Three Journalists killed today by US military.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
FizzingWhizzbees said:
You don't like the Guardian? :(

I did not say that!!!!!:madspit:

I have it in my FAVORITE PLACES list. I read it too. It is definitely not what I would call a paper that has been in favor of the war.

Peace:sexywink:
 
Klaus said:
Dreadsox: interesting that the Pentagon said it was selfdefense and s.o. shoot from the lobby of the hotel.
It's new for me that the US protects Saddams troops. (Well at least it's new in this decade ;))

Klaus

:huh:
 
The Guardian usually captures stories from other news sources. One I posted and was flamed was actually from the London Times.
My 2cents. Everyone knows where the Palestine hotel was. If the troops have been told to not shot into Mosques or schools regardless of the sniper activity, then the hotel should have been on that list. As well a Al Jezeeral(?) they communicated their location daily to centcom. Snipers cannot get hit someone inside a tank (I didn't say outside). I watched the Central Command briefing and he changed his mind 3 times as to where the fire came from and what kind it was.
Dreadsox - no offense but soldiers can make mistakes. They do have human emotions and can get pissed.
It is possible that they were mad at being portrayed improperly in their minds by some journalists.
NO ONE is PERFECT.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


What do you mean then, "they certainly didn?t have to be there"? You mean it like a statement, am I interpreting this right? You mean, if they had chosen not to be journalists, but bakermen, they wouldn?t be there. Or, if they had chosen to be journalists that left Iraq, they wouldn?t have been shot. So whats the job of a journalist then?

I didn?t accuse the US of targeting journalists, man, and i didn?t accuse you of wanting journalists to die. Get over it. I said that there is certain pattern that remembers me of the methods of the Cosa Nostra. We will never know if someone gave the order to fire into the building intentionally.

Do you think it was an accident?

And another accident?

And another accident?

Ok, your choice. Then I must say, the military is really not acting precise enough. It is a little much, just a little too much. We are talking about lives here. Not about patriotism and accusing. Life weighs heavier.

mistakes? accidents? what about the friendly fire that have killed US and British soldiers? I do believe that great care has gone into avoiding civilian casualties. Maybe that's stupid, but I remember reading statements by posters here saying that hundreds of thousands, maybe into the millions would die from bombings and airstrikes. there has been some terrible tragedies, of course people will focus on this. there's a difference between intentionally going after targets and making mistakes or screwups in communication/strategy. end result is tragic. these journalists werent hunted down or something, they were embedded in the epicenter of a war, spin that anyway you like but that put them in grave danger, and it was their choice.
 
Cryptically? Great interpretation.

And please quote whole sentences. I didn?t mention "the US" in the same sentence. I wouldn?t generalize like that.

Tsk tsk tsk. :eyebrow:
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
Oh, American precision work again!

To me, the situation seems clear: It is a planned warning for others. Look at all the deaths (except for soldiers and Iraqi civilians) surrounding this war. First a protestor is killed by an Israeli bulldozer, then some Russian diplomats, then Al Jazeera is shot at, now its about targetting journalists. A little too many accidents for my taste.

The bulldozer might have been a different affair, but the rest speaks a clear language.

It is saddening to see the :censored: lowers itself to the style of the Cosa Nostra.

then who are we talking about here? what is this "clear language" you speak of? you give 4 incidents and later admit the one is not really related, but look at all that damning evidence!!! you make some fascinating connections, what a great web you've spun, I guess that's your way out...

but then again, I have no idea who we're talking about, just a thread about Three Journalists killed today by US military.

kiss kiss :sexywink:
 
Scarletwine said:

Dreadsox - no offense but soldiers can make mistakes. They do have human emotions and can get pissed.
It is possible that they were mad at being portrayed improperly in their minds by some journalists.
NO ONE is PERFECT.

Scarletwine....No Offense.....But

I love it when people say "NO OFFENSE" and then accuse a soldier of intentionaly shooting at reporters.

Offense is taken....if you are saying that they fired at reporters intentionally. It is insulting to anyone who has worn the uniform with pride.

If it was a mistake, meaning they fired at the building because they were under fire, and did not mean to kill an innocent reporter, no offense taken.

Your post confuses me though, which is it with you? Don't sit on the fence? Was it a mistake, or do you believe that the reporters were killed on purpose by an angry soldier?

Oh, just out of curiousity, what weapons were being fired at the tank that was so safe and secure that it was out of line to fire back? Since the soldiers were not REALLY threatened by the sniper that is.
 
HOT OFF THE PRESSES

US War/ Killing of journalists by Americans intentional

Rome, April 9, IRNA -- Italian daily La Estempa said on Wednesday the
killings of journalists in Baghdad by the Americans was deliberate.
Three journalists were killed and three others wounded in Baghdad
after they came under fire on Tuesday, bringing the media death toll
in Iraq to 12.
Fernandino Pelgrini, a journalist now in Baghdad to report news
on the US war on Iraq, alleged the US had deliberately targeted a
group of newsmen for objective reporting of the events, taking place
in Iraq.
The fact that two Ukrainian and one Spanish journalist were killed
in the US attack on the hotel where they were staying was indeed an
action by the US to muzzle the outspoken journalists, he said.
The Americans claims that they they have targeted the Palestine
Hotel after they came under fire by men taking ambush there are
"sheer lies."
The Italian state-run radio said there were no armed men in the
hotel to open fire on Americans, he said adding that those who
launched attack on the hotel were informed of the fact.
The radio condemned the attack on the journalists and termed it a
violation of free press and human values.
It was a blatant violation of human rights and press freedom, it
said.
HB/JB
End

BACK



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.irna.com/en/head/030409233745.ehe.shtml
 
The Wanderer said:


then who are we talking about here? what is this "clear language" you speak of? you give 4 incidents and later admit the one is not really related, but look at all that damning evidence!!! you make some fascinating connections, what a great web you've spun, I guess that's your way out...

but then again, I have no idea who we're talking about, just a thread about Three Journalists killed today by US military.

kiss kiss :sexywink:

The pattern of incidents is the interesting thing about it. I?m not high on conspiracy theories or something. I pointed out that the way those many incidents are happening is interesting. And if you read my other post, I admit we don?t know anything, because after all we weren?t there. So whats your problem?

Ah I see you have a problem with the connections I make in my head. Well, you know, there are some creative people in think tanks who do that most of the time. They think about patterns too. About incidents that point in a certain direction.

And again, if all the three events were just accidentially happening (which I don?t believe with the diplomats in the car f.e.), then the military was not acting precisely enough. Maybe they just had to practise more, what do you think? Either way, it is without responsibility to say "oh hell, it just happened, after all war is dangerous".

edit: Note that I say "it is" in my last sentence, not "you are". Get the difference?
 
Last edited:
ARAB NEWS REPORTS

Exclusive: Journalists Die and Networks Lie
Linda S. Heard, Special to Arab News



Iraq is being ?liberated? while truth is incarcerated. Former BBC reporter Kate Adie warned that non-embedded journalists in Iraq could be Pentagon targets before the war began. She was right. On Tuesday, an American tank shell was fired at Baghdad?s Palestine Hotel ? temporary home of international reporters and film crews ? causing casualties among those who bravely stayed in a war zone so that we could know. A Spanish cameraman has already succumbed to the coalition version of freedom during that attack as has a Reuters employee. Sky?s David Chater said he saw the tank barrel turn toward the hotel and heard it spew out its deadly load. He said that the tank operators knew that there were journalists on the roof of the hotel.

?We almost had eye-to-eye contact,? he said. He wonders how independent reporters (as opposed to embeds) can continue to do their job when such danger emanates from their own side. Not from the Iraqi side but from ?their boys?. That?s the whole idea. Those people who are giving the orders to fire upon journalists want them to flee in terror.

Joe Public must not see the future lot of Baghdad?s long-suffering civilians. We have seen too much already. The Baghdad office of Al- Jazeera, housed in a residential district, was hit too ? very reminiscent of Kabul. This time a journalist and a cameraman lost their lives. Al-Jazeera?s mistake was to have given the Pentagon its coordinates.

A further ?accident? on the same day resulted in a Reuters vehicle being attacked, and another ?stray? bomb or missile ?coincidentally? destroyed the office of Abu Dhabi Television causing severe injuries. Early on in this war, ITV?s Terry Lloyd was allegedly the victim of a US bullet while two of his colleagues went missing after the same incident.

The Pentagon tells us that it is still investigating, yet even while their own employees fall, Western television networks refuse to condemn this assault on the truth, making excuse after excuse about the ?fog of war.? In a ?blue on blue? incident, a 25-year-old BBC translator was killed in northern Iraq and a cameraman wounded in the head when a convoy of Kurdish fighters and American special forces was bombed. But veteran BBC reporter John Simpson, who was slightly injured during the attack, calmly commented that such things happen during conflicts and thanked the Americans traveling with them for their first aid capabilities. How polite!

?Your chappie has just killed my friend but, hey, such things happen. Thanks for the bandages, by the way.?

From the point of view of the coalition of two and a bit who repeats over and over again that ?every effort is being made to protect civilians? while casually throwing out the line ?civilian casualties are regretted,? what shouldn?t we know? We should not have learned about soldiers who shoot first and ask questions later, as seven Iraqi women and children found to their cost as well as the drivers and passengers of numerous vehicles, erroneously mistaken for suicide bombers. We should not be told that the coalition boys and girls are dropping cluster bombs and firing depleted uranium tank shells, without any thought to how much misery these weapons of mass destruction will certainly cause in the future. We should not have seen the British marines, who when arresting a middle-aged suspect, forced him to the ground and repeatedly yanked off his kuffiyeh (Arab headdress) ? an appalling insult to that man?s dignity and his traditions. We should not have been witness to the way that prisoners were handcuffed and hooded by this ?liberating army.?

There is a photograph doing the rounds of a hooded man cuddling his terrified infant behind coils of barbed wire. One can only wonder what that boy will think of his ?liberators? when he grows up. In Najaf, American soldiers headed toward the golden-domed Imam Ali Mosque, one of the most sacred Shiite sites, and were kept back by sheer people power. Hundreds of unarmed men steadfastly marched toward those armored servants of the US military machine, shaking their fists in a rare display of courage. The confused soldiers were ordered to step back and smile. We were not told by our media of the bravery of those men defending an icon of their religion, only of the diplomacy of the American troops in retreating. In Nassiriyah, an enraged middle-aged resident shouted his objection to women being subjected to body searches at checkpoints, and called Bush, Hussein and others ?liars.?

He then sobbed tears of frustration and humiliation. This emotive scene, which has caused outrage in the Muslim world, was courtesy of Al-Jazeera, Pentagon bad boy No. 1 CNN, Fox News, NBC, the BBC and Sky News are trying to sell us an antiseptic war, one in which there are no torn and bleeding victims.

In their war, the enemy is destroyed in its thousands while the US/UK forces suffer only those losses inescapably witnessed by the cameras of independent journalists. A BBC spokesman, when asked why the British network was portraying such a sterile conflict, said that people with children wouldn?t like gory images coming into their living rooms.

In other words, it?s fine for those sensitive souls to support their nation?s finest, but not to see the obscene results of their handiwork. The Anglo-American media hasn?t shrunk from distorting the truth and putting out disinformation in its scrambling to prove which one of its outlets can serve as the most effective propaganda arm. Meanwhile, Britain?s Sun newspaper ? a Murdoch-owned tabloid ? puts the photograph of a dissenting British Member of Parliament on its front cover with the word ?Traitor? emblazoned on the page. It even went so far as to publish his e-mail address and telephone number, inciting its ignorant readers to tell the MP their thoughts.

The result was a barrage of insults and death threats forcing the paper?s victim to surround himself with bodyguards.

Al- Jazeera has been accused of following an agenda too and thus has been evicted from the New York Stock Exchange, the victim of professional hackers. It has consequently had to look for a new server for its website. While it is true that Al-Jazeera is certainly playing to the bias of its Arab audience, it does show graphic videos, worth more than a million words. It didn?t concoct those images of ashen-faced, lifeless babies, victims of carpet bombs in Al-Hilla or those heartrending scenes of the victims of man?s inhumanity to man filling the beds and covering the floors of Iraqi hospitals.

Iraqi television has an agenda too. It?s called ?showing your side of the story against all odds.? It made the mistake of screening a downed Apache helicopter and was bombed. It later ran images of captured American service personnel and dead British pilots and the Ministry of Information was promptly targeted. Broadcasting out of the Palestine Hotel ? temporary home of foreign journalists ? Iraqi television still won?t do as it?s told. After it showed footage of a burning American vehicle, the US/UK forces promptly unleashed a warning bomb just 100 yards from the hotel. According to their spokesman, pressure is being put on those companies which sell satellite time to Iraqi TV to desist.

The Pentagon, however, feels free to manipulate the truth to its heart?s content, such as the rescue of one of its female soldiers, the now famous Jessica. They made it look like a re-run of Entebbe. The helicopter landed, the troops rushed out and after creating a diversion, rushed into Jessica?s hospital room before carrying her off to safety.

Heroes all! During their press briefings they made no mention of the Iraqi doctor who had told them where she was. They did not say that the hospital had not been guarded and that Jessica had been well treated and they did not dampen the rumors that she had been shot several times. It took her father to do that.

It would probably have suited the US administration better had she been tortured and raped. And how the British press lapped up those photographs of US servicemen lounging around one of Saddam?s many palaces, taken by embedded reporters who ensured we knew that the Iraqi leader had gold taps on his bidet while his people starved. Couldn?t we say the same about Buckingham Palace while children sleep in the doorways of nearby Regent Street or the White House while bag ladies doss out in cardboard boxes?

In Basra, the people have already been ?liberated? and are celebrating their freedom by looting and stealing while British commanders look on saying that there is nothing they can do about such lawlessness. (I do hope Athens will be freed soon. There?s a gold bracelet in the window of a jewelry store at the end of my street, which would look great on my wrist). Iraq?s new interim rulers ? led by Viceroy-Designate pro-Likud former US Gen. Jay Garner ? are patiently awaiting their glorious destiny. Iraqi exiles beg for jobs in the new Iraq power base. Like Hamid Karzai before him, the normally well turned-out Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, has donned a uniform and headed off to northern Iraq to make his victorious entry into Baghdad like Hannibal without the elephant.

American oil companies wait for this war to receive a stamp of legality from the United Nations before they can draw up lucrative contracts. US companies look forward to being recipients of bounty from Iraq?s reconstruction and the Israelis hope for a long-awaited oil pipeline from northern Iraq to Haifa. Evangelical Messianic Christians circle like soul-scalping vultures in Jordan until they can make their vainglorious entry into Baghdad bearing bread and Bibles. In the meantime, the Iraqis cry rivers of tears, comfort their children and bury their dead while the gagged and compliant media bury theirs.


[url]http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24988
[/URL]

There we go unbiased reporting.
 
Dreadsox said:


Scarletwine....No Offense.....But

I If it was a mistake, meaning they fired at the building because they were under fire, and did not mean to kill an innocent reporter, no offense taken.

Your post confuses me though, which is it with you? Don't sit on the fence? Was it a mistake, or do you believe that the reporters were killed on purpose by an angry soldier?

Oh, just out of curiousity, what weapons were being fired at the tank that was so safe and secure that it was out of line to fire back? Since the soldiers were not REALLY threatened by the sniper that is.

This is exactly one of my points. During the Centcom briefing, it changes from mortar fire, to somekind of personnel missles, to sniper fire, within one briefing.

I've no doubt that there was some kind of fire on the troops, I'd hope that no soldier of ours would intentionally fire on a verbal combatant, but I'd think in Vietnam they'd have fired on Suzie(? I'm too young to remember her name)

I again was comparing the command not to fire at Mosques to the same at the hotel. This is even a more legitament civilian site.

