Three Journalists killed today by US military. - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-09-2003, 06:29 PM   #31
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:15 PM
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
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 07:07 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
You don't like the Guardian?
I did not say that!!!!!

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
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 07:09 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
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
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 07:19 PM   #34
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
now its about targetting journalists.
__________________
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 07:19 PM   #35
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 06:15 AM
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.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 07:29 PM   #36
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


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.
__________________
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 07:34 PM   #37
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4


Very nice debating tactic.
I'll try to be nicer next time someone is cryptically asking me if I think it's ok that journalists die!

__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 07:43 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:15 PM
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.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 07:59 PM   #39
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
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 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
__________________
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 08:04 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine

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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 08:24 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:15 AM
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
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 08:24 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer


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
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?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 08:27 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:15 AM
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.


http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24988

There we go unbiased reporting.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 08:39 PM   #44
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


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
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 08:41 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:15 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com