It is obviously unfortunate that the cameraman was accidentaly killed, however I found it highly offensive that certain posters allege that the US army had any deliberate intentions behind it’s actions. I’d like to see some proof backing up those outrageous allegations. The US army has already offered it’s apologies, in regards to the unfortunate incident.
I could definitely see how a cameraman could be mistaken for having threatening intentions, and how their camera could be mistaken for a shoulder mounted weapon, as theory offered by previous posters.
Here is a picture of the very cameraman which died, with his camera on his shoulder.
He had been shot at numerous times before, in various situations that he had been involved in. I believe he certainly knew the risks of his chosen profession.
Also, why don’t journalists wear bright orange garb, to distuingish themselves clearly from combatents ? Could this and similar incidents be partially blamed on lax rules from various news agencys, regarding journalist attire in hostile areas ?
Road workers wear this attire when working on a road. Why wouldn’t a journalist be required to wear such easily identifiable garb, when finding themselves in one of the most hostile and dangerous regions of the world ?
I do not know what you consider “nervous” or “trigger happy” but civilians are being shot almost daily in incidents which are well reported in the press. And here we are discussing the killing of a reporter. If they are not nervous or trigger happy I guess another explanation is that they are dumb or. . . maybe they just shouldn’t be there in the first place and the US government should have know all this was going to happen.
Thanks Diogenes. And Daisy Cutter - what a well picked name - I was referring to claims made above in the thread.
For the record - IMO this was a tragic and stupid mistake, NOT deliberate.
But definitely one more tragic and stupid mistake too many. And another example of why coalition forces are continually and increasingly out of their depth, in a situation that is only getting worse.
And I ask again: what is your point in saying this? What are you trying to say?
When a cop is killed do you say “he knew the risk”?
When an American soldier is killed do you say “he knew the risk”?
Yes, the reporter knew the risk. So what? What is your point?
My point was that in a warzone these things are going to happen from time to time. People that aren’t suppose to be shot are going to be shot and buildings that weren’t suppose to be hit are going to be hit. You have soldiers under stress who sometimes have to make split second life and death decisions and sometimes they won’t make the right one. I just don’t automatically see it as a case of negligence or malice. I really don’t think the soldier shot the reporter though if someone has evidence that he did I’d certainly give it consