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?
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:
Oh, and the Iraqi/baby thing was written by that great war correspondent Makup Aniol Shyte of BBCNN.
Yuk yuk yuk.
I repeat: :rolleyes:
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.
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.
Airman here’s another gem.
“US Readies Nuke Option as WW3 Erupts in Serbia”
I’ll join you in a :rolleyes:
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:
[Comic Book Guy] Worst. Cite. Ever. [/Comic Book Guy]
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.
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.
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.
Even if the source is terrible, there is nothing wrong with the attitude attributed to the Pentagon.
**
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.
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.
It’s gotta be some poorly done Onion ripoff.
Only if it’s a poodle or other small, annoying, useless, noisemaking variety. But you then have to clean the paper shredder.
I’ve heard Chihuahuas make quite a mess when you shred them.
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.
Patently untrue. Give me a few hours and a poorly-guarded kennel, and I can get a cite up here…