Again, not accussing, but their are records of troops misconduct. So I'm saying I don't know if there was some misconduct and some possible human error. Do you know? Were you there after fighting your waty tooth and nail to Bagdad, notr knowing who your friends and your enemies are? I think this is a real comparison to Vietnam. In Desert Storm if they were fighting you they were the enemy. In Vietnam the civilians look like the enemy. After days of fighting is it easy to turn it off?

edited to say

Why should I get off the fence? I wasn't there - were you? I don't have any absolute answers only suppositions and exploring the possibilities
 
Last edited:
Dread, the arab report you have posted is biased in my opinion, but look at what it says about the Sun and Murdoch (I assure you i?d never read the Sun, I prefer the Guardian) - that?s pretty interesting too.

I ask myself what the reporters really think of some of their bosses.
 
I am curious about how few people really do control the media outlets now. For all I know, there are like, five people who own all of the media in the world. This thought actually scares me.

Peace
 
Dreadsox said:
I am curious about how few people really do control the media outlets now. For all I know, there are like, five people who own all of the media in the world. This thought actually scares me.

Peace

Not all the media in the world, but most of the major media outlets. And again, I got a parallel to Italy, if I may: remember the list of the members of the Propaganda Due, P2. And be assured that documents like that don?t see the daylight often.

P2 was neo-fascist, but in Italy during the 1970s, this did not preclude conspiracies with anarchists, leftists, terrorists, and the CIA. Gelli was connected with Italian police and intelligence agencies, as well as with the Mafia, financiers, and the Vatican. By March 1981, his string was running out. Police raided Gellis villa in Tuscany and photographed a list of nearly a thousand "members" of P2. Many important Italians were on it -- 30 generals, 38 members of parliament, 4 cabinet ministers, former prime ministers, intelligence chiefs, newspaper editors, TV executives, businessmen, bankers, 19 judges, and 58 university professors. The Italian government of Arnaldo Forlani collapsed during the ensuing scandal.

Strategies.

Patterns.

Incidents.
 
I think you are right. At least in the US and part of Europe. It is a very scary thing and ther are bills awaiting congress to strengthen the anti trust laws to include media (that includes radio. Everybody on this board should help endorse this new bill.
I'm so glad I have satellite. I watch Mosaic - 5 rotating Middle Eastern nations news 2x a day. It is really interesting to hear their side of things (whether I agree or not0. Remarkably they talk about invasion - no shit - but i watch them to get a better perspective of civilians causualties and infrastucture destruction. Something we are getting none of.
Then I watch CBC and the DW Journal (German) to get another perspective. I've found it a great way to sift through propoganda and get to a foundation of what is going on.
Of couse CNN has been trying to catch on the tail of ABU DaBI, but not.
PS. Dreadsox, I've totally lost my support for Clark. He was too eager to get in the Dog & Pony show of war on CNN. Lost all respect for him. Time to go back to the ElectoMeter :LOL:
 
Scarletwine said:

PS. Dreadsox, I've totally lost my support for Clark. He was too eager to get in the Dog & Pony show of war on CNN. Lost all respect for him. Time to go back to the ElectoMeter :LOL:

Gary Hart announces on Friday.....FYI...LOL
 
Is he really. That will be interesting. What I hate is that the name liberal has been shifted so far right that now if you are a moderate you are a liberal. This is because of the WEI. I about fainted the other day I saw them interviewing him as (not an idea) but gospel.
:censored: scary. Many of you may not agree with me but if 1 idea is enforced without dissention (even if it is your idea) it is a dictatorship or fascist state.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


The pattern of incidents is the interesting thing about it. I?m not high on conspiracy theories or something. I pointed out that the way those many incidents are happening is interesting. And if you read my other post, I admit we don?t know anything, because after all we weren?t there. So whats your problem?

Ah I see you have a problem with the connections I make in my head. Well, you know, there are some creative people in think tanks who do that most of the time. They think about patterns too. About incidents that point in a certain direction.

And again, if all the three events were just accidentially happening (which I don?t believe with the diplomats in the car f.e.), then the military was not acting precisely enough. Maybe they just had to practise more, what do you think? Either way, it is without responsibility to say "oh hell, it just happened, after all war is dangerous".

edit: Note that I say "it is" in my last sentence, not "you are". Get the difference?

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say, please use simpler terms this time. Your theories are very important, that's all I really understand so far...
 
The Wanderer said:


I'm still not sure what you're trying to say, please use simpler terms this time. Your theories are very important, that's all I really understand so far...

