DrDeth, on Iraqis stockpiling US uniforms.
Only Faux News link works, and it states US military as source. Hardly strong support for saying Iraqis are known to have stockpiled US uniforms.
Rather US military have accused Iraqi military of having…
The NPR reporter in Bagdad this morning said that the other journalists weren’t surprized when Al Jazzeera was hit. Every other journalist in Bagdad had moved into the Palastine Hotel, but AL Jazzeera had adamantly refused to, prefering to stay in their office, which incidentally was located next to the Ministry of Information and a couple of other key targets.
The Russian convoy admittedly drove through a firefight.
The Palastine Hotel, well, looks to me like some goons saw cameraman and thought they were rocket launchers. A stupid, perhaps unforgivable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.
If you choose to enter a warzone shouldn’t you be prepared for the possibility that you may be attacked on accident or even on purpose?
Marc
I’ll second that one. If you’re in a warzone, you can expect lots of bad things happening all around you. You cannot expect either side to exercise more than a reasonable level of care for your well-being. And even this modicum of concern will vary according to the degree of conflict in any given moment.
As for the Russian convoy, tough. What in sam hell were they still doing in Baghdad nearly three weeks after war began? Sweet-talking Saddam into signing off some more oil contracts they can wave in our faces and demand we honor post war?
A pox on them.
Take a look at the sheer number of bombs dropped and compare the Iraqi numbers of civilian deaths and you can’t reasonably conclude that our military has done anything other than exercise extreme care in conducting operations.
Something else to consider - firing at the Iraqis who were shooting from the building may, in the long run be the *safest thing for those journalists. Because it sends a message right off the bad that firing from where journalists are does not gain you a free pass from retaliation. So if there’s nothing to gain from using the position, the Iraqis are just going to choose the most defensible positions, which may or may not have journalists nearby.
Think about it this way: If the U.S. announced, “Under NO circumstances will we fire at a building where there are journalists”, then they will have just turned every journalist in Baghdad into a hostage. And the Palestine Hotel would be swarming with Iraqi gunmen. Eventually, the U.S. would have to engage them, and the ensuing firefight could kill a lot more than two or three people.
This is an outrage. Not one damn journalist was shot at in Berlin or Tokyo, during WWII. During the Korean War, I don’t remember any being shot at in North Korea or Peking, China for that matter. In Vietnam, they didn’t even shoot at them in Hanoi. I don’t know what to think, I guess the world is going to hell. 
Except, of course, that no one was firing from the building, and that the claims raised in the press conference by the US Forces were quite obviously false, because they described a geographic impossibility. Namely, the claim was US forces had been fired on from the lobby area (which is on the south side, and obviously on the ground floor), whereas the US troops were on the northwest side and fired on the 15th floor.
It’s interesting to see, though, that some people are even willing to declared being killed in someone’s best interest.
Ignorance is bliss, eh?
To understate, several journalists died in action during WW2. Perhaps you have heard of Ernie Pyle? I am willing to bet that another one or two died over in Europe. :rolleyes:
From a Fisk article with an account of the Palestine Hotel hit by a Sky News (Owned by Fox) reporter at the end.
al-Jazeera’ hit in Kabul and Baghdad :dubious:
I never cease to be amazed by those who choose to blindly believe whatever they want to believe even if contrary to all evidence and common sense. I fully expect someone to come along and seriously say “If the US government says pigs can fly then it must be so and the fact that they cannot show us just means they have their reasons for not showing us”
The Russian convoy incident has been quite well explained and I do not know what the fuss here is about. The convoy saw some enemy tanks ahead and called in for air strikes to take them out. The air “support” instead if firing at the iraqi tanks fired at the convoy by mistake. That is the version coming out from every side of this incident and I have no reason to question it. It seems it was an honest mistake.
