Falstaff

Whether they are "embedded" with the Coaltion forces, or ducking on the balconies of Bagdad hotels, they are in the line of fire. I don't think they deserve any better treatment than non combatents anywhere else, because they place themselves in the line of fire. Al Jazeera television accused us of targeting their journalists because they are providing unbiased coverage to the Arab world. We have officially apologized for the incident where they were victems of hostile fire. But what of the others, the missing or the dead. I have watched regretful eulogies for many of them already. And it is difficult for me to remain empathetic to any of them. I never enjoyed having journalists around during the last Gulf War and believe they can hinder the progress of Coalition forces. But I enjoy the coverage regardless..What do you all think?

The_Neon_Cowboy

the most recent ones...well they were standing right next to an anti aircraft battery fireing on us aircraft when it was bombed ... what intellagence ... I feel fo them but some not useing common sence had they been a bit farther away they might of made it

__________________

JavaFox

Not much can really be added to this debate. Yesterdays events were incredibly unfortuanate, and we all grieve.

raid517

I don't know... You guys would really have journalists banned from war zones? If there had been embeded journalists during Vietnam, perhaps some of the attrocities that occured there would not have happend. In the most recent incident, the one at the hotel, half the world's press were staying there. All of them swore they didn't hear a single shot fired from the building, or from any of the surrounding buildings.

However, I am prepared to say that possibly it was an accident. I remember last night hearing a report on this hotel - and I actually though, boy I sure hope that hotel doesn't get hit. Well you can imagine my suprise when it did get hit. However while I can admit that it is likely to have been an accident (maybe they saw the glint of a camera and thought it was a sniper...) I would not go as far as to say, as some here appera to be suggesting that they 'deserved it.' I mean excuse me Jeff, but are you guys nuts or what? They were civilians. Accident or not it is sickening to say, or imply they deserved it.

On the subject of the news coverage as a whole, is it only me or is anyone else here just completely horrified by the things we are seeing? I mean pro-war/anti war sentiment aside, isn't anone else here sicked by all these horrible sights of death an mayhem? Or do you guys actually ''enjoy' watching it? Again I would say you have to be pretty much off your heads to say you find it enjoyable or exciting. I don't give a damn about the pro-war antiwar thing any more, after it begun the out come was always inevitable anyway - its the aftermath that interests me most now. But these pictures I keep seeing are very hard to get my head around. UK TV shows British troops handing out food and supplies and playing with the children in Basra, AL Jazera shows pictures of hundreds od dead bodies with have their heads blown off and their brains spread out over the ground. Which version of reality do you subscribbe to?

In any case its all terrible. Its a horrible, horrible business.

Q

Falstaff

They take risks for sure, and they get in the way, and they try to report as often as they can. But they aren't soldiers, and it takes at least five men to guard them on the Coalition side, or more if your last name is Kopel. Anyone inside Bagdad when they had the oppurtunity to leave might as well be running through rush hour traffic, they should stay down. When you have snipers on rooftops and in buildings on both sides, the reflection from their binoculers might as well be a gunsight to combatents. Granted the reporting still goes on, whether someone is behind a wall or standing on a balcony and the misfortune of being in a building where IRAQI soldiers are holding up is problematic at best. Grieve for the young men and women that fight and die on the battlefield.

__________________

raid517

Well it might take 3 or however many soldiers to guard the embeded journalists, but these journalists weren't embeded. Personally I think they are very brave, sure they know the risks and are willing to accept them, but without them no doubt we would get a very warped single sided view of the war. Embeded journalists only get fed whatever the military wants them to see. Independant journalists provide a perspective of the war that we might not see otherwise. If you care about freedom - and freedom of the press you have to admit that these journalists are doing a good thing. Implying that they deserved to die is just crazy talk Jeff. I'm sorry to say it but it is. Nobody deserves to die, least of all those who bring us news of the freedom and values this war is supposedly being fought for. I feel terribly for their families and cannot imagine how they must be grieving right now.

Personally I think they were very brave and died in the name of freedom and freedom of the press, values that we in the West are supposed to cherrish.

Q

bluelight

This whole war i have seen the reports of a "non embedded" female norwegian journalist.

When you attacked t5he presidential palace she was reporting 500 meters away from it.

She has reported throughout the war about:What happens in Bagdad;What people that she meets thinks etc etc.

She has done so independent of any newsagency or government.

She was on the seventh floor of the hotel when it was hit on the sixteenth.

She is one of the few reporting from this war..without an agenda.

Thankfully she is alive.


Bluelight

Bluelight

Falstaff

I have admit I admire her pluck, she isn't imbedded, but she demonstrated guile and cunning, In true Norwegian fashion she used her head, I understand that she placed herself behind the structure of the balcony and didn't use binoculers either, she was smart enough to know that she could endanger herseld and possibly others on that floor if she exposed her position. But from the vantage point of the person under fire within the confines of a hostile city, I would probably shoot first and ask questions later. I know that sounds harsh, but unless you have bullets pinging off the armour and you have the hatches closed and A.C. off, it is hard to discriminate anything but people running accross the street or soldiers...It is a lot easier to view from the periscope within the cupola, and swivel a full 360 arc. choosing to identify possible threats above and around the vehicle, the most vulnerable places that someone could strike. Even a maximum range, a spent RPG round could drop from less than 100 feet and do some serious damange to the turret of a Bradley, or even an M1A2. A journalist on the 7th floor probably wouldn't be seen from that vantage point, but the 16th floor or above is another question entirely. Perhaps being on the lower floors save that young womans life, and the lives of her camera crew. have we ever knowingly shot at journalists before, no but it happens...oh yes, I am not against reporting the war, I believe there is a place for it, but we always had our own with us, either marines or sailors assigned journalist duty, and they carried weapons, fired volleys during combat, and snapped a few pictures as well. I recall cleaning and sanitizing kill sites and BDA sites before the journalists arrived from the free press in IRAQ before. And I noticed that it is happening again.

__________________

The_Neon_Cowboy

they were shot at shot back nuff said.... this i a common tatic of the regime to put shooters were it will do the most politiacal / relatuions damage like the soldgers froire from a religoius mosk and point of religion for the regain and is a important site in their religion and is important to thier faith world wide. He is trying to muddy the U.S. name ... since he is powerless agenst our armys.]

Use you head what better cover could you get haveing someone shoot at troops from a journalist hotel ... were better to make sure it hit news all over? -none hell it probubly was a journalist the shot at the troops

__________________

The_Neon_Cowboy

I get your one of the people that belive every word saddom and his information minister has said before and during this war.

__________________

bluelight

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
they were shot at shot back nuff said.... this i a common tatic of the regime to put shooters were it will do the most politiacal / relatuions damage like the soldgers froire from a religoius mosk and point of religion for the regain and is a important site in their religion and is important to thier faith world wide. He is trying to muddy the U.S. name ... since he is powerless agenst our armys.]

Use you head what better cover could you get haveing someone shoot at troops from a journalist hotel ... were better to make sure it hit news all over? -none hell it probubly was a journalist the shot at the troops [/QUOT

That is pure lies.There were no shooting from the hotel.Had there been...then this woman would have known it.She was inside the hotel.She is NOT an idiot.

Your military has said thaT THEY SHOT AT THE HOTEL.They have said it was a mistake.And...they have given their apologies for it.

Of course this isnt valid to you.


Bluelight

Falstaff

Speaking from experience, no shit, people dressed as journalists and carrying weapons as well as cameras pose a threat, I am sure coalition forces would not hestitate to remove a threat, with whatever means is available. IRAQI's are ruthless, they use women and children as shields, I am sure they have given some serious thought to using journalists for the expressed purpose of gaining the upper hand.
Did anyone catch the video of the automobiles that charged a bridge roadblock with "T.V." painted clearly on the sides of the car doors, they threw burning fuel onto the tank before they themselves were shot, the tank crew allowed them to get real close because they believed that they had a press crew fleeing hostile fire...Now we have a clear and present danger to coaltion forces. If I were the tank driver, I would have backed up quickly and sprayed the vehicles with small caliber to see if they would stop, just me perhaps.
I wouldn't hesitate to shoot regardless...And if I saw possible sniper nests on building balconies I would probably put a H.E. round damn close to scare journalists away before I began shooting, but then that is me.
Journalists are a pain in the ass, god bless them all. they better get a whole lot smarter and duck more......it improves their chances of survival..

BWX

There you go with that spin again - just can't stop can you? They apologized for someone getting killed maybe, but they never said that it was a MISTAKE!

They were shot at and shot back- there is no mistake there- the fact that an innocent get killed was because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time- It was the Iraqi soldier's fault for shooting from a location that they knew innocent people were. A TERRORIST act in my book. A COWARDLY act as well. The Iraqi soldiers that fired from that location knew the result, they are the ones I place the blame on, they are murderers because of their actions.

BWX

Yes he is NEON. I am not kidding.

Falstaff

Uh oh, getting in over your head man.....(better watch out for Cowboys)


I disagree, with the substance of further debate...but journalists can potentially put coalition forces and civilians around them at risk, but hey, the volunteered...