Exactly. You?re idle, I?m an idol. :up:
 
Here's an interesting article. I'm not suggesting I agree with it or disagree with it, but it's an interesting read...

"Does US Military Want to Take Out Journalists?"
Robert Fisk, Baghdad - 09 April 2003, Independent

First the Americans killed the correspondent of al-Jazeera yesterday and wounded his cameraman. Then, within four hours, they attacked the Reuters television bureau in Baghdad, killing one of its cameramen and a cameraman for Spain's Tele 5 channel and wounding four other members of the Reuters staff.

Was it possible to believe this was an accident? Or was it possible that the right word for these killings--the first with a jet aircraft, the second with an M1A1 Abrams tank--was murder? These were not, of course, the first journalists to die in the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Terry Lloyd of ITV was shot dead by American troops in southern Iraq, who apparently mistook his car for an Iraqi vehicle. His crew are still missing. Michael Kelly of The Washington Post tragically drowned in a canal. Two journalists have died in Kurdistan. Two journalists--a German and a Spaniard--were killed on Monday night at a US base in Baghdad, with two Americans, when an Iraqi missile exploded amid them.

And we should not forget the Iraqi civilians who are being killed and maimed by the hundred and who--unlike their journalist guests--cannot leave the war and fly home. So the facts of yesterday should speak for themselves. Unfortunately for the Americans, they make it look very like murder.

The US jet turned to rocket al-Jazeera's office on the banks of the Tigris at 7.45am local time yesterday. The television station's chief correspondent in Baghdad, Tariq Ayoub, a Jordanian-Palestinian, was on the roof with his second cameraman, an Iraqi called Zuheir, reporting a pitched battle near the bureau between American and Iraqi troops. Mr Ayoub's colleague Maher Abdullah recalled afterwards that both men saw the plane fire the rocket as it swooped toward their building, which is close to the Jumhuriya Bridge upon which two American tanks had just appeared.

"On the screen, there was this battle and we could see bullets flying and then we heard the aircraft," Mr Abdullah said.

"The plane was flying so low that those of us downstairs thought it would land on the roof--that's how close it was. We actually heard the rocket being launched. It was a direct hit--the missile actually exploded against our electrical generator. Tariq died almost at once. Zuheir was injured."

Now for America's problems in explaining this little saga. Back in 2001, the United States fired a cruise missile at al-Jazeera's office in Kabul--from which tapes of Osama bin Laden had been broadcast around the world. No explanation was ever given for this extraordinary attack on the night before the city's "liberation"; the Kabul correspondent, Taiseer Alouni, was unhurt. By the strange coincidence of journalism, Mr Alouni was in the Baghdad office yesterday to endure the USAF's second attack on al-Jazeera.

Far more disturbing, however, is the fact that the al-Jazeera network--the freest Arab television station, which has incurred the fury of both the Americans and the Iraqi authorities for its live coverage of the war--gave the Pentagon the co-ordinates of its Baghdad office two months ago and received assurances that the bureau would not be attacked.

Then on Monday, the US State Department's spokesman in Doha, an Arab-American called Nabil Khouri, visited al-Jazeera's offices in the city and, according to a source within the Qatari satellite channel, repeated the Pentagon's assurances. Within 24 hours, the Americans had fired their missile into the Baghdad office.

The next assault, on Reuters, came just before midday when an Abrams tank on the Jamhuriya Bridge suddenly pointed its gun barrel towards the Palestine Hotel where more than 200 foreign journalists are staying to cover the war from the Iraqi side. Sky Television's David Chater noticed the barrel moving. The French television channel France 3 had a crew in a neighbouring room and videotaped the tank on the bridge. The tape shows a bubble of fire emerging from the barrel, the sound of a detonation and then pieces of paintwork falling past the camera as it vibrates with the impact.

In the Reuters bureau on the 15th floor, the shell exploded amid the staff. It mortally wounded a Ukrainian cameraman, Taras Protsyuk, who was also filming the tanks, and seriously wounded another member of the staff, Paul Pasquale from Britain, and two other journalists, including Reuters' Lebanese-Palestinian reporter Samia Nakhoul. On the next floor, Tele 5's cameraman Jose Couso was badly hurt. Mr Protsyuk died shortly afterwards. His camera and its tripod were left in the office, which was swamped with the crew's blood. Mr Couso had a leg amputated but he died half an hour after the operation.