Regarding the firing at the Palestine hotel the US first claimed it was a valid designated target but they soon backed off as it was easily proven that it never was designated as a war target. Then they said they were receiving fire from there and I believe that is their official explanation still now. This has easily been proven false because there were several reporters broadcasting live at the time. There is continuous footage from French TV on a near by balcony for 15 minutes previous to the incident and no shots can be heard in it. It would be impossible that shots fired from a nearby balcony would not be heard. There is footage for several minutes from the Spanish TV and no shots can be heard either. The footage continues until the shot is received and the Spanish cameraman is fatally injured. There is footage from some asian (japanese?) showing the same thing. And more. All the reporters interviewed said they had several floors in the hotel and it would be impossible that shots could be fired from there without them knowing. It is just a plain lie that any shots were fired in any direction from any of those balconies. The US government is lying when it says so but I guess some people shoose to believe it in spite of all evidence to the contrary. This may play well with the blind followers but in those countries who had their reporters killed it is playing very badly. The people are taking it as an insult. Not only they killed their reporters but they are now explaining it with blatant lies. Not a good PR move.
We are left with only two possible explainations: 1- It was a mistake. If so why not just admit it? Much better than blatant lies. I can imagine it was a mistake of the tank crew and then they lied to cover it up and their superiors are just backing their men. Bad idea. Or
2- It was deliberately targeting the free (non-embedded, non-controlled) press. This seems the most likely explanation to me. All those foreign reporters have been sending plenty of footage about the horrors which are not being shown in the USA. They are sending home footage which is not quite what the US government would like and by targeting them and saying it was not a mistake the USA has sent a clear message.
In the specific case of Spain, the Spanish press had a very strong anti-war stance and was reporting a lot of the horrors which was making the US and Spanish governments look bad. Then the US fires and kills the Spanish cameraman. Telecinco gets the message and has said they will withdraw their reporters from Iraq. I have not seen so much anti-American sentiment in Spain in my life. The US may be winning the war but when it comes to hearts and minds they are doing a terrible job. Lying is not a good way to earn anybody’s trust.
On preview I see the article cited by yojimbo
To me the evidence shows the USA is, indeed, targeting the foreign free press it cannot otherwise control. But his will backfire because it will only exarcerbate anti-American feelings abroad.
What is even scarier is that many ordinary civilian families were using that hotel in the (apperrently mistaken) assumption that they would be safe around journalists. I saw footage of a child looking out of one of the windows of the hotel, and I shudder to think of a tank round hitting that particular floor…
Here is probably what happened.
The tank recieved fire from the general direction of the hotel. The Tank Commander probably looked through his machine gun scope, which isn’t very powerful, and saw men with objects on their shoulders pointed at him. He opened fire with his machine gun while the turret circled around (You can see this in the video) and appearently didn’t think to double check through the main gunsight. It’s entirely possible that he didn’t realise which building he was shooting into.
Later, when questioned about it, he would say that based on what evidence he had at the time, he felt that he was under attack from the Palistine Hotel. The higher ups decided to back their officer’s decision (and a Tank Commander is an Officer), because that’s what higher ups do, especially during a battle. And they have every right too, this man is highly trained and well educated. However, its my personal opinion that he made a mistake this time, and he will never live it down.
I think that is FAR more likely scenario than the notion that the military is targeting journalists. First off, the are doing a very poor job of it. You can’t turn over Iraq (small pun) without finding a dozen journalists. They’ve killed, what, three? Wouldn’t it have been a better plan to “accidentally” hit the Palistine Hotel with a half dozen bombs? Second, what would the point of this be, exactly? Attacking people with cameras would pretty much ensure that more tape about the “horrors” would get shown all around the world, because there are pretty good odds that the tape will be salvagable and in the hands of the same organization that was attacked (Reuters, I believe). This would indicate a bizzare level of incompetence that I just haven’t seen come from anything outside high school sports.
If you want to believe that U.S. forces would deliberately target journalists whose reporting they don’t like (Al-Jazeera, e.g.), you have to believe that the Bush administration actually cares what the rest of the world thinks about what it’s doing. The very fact that we’re in Iraq should put that notion to rest.
So what’s your explanation for the attack on the hotel?
Oh lord, Randy, there were dozens of cites with that info. The first one sorta works, just not directly. Try a Google once in a while or listen to the news or read a paper. This is not in doubt.
What use, if any, they have put them to- that’s another question.
The above statement is so wrong it’s mind boggling. There were exact figures in todays paper- I think there were something like a few hundred jounalists killed in WWII (500?), and about a hundred in Vietnam, etc.
Sure, we don’t know exactly what happened at that Hotel. There is no reason IMHO for the US to fire deliberately at them, so it was either a hoorible screw-up, or there was fire coming from that area, and the tanks were firing back. I suppose that the conspiracy nuts can even claim we did it on purpose- but claiming this is the first war with significant Journalists being killed is just plain ignorant. Hell, there were 6 killed in the Gulf War.
