figure it out over thier. aljazeera has lost credibility with alot of the arab nations today. we need to remember that much of the arab media has heavy religious influance and may not have the luxury of trying to be objective. life is cheap in those regions. and if your not the right tribe your a third class citizen. treated like a non human for the exploit of the ruling religion.

I wonder whats going on in north east iraq we don't seem to be seing many images from thier.

[<Media Circus........>]

Can you image what would've happened if we had 24 cable news during the revolutionary war:

"Why is it taking so long to overthrow the British?"

"Why didn't you take Yorktown first?"

"General Washington... do you feel that crossing the Potamic was a bad strategic move in hindsite?"

"Is this war really about freedom? Or is it about tea?"

I'm amazed we can get anything done in this country. With all the so called "media experts" second guessing and examining every little detail to death.....

As for journalists killed in a war. Why do they think they are immune to whats happening around them. If I'm in a tank and someone is shooting at me... I will try to take them out. That's how war works.

Its not pretty!
Its not easy!
Its not clear!
It does not subscribe to any of the so called rules....

Its WAR!!!!
You can't use civilized reasoning to understand something that is NOT civilized!!!!!

The "rules of war" were created for diplomats and polititians. Not for the "soldier in a tank" taking fire.....

In WAR... people die. That is the one rule everyone can agree on..........

[<Turtle>]

What kills me about you guys defending the TC (Tank Commander)is that he was defending his crew?

In an artical posted today, they were taking fire from across the river amung other places, the TC said he "wasn't" taking fire from the Hotel. The only reason he fired on the hotel is because he saw a reflection of the sun, probably from binoculars. And he assumed that the person with the binoculars was the one calling in the fire missions.

All and all, according to the Tank Commander, the only reason he fired at the hotel is becuase he saw a reflection. That's bull****.

here, check out the artical

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,940311,00.html

[<hey turtle>]

pull your head out of the sand
and put it back in your shell

as said above ....

any behavior in a war zone that gets you
noticed may get you killed ....
that is a fact
sitting across from a tank column with field
glasses or a tv camera and you look just like
the enemy .....
ask any vietnam vet how many rounds where
fired into the jungle to kill an enemy that was
not there ......
in war, people shoot first and debate the results later
you need to wake the f_ _ _ up

[<get_it_people>]

The journalist are working in a war zone. There is no magic protecting them. If you expose yourself you run the risk of being killed. It's horrible that the tank fired on the hotel but you weren't in the tank and haven't gone through what the troops have. You can't send someone up to ask if the guy on the balcony is a cameraman or an Iraqi soldier spotting for snipers and artillery.

Think about this, when troops are under fire I could imagine that a camera on a shoulder would look a lot like an someone preparing to shoot a RPG and if it was pointed at the troops, I couldn't fault them for shooting.

If you work in a war zone there are risks and I do feel for the journalists who lost their lives and for their families.

[<turtle>]

first of all, I am working in a war zone. I am at the Palastine hotel right now. Yes a camera on a shoulder does look like a RPG, but that is not what the TC said he saw. He saw a refection of light. Their are rules of engagement, and seeing a reflection does not constitute an attack.

[<hey turtle>]

i'm not in a war zone
thank god
my life is to valuable
to work for a multi-national
news corporation that would give my
material away for free and with no
photo credit

do you think any company desk jockeys give a
**** if you catch a bullet?

only if your a bobble head !

hell they care more about the gear

man, stay off the balconies
be invisible
come home alive to your family

[<turtle>]

that is the plan.

I am actually leaving tomorrow, but not coming back to the states for 6-12 months. Got to make some cash before I come home. It is all about working for a few months, and then taking a year off in the states. That is why I do this

[<hey turtle>]

sorry if those were your friends that
were killed
keep safe
make some $$$$
come home
meet a great girl
have kids
give up the dangerous stuff
live fat and happily ever after
or
maybe not

[<turtle>]

I am only 23 now, so I will probably do this for a while before I settle down, I need to get it out of my system before I give up the dangerous stuff. for the most part it really isn't all that dangerous here. There are shots fired every now and then, but nothing serious. I haven't worn my flak vest or helmet since I have been here, hasn't been a need to.

After I leave here I will be going to Live in Jerusalem for a while. I will be based out of there for the next 6 months. but I will work all over. After the six months I may choose to stay on another 6 months, but I will not stay longer than a year. I will then come back to the states and live off the money I made here. I got rid of my apartment and my car in the states so I would not have any expenses while I am abroad. I should be able to live off of this for a year or two when I get back, and I will freelance whenever it comes up.

E-mail me if you want at jcchrystal@aol.com

Where do you work? what town?

I am from Reno Nevada.