The Americans responded with what all the evidence proves to be a straightforward lie. General Buford Blount of the US 3rd Infantry Division--whose tanks were on the bridge--announced that his vehicles had come under rocket and rifle fire from snipers in the Palestine Hotel, that his tank had fired a single round at the hotel and that the gunfire had then ceased. The general's statement, however, was untrue.

I was driving on a road between the tanks and the hotel at the moment the shell was fired--and heard no shooting. The French videotape of the attack runs for more than four minutes and records absolute silence before the tank's armament is fired. And there were no snipers in the building. Indeed, the dozens of journalists and crews living there--myself included--have watched like hawks to make sure that no armed men should ever use the hotel as an assault point.

This is, one should add, the same General Blount who boasted just over a month ago that his crews would be using depleted uranium munitions-- the kind many believe to be responsible for an explosion of cancers after the 1991 Gulf War--in their tanks. For General Blount to suggest, as he clearly does, that the Reuters camera crew was in some way involved in shooting at Americans merely turns a meretricious statement into a libellous one.

Again, we should remember that three dead and five wounded journalists do not constitute a massacre--let alone the equivalence of the hundreds of civilians being maimed by the invasion force. And it is a truth that needs to be remembered that the Iraqi regime has killed a few journalists of its own over the years, with tens of thousands of its own people. But something very dangerous appeared to be getting loose yesterday. General Blount's explanation was the kind employed by the Israelis after they have killed the innocent. Is there therefore some message that we reporters are supposed to learn from all this? Is there some element in the American military that has come to hate the press and wants to take out journalists based in Baghdad, to hurt those whom our Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has maliciously claimed to be working "behind enemy lines". Could it be that this claim--that international correspondents are in effect collaborating with Mr Blunkett's enemy (most Britons having never supported this war in the first place)--is turning into some kind of a death sentence?

I knew Mr Ayoub. I have broadcast during the war from the rooftop on which he died. I told him then how easy a target his Baghdad office would make if the Americans wanted to destroy its coverage--seen across the Arab world--of civilian victims of the bombing. Mr Protsyuk of Reuters often shared the Palestine Hotel's elevator with me. Samia Nakhoul, who is 42, has been a friend and colleague since the 1975-90 Lebanese civil war. She is married to the Financial Times correspondent David Gardner.

Yesterday afternoon, she lay covered in blood in a Baghdad hospital. And General Blount dared to imply that this innocent woman and her brave colleagues were snipers. What, I wonder, does this tell us about the war in Iraq?

'The American forces knew exactly what this hotel is'

The Sky News correspondent David Chater was in the Palestine Hotel when the hotel was hit by American tank fire. This is his account of what happened.

"I was about to go out on to the balcony when there was a huge explosion, then shouts and screams from people along our corridor. They were shouting, 'Somebody's been hit. Can somebody find a doctor?' They were saying they could see blood and bone.

"There were a lot of French journalists screaming, 'Get a doctor, get a doctor'. There was a great sense of panic because these walls are very thin. "We saw the tanks up on the bridge. They started firing across the bank. The shells were landing either side of us at what we thought were military targets. Then we were hit. We are in the middle of a tank battle.

"I don't understand why they were doing that. There was no fire coming out of this hotel--everyone knows it's full of journalists.

"Everybody is putting on flak jackets. Everybody is running for cover. We now feel extremely vulnerable and we are now going to say goodbye to you." The line was cut but minutes later Chater resumed his report, saying journalists had been watching American forces from their balconies and the troops had surely been aware of their presence.

"They knew exactly what this hotel is. They know the press corps is here. I don't know why they are trying to target journalists. There are awful scenes around me. There's a Reuters tent just a few yards away from me where people are in tears. It makes you realise how vulnerable you are. What are we supposed to do? How are we supposed to carry on if American shells are targeting Western journalists?"
 
Steve Bell on the issue

1bell.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom