Pentagon threatens to fire on independent reporters

[Binarydrone]

Ain't freedom wonderful? ( http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm)

[Bricker]

Um...

How should US armed forces distinguish between an Iraqi forward observer's satellite uplink signal and an independent reporter's uplink signal? Or is it your position, Binarydrone, that during a war, enemy observers should be left unmolested to send intel information back to their units?

[Airman Doors, USAF]

You might want to come up with a cite that isn't on a websites that touts "Iraqi soldiers eating live babies" as a headline.

In other words: :rolleyes:

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Oh, and the Iraqi/baby thing was written by that great war correspondent Makup Aniol Shyte of BBCNN.

Yuk yuk yuk.

I repeat: :rolleyes:

[bernse]

Broadcasting in the middle of a war-zone without the military knowing who you are and where you are is not exactly a genius move in the first place. That's probably a main part of the reason why CNN and all these other reporters are actually with the US troops.

[that_darn_cat]

Wll, I see Doors and Bricker beat me to it.1 Let's just say I lack faith in that particular report. It seems likely that the reporter took a warning of danger and reported it as a threat. Kinda like standing at the end of a firing range and complaining about being shot at.

FTR, I hate this fucking war.

[World Eater]

Airman here's another gem.

"US Readies Nuke Option as WW3 Erupts in Serbia"

I'll join you in a :rolleyes:

[bernse]

Oh man! I just saw the title page for that great e-zine. It looks more like the Onion.

What a fucking joke. Are they serious?

:rolleyes:

[elf6c]

[Comic Book Guy] Worst. Cite. Ever. [/Comic Book Guy]

[gobear]

Yet another gem: "KCNA Warns of Possible Nuclear War on Korean Peninsula". The KCNA has run that headline every other day for the past fifty years. Anyone who takes North Korean propaganda as news is definitely none too sharp an editor.

[bernse]

No actually, I take that back. The Onion is far more believable than this shit encrusted rag. I can't believe someone would use that as a cite.

[D_Odds]

Ignoring the source, I'd like to address the complaints in the article. Bricker hit number one; at 30,000 feet and mach 2, how is someone supposed to know journalist from foe? The pilot will only know (or should know) friendly points of transmission.

The article goes on to talk about the military vetting the journalists and taking control of journalists satellite equipment, presumably even when assigned to a unit. Another no brainer. You vet the journalists to avoid getting a spy in your unit. And you make sure you know when and where they are transmitting to avoid happening to you what you are doing to Iraq (shooting out broadcast positions). Plus, you don't want the enemy triangulating position unless command gives the okay. Even if command knows Iraq doesn't have the countermeasure capability, it is no reason to jeopardize proper operational security. You operate as if the enemy has equal, if not better, capabilities as you.

Binarydrone, I find you guilty of believing everything you read and of not thinking through biased news from a questionable source. I sentence you to seriously answering one absurd moral conundrum a day for 30 days.

[Truth Seeker]

Even if the source is terrible, there is nothing wrong with the attitude attributed to the Pentagon.

According to Ms. Adie, who twelve years ago covered the last Gulf War, the Pentagon attitude is: "entirely hostile to the the free spread of information."
First of all, this is patently false. I'm stunned by the amount of information coming out of Iraq. What more can you want than non-stop live coverage from the front line?

Second, and this is the key point, this is not a football match, it's a war. The Pentagon should be hostile to the free spread of information. As much as the folks at home enjoy the play by play colour commentary, they are not entitled to a live blow-by-blow description. Independent journalists can all too easily become Iraqi forward observers. It's not good if Hussein can just tune in to CNN to get a complete battlefield information update.

I've already heard "imbedded journalists" (the buzz word of the day) giving away what I thought was incredibly sensitive information. I actually heard one describing how American vehicles had an orange tarpaulin on the back so that pilots could identify them as friendly forces from the air and not bomb them. I suspect this was shortly followed by a run on orange tarpaulins at the Tikrit Home Depot. These imbedded journalists are supposed to understand and follow rules to prevent this sort of thing. Think how much damage independent journalists roaming the front lines could do.

[Binarydrone]

Originally posted by D_Odds
..Binarydrone, I find you guilty of believing everything you read and of not thinking through biased news from a questionable source. I sentence you to seriously answering one absurd moral conundrum a day for 30 days.
Can I get out of answering moral conundrums if I run a puppy through a paper shredder? Seriously though folks, the article that I liked to was not intended as a "Cite", as in I was rigorously supporting a position in a Great Debate. Rather, I thought that it was interesting, and wanted to share it.

If you look at the Great Debates that I have participated in, I think that you will find that I am scrupulous about choosing unbiased cites.

I sentence all of you to take a chill pill.

[World Eater]

It's gotta be some poorly done Onion ripoff.

[D_Odds]

Originally posted by Binarydrone
[B]Can I get out of answering moral conundrums if I run a puppy through a paper shredder?

Only if it's a poodle or other small, annoying, useless, noisemaking variety. But you then have to clean the paper shredder.

[World Eater]

I've heard Chihuahuas make quite a mess when you shred them.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally posted by Binarydrone
I thought that it was interesting, and wanted to share it.

Actually, what you wanted to do was put up a lurid thread title, make an assertion, and hope nobody noticed where it was from or anything else on the page.

Ain't freedom wonderful, indeed.

[Brutus]

Originally posted by World Eater
I've heard Chihuahuas make quite a mess when you shred them.

Patently untrue. Give me a few hours and a poorly-guarded kennel, and I can get a cite up here...

[bordelond]

Originally posted by Binarydrone
Seriously though folks, the article that I liked to was not intended as a "Cite" ...

:confused:

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Brutus
Patently untrue. Give me a few hours and a poorly-guarded kennel, and I can get a cite up here...

Don't forget to bring a smock.

[Scruff]

First of all, this is patently false. I'm stunned by the amount of information coming out of Iraq. What more can you want than non-stop live coverage from the front line?

Patently false? What, are you Jeff Bezos?

The US/UK Coalition Command (as opposed to the Pentagon) is demonstrably controlling the information that comes out of the war front. And rightly so, as has been said, for reasons of operational security.

But over and above that, the military command does control what reporters get to report, by controlling where they get to go and what they get to look at. I think it is safe to assume that this command is trying awfully hard to enure that only images supporting the fiction of the "surgical" war get out. If it's anything like the last one, we won't see pictures of burning appartment buildings and wrecked hospitals, but we'll get lots of footage of laser-guided munitions hitting bridges and American soldiers rounding up Iraqi deserters and so forth, along with occasional pictures of some damage done by the retreating Republican Guard, which the brave civilians from Halliburton are repairing.

THIS REALLY FUCKING ANNOYS ME.

By perpetrating the fiction that this is a clean and "bloodless" war, we are doing a disservice to the courage and integrity of the men and women who are fighting in a foreign country and might well die there.

By hiding/minimizing the Iraqi military casualties and the unintentional (but unavoidable) civilian casualties, we are hiding the blood price that is being paid for the land. And we are perpetrating the myth that this is a game (with half-time show by Christina Aguilera and Aerosmith) that we can win. Which means that we'll do it again, with even more enthusiasm -- "let's win one for the Gipper".

I was opposed to this war, mostly because I felt that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were being (shall we say) disingenuous in their public statements of why we needed to do it. Clearly, toasting Saddam Hussein is part of the "Bush Doctrine" for reasons not immediately connected to the search for Al Qa'ada (or whatever this week's spelling is) and international terrorism.

But war is occasionally necessary. And in a war, people on all sides get put in harm's way (sometimes intentionally, sometimes accidentally, sometimes just because God has a twisted sense of humor). It's not a fucking movie where Bruce Willis survives at the end and even the dead guys get to show up for the Oscars.

Sorry about that. To end on a positive note: It's nice to see Airman Doors still posting; guess they still have internet access at the Riyadh Holiday Inn, eh? :p

[Binarydrone]

Originally posted by bordelond
:confused:
Sorry, was that confusing to you? Let me try again. I am defining "Cite" to mean a quote or authority that proves a point that I am debating (are you with me on this so far), where as a "Link" is a cool little trick that web browsers can do that display a web page.

For example, I might state that there were a lot of anti-war protests in England recently, and then CITE ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2866921.stm) BBC news. Conversely, I might POST A LINK ( http://www.theonion.com/onion3910/hammurderer.html) to an article in the Onion that I found to be socially relevant, yet humorous (and admittedly not measuring up to the meticulous scholarly vigor that SDMB demands).

All clear?

[grey_ideas]

What I find pretty funny is that I was reasonably certain that Kate Adie didn't even work for the BBC anymore.

I knew I'd heard it somewhere:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,884537,00.html

(Sorry I can't quite get the coding sorted)

Although I can see that if someone wanted to lend authenticity to a story then picking the name of one of the most famous British correspondents and throwing into a report would certainly help.

[Truth Seeker]

I'm stunned by the amount of information coming out of Iraq. What more can you want than non-stop live coverage from the front line?
originally posted by Scruff
The US/UK Coalition Command (as opposed to the Pentagon) is demonstrably controlling the information that comes out of the war front. And rightly so, as has been said, for reasons of operational security.
:confused: What are you talking about? In addition to the hundreds of journalists with the coallition forces, there are hundreds of journalists in Baghdad and in Northern Iraq. Each one seems to be equipped with a videophone and is providing a live feed. Right at this minute, I'm watching Baghdad getting blown up in real time. I have no doubt that when Baghdad is finally captured, I will be able to watch the same battle, live, from both sides.

[grey_ideas]

oops, pass the humble pie, the interview certain seems to be true;

Direct link to the Radio Telefís Éireann site;

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0309/sundayshow.ram

I've had a listen to it and it's an accurate transcript.

It was quoting Kate Adie as joining from the BBC that threw me off, guess they were just meaning the studio not the corporation.

::another vote for 'double check before you post'::

Sorry all.

[Binarydrone]

Originally posted by grey_ideas
<Snip>oops, pass the humble pie, the interview certain seems to be true;

Direct link to the Radio Telefís Éireann site;

Link fixed by Binarydrone, cuz he likes things tidy (http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0309/sundayshow.ram)

I've had a listen to it and it's an accurate transcript.<.snip>
But it can't possibly be true because it comes from a lefty source and we all know that 100% of everything that they say is a lie while the noble conservatives speak the truth. :D

[Indygrrl]

This is what it said at the bottom of the "live babies" article. I would assume it goes for the other articles as well.

CAUTION:
War fanatical members of the public who happen across this report shoud beware that this is in fact a SATIRICAL article.
Satire is a form of wry black comedy which relates essential truths in an oblique manner. Persons with war-focussed tunnel vision have been known to mistake this type of material for factual reporting..

[elf6c]

Originally posted by Binarydrone
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm ( Ain't freedom wonderful?

Binarydrone I quoted all of your original post so that you could see how little indication that your post was satire. While they may be overused at times, in this case, smilies are your friends. Particularly :rolleyes: or ;) , or heck even :dubious: or :smack: would have made the point.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Hmmm...interesting.

You posted junk, backed off, and then when someone bailed you out you claimed credit for being right.

Ironically, isn't that what you're blaming Bush for? Just curious, dontcha know. :dubious:

[grey_ideas]

All,

Can someone help me out here?

I wasn't trying to wade in on one side of the argument or the other, in fact my first thought was scepticism since I wasn't aware that Kate Adie was working for the BBC anymore, and was just curious to find out whether it was correct or not. But I tracked down the original Radio show on the RTE site after I had a bit more of a search around;

http://www.rte.ie/news/journal/av_wk1.html

So, whilst the GuluFuture article seems to be satire, it seems to be sourced from an original radio interview.

There is also some additional on this (found using GoogleNews) from MSNBC (you'll have to help me with how reputable this site is);

http://www.msnbc.com/news/888293.asp?0si=-

“Any satellite telephone is an emitter,” said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. “By detecting the emissions, it should be possible for U.S. intelligence to localize desirable targets.”
But distinguishing friend from foe based on a signal alone could prove difficult, he said.
“It’s just yet another thing journalists now have to take into account,” said Kate Adie, a British Broadcasting Corp. radio journalist awaiting assignment in Iraq.
In Qatar, Central Command spokeswoman Maj. Rumi Nielson-Green said the U.S. military’s focus is on structures and equipment — not smaller targets such as individuals.
But she would not discuss the U.S. military’s capabilities and could not rule out the possibility that noncombatants could be fired upon by mistake.

This doesn't seem anywhere near as strongly worded as the original radio transcript.

Has anyone else come up with anything else on this story? I don't want to step on toes here, I'm just trying to find out which side of the story is correct!

[D_Odds]

Both and neither grey_ideas. All news reports have an editorial slant (or bias). Two people will here the same thing and come away with interpretations on what was said.

[Binarydrone]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Hmmm...interesting.

You posted junk, backed off, and then when someone bailed you out you claimed credit for being right.

Ironically, isn't that what you're blaming Bush for? Just curious, dontcha know. :dubious:
Oh dear oh dear. I seem to just not be having a lot of luck communicating today. Undaunted, I will struggle on.

Sequence of events as I see them:

I dash off an OP sharing an interesting article that someone had forwarded me. In hindsight, this could have used much more context.
Knee jerk conservative condemn the article and obviously false because if comes from a liberal source.
Much hilarity.
I attempt to clarify that I am not presenting this as "news" or as some grandiose point in a Great Debate; rather, I was simply sharing an article.
Another poster indicates that the article may have validity, prompting me to make fun of the folks that had assumed that it was false because it came from a lefty or liberal source.
This gets me accused of being a hypocrite.

So this is the thing; Fuck you.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

No, I condemned it because it was on a parody sight that rivals the Weekly World News in veracity, then you tried to play it off as a joke, then when you found out it wasn't a joke you claimed victory, then I made an analogy to what the liberals have been saying about Bush this whole time, since you claim to be one.

That's pretty much the timeline.

Don't think your revisionist version will be believed, since the evidence of your bullshit is all right here.

[Neurotik]

So, can you read Binarydrone? Or are you just a fucking idiot in general?

Find me one person who stated that the link wasn't reliable becasue it was lefty? It was stated because it had obvious satire and joke articles such as the eating babies one and the nuclear option for Serbian-begun WWIII.

I repeat, you are a moron.

[grey_ideas]

D_Odds,

Thanks. What I was really worried about there was that I had stumbled into a very elaborate hoax and not realised it. It's been a long day at work and my brain is a little frazzled right now.

Still being new here, although I've tried to sit quiet and just read for a while now, it can be pretty intimidating to post and then think that what I've posted was totally wrong...

grey_ideas

[D_Odds]

Quickly rescanning the thread, I don't see "knee jerk conservative" condemnation. I see people (self included, and I'm as middle of the road as they come) refuting a knee jerk anti-military article that, at first glance, appears authentic. Knowing that site is satire, or just very biased, very poor reporting, I make a tongue-in-cheek proclamation (hoping the sentence gave away the levity).

I will agree with your first point. You could have supplied more context. Reading the OP (all 10 words, including title), my first though is that you are pitting the article. I assumed you were in line with the article against the military (but I shouldn't assume, so my bad).

[Binarydrone]

You know what guys, I will admit that I leaped to the conclusion that the reason that folks immediately dissed the link and what it was saying was of a liberal slant (and therefore made the assumption that they were conservative). So, you know what I am going to do about it? I am going to apologize. I know that this is rare around here, but what the hell.

To anyone whose post I misinterpreted: Please accept me apologies.

I want to make clear that I am not trying to "pass anything off as a joke", and then "claim some sort of victory", though I can see how you could interpreter things that way.

All of that being said, a special thanks to Airman Doors, USAF for assuming the worst of me, and to Neurotik for being a rude dick.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Binarydrone
Knee jerk conservative condemn the article and obviously false because if comes from a liberal source.


Oh that's rich.

Other then that, this is all much ado about nothing. You posted the link for "hey check out this fucked up link" purposes.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Binarydrone
All of that being said, a special thanks to Airman Doors, USAF for assuming the worst of me, and to Neurotik for being a rude dick.
Ah yes, because I was the first one to tell everyone "Fuck you."

Is playing the poor, abused, misunderstood martyr fun? Just curious.

[Binarydrone]

Originally posted by Neurotik
Ah yes, because I was the first one to tell everyone "Fuck you."

Is playing the poor, abused, misunderstood martyr fun? Just curious.
Actually, the "Fuck you" was directed specifically to another poster, not everyone (although I formally offer you one now). That is why I used that handy little quote button, and was obviously responding to a specific post. I would have though that one that is obviously the arbiter of who can and cannot read; you would have the skill to see this.

I guess that what they say is true. Those that can't do, teach.

[World Eater]

I think any pit thread, no matter what misunderstanding was the cause of it, eventually turns into an arguement.

[World Eater]

I think any pit thread, no matter what misunderstanding was the cause of it, eventually turns into an arguement.

[Max Carnage]

Originally posted by World Eater
I think any pit thread, no matter what misunderstanding was the cause of it, eventually turns into an arguement.

[Monty Python]

No it doesn't!

[/Monty Python]

[Derleth]

Binarydrome, there's precisely dick in your OP to suggest satire. The Dopers figured it out in two posts (with Airman Doors being the first, BTW), leaving the ball in your court: You're an idiot for getting whooshed by something more obvious than "Two-Headed Elvis Births Live Grey," or you're an idiot for posting a punchline but neglecting the actual joke.

There's no politics here. There's just you, dancing like a loon 'cause we can see right through you.

[Broomstick]

Originally posted by Scruff
The US/UK Coalition Command (as opposed to the Pentagon) is demonstrably controlling the information that comes out of the war front. And rightly so, as has been said, for reasons of operational security. Well, I'm glad we all agree that "loose lips sink ships".

But over and above that, the military command does control what reporters get to report, by controlling where they get to go and what they get to look at.Um... not exactly. The administration has been telling independent journalists to get out of Bagdad because, frankly, they're in the line of fire, or at least potentially so, and the Pentagon isn't going to hesistate to bomb or shoot just because an independent reporter is standing in front of Hussein's favorite bunker. Independent reporters can't be stopped from going where they choose, but it should be made perfectly clear that they do so at their own risk. Which is how it's always been.

And, if you think about it, it's a damn fine line between investigative reporting and outright spying. If you are mistaken for either a spy or an enemey combatant or sympathizer while on a field of battle you become a target. That's war. That should have been clearly explained to these numbskulls before they packed for the front.

I think it is safe to assume that this command is trying awfully hard to enure that only images supporting the fiction of the "surgical" war get out.It's called "propaganda" and it's NOTHING new. Of course the military only wants positive images of their campaign going out.

If it's anything like the last one, we won't see pictures of burning appartment buildings and wrecked hospitals, but we'll get lots of footage of laser-guided munitions hitting bridges and American soldiers rounding up Iraqi deserters and so forth, along with occasional pictures of some damage done by the retreating Republican Guard, which the brave civilians from Halliburton are repairing.WTF? Are you even watching TV? How about doing something old-fashioned like reading a newspaper? (A lot of them even have colored pictures these days).

We've seen burning buildings live on all the networks - damn if I can tell whether it's a government office building or apartments. Last night while I was watching channel 5 there were plenty of pictures of people wandering around outside rubble, tearful relatives by hospital bedsides, and so forth. Of course, that could have been old footage, or even staged, by the Iraqis - oh, wait, they'd never do something like that, only the US military lies on camera. And I guess you missed the part about Rumsfield saying they weren't planning to obliterate the infrastructure - like bridges - this time. In fact, last night the reporters from Bagdad (you know, the ones that Pentagon is supposedly going to delibrately target and shoot) commented several times that, unlike last Gulf War, the lights and power were still on, the plumbing worked, etc. etc.

As for the deserters -- so what? We knew there were going to be surrendering Iraqis this time, in fact, we were counting on it. The military is better organized to handle them this time and, in fact, they aren't slowing down the advance. And, frankly, I wouldn't characterize these guys as "deserters". Deserters slink off in the middle of the night. At least some of these guys are marching behind a white flag in military formation. I don't think they enjoy getting frisked by the USMC or marching along with their hands over their head, but no one is getting knocked over the head and dragged through the mud by their heels. Unless, perhaps, they make trouble, in which case c'est la guerre, motherfucker.

THIS REALLY FUCKING ANNOYS ME. :rolleyes: I'm sorry, I'll ask the Air Force to use the quiet bombs.

By perpetrating the fiction that this is a clean and "bloodless" war, we are doing a disservice to the courage and integrity of the men and women who are fighting in a foreign country and might well die there.Excuse me? Who is perpetrating this fiction? The Pentagon admitted a couple months ago they were ordering bodybags by the thousands. The wreck of the Sea Knight helicoptor - smoking debris and all - has been broadcast multiple times. Two of the local papers (at least - I only read two) have described burned and severely injured civilians in the Umm Qasr and Basra regions. What the fuck do you want to see? Disembowled men slowly bleeding to death on the sand while flies lay their eggs on their intestines? Uh, yeah, that would REALLY go well with the dinner broadcast, don't you think?

The ONLY comment I've seen/heard anywhere near what you state is the comment that casualties so far have been lighter than expected. Which is NOT something to complain about!

By hiding/minimizing the Iraqi military casualties and the unintentional (but unavoidable) civilian casualties, we are hiding the blood price that is being paid for the land.Do you have proof of this, or do you just assume that the men and women of the military have no integrity whatsoever? That all reporters are spineless dupes? Are you disappointed there are no mass casaulties? (So far...)

I was opposed to this war, mostly because I felt that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were being (shall we say) disingenuous in their public statements of why we needed to do it.Well, yeah, me too - and for other reasons. That doesn't mean there's a massive cover up.

But war is occasionally necessary. And in a war, people on all sides get put in harm's way (sometimes intentionally, sometimes accidentally, sometimes just because God has a twisted sense of humor).Very true. I do question whether this war is actually "necessary" or not, but now that we're in it, I hope to God we get out of it with minimal death and maiming. We're going to have some, and that's bad enough.

[Binarydrone]

Originally posted by Derleth
...There's no politics here. There's just you, dancing like a loon 'cause we can see right through you.
Did you miss the part where I apologized to folks for the misunderstanding and political assumption that I made? Is there some act of contrition that I should perform? Give me a break.