Two journalist with the US forces were killed by the Iraqis, and the attitude has been “well, they knew the job was dangerous when they took it”. So did the Al-Jazeera journalists. Even if the US absolutely never would fire at them on purpose, rounds go astray, and the Iraqi AA fire keeps coming back down in the heart of the City. It’s damn dangerous being a war correspondant on the Front.
Nope. The Iraqis have not fired at journalists. They have fired at enemy forces and the journalists happened to be there. The US forces have deliberately fired on journalists who were no threat and were not with enemy forces. Big difference. War is no justification for murder and it has clearly been proven that there was no threat coming from that building. There are too many witneses to try to say anything else.
I’m with Kitfox, provisionally. As to sailor’s “why not admit it” question, well, the commanders are in a tough position. In a war zone you want your line officers to feel that the brass trusts their judgement and will back them up if something goes awry and not hang them out to dry. Add to it that the commanders in turn have their superiors breathing down their necks that there’s hell to pay if anyone helps call a foul against the team.
In fairness to the tank commander, you have to realize that he is likely focused in “tactical mode” thinking at that instant, where the thought could not cross his mind that in these circumstances anyone but a combatant has any business breaking cover and “pointing things” from balconies; his “reality” has any sensible civilian, journalist or not, ducking and co(v/w)ering.
OK, I can’t find any scenario in which your second option makes any sense at all. The U.S. is irritated by the coverage it’s getting, so it deliberately sends a tank round into the hotel while being filmed by many cameras? And they somehow knew the location of the Spanish journalists, so they could send them a message? I think this is the “U.S. is so stupid that it must be cunning.” argument which characterizes so many of these conspiracy theories.
According to the news, Baghdad is rife with Special Ops teams. If someone in the U.S. military did want journalists silenced, they wouldn’t be delegating some random tank to do the job – I think it would be done with considerable finesse. And I haven’t heard any compelling reasons why they would want journalist silenced. I’ve been watching “horrors of war” coverage on CNN – kids without limbs and so on. Awful stuff. Not censored.
It’s a hell of a lot simpler to believe that troops under fire and hopped up on adrenaline made a mistake. Maybe some journalist took a flash photo and it got mistaken for a muzzle flash. Or, just possibly, that there was fire coming the hotel – the Iraqis have not been shy about putting civilians in peril before.
No, but how about this: the US is unhappy with the reporting of the non-embedded journalists as a whole and sends a message that they better get the hell out. The message is: you are not safe, get out. And yes, the government of the USA has done and is doing things which are incredibly stupid.
You really think they can send commandos into a hotel and kill dozens of foreign journalists there and the news not get out? While several are transmitting live? Gimme a break.
So why won’t they admit it was a mistake?
A flash? In broad daylight? MIstaken for the flash of an RPG? Or the tank was afraid of a pistol? At that distance? All the scenarios are just ridiculous to consider.
I repeat for the umpteenth time that there were dozens of foreign journalists and all have denied there was any fire coming from the building or that there were any suspicious outsiders there. I have seen footage of the incident as it happened and there is no sound of shots in any of them. But you keep repeating what clearly by all evidence has been established to be a lie. As I said, when people want to believe something, no evidence to the contrary will change their minds. Many Muslims choose to believe the Iraqi lies even if deep down they must know they are lies, and many Americans choose to believe the lies their own government feeds them, even if they know in their hearts they defy all logic. That is fanaticism and there is plenty of it on all sides.
By the way. What has been the reaction of the Spanish government you ask? To recommend all reporters get the hell out of Iraq. When asked if the Spanish government would demand an explanation from the US government today, the Spanish minister of foreign affairs refused to answer the question. It seems the Spanish government was just as uncomfortable with the reporting and is not too sorry about the incident. Their only reaction has been to say reporters should leave Iraq. The division between the government and the people in Spain is higher than it has ever been in the last 20 years and getting worse. The policy of the government is causing unrest which is not good for Spain but which is doing deep damage to the image and perception of the USA. There are daily demonstrations everywhere and several have ended in assaulting, burning and looting of buildings of the party in government and of American businesses. This is just feeding antiAmerican sentiment to record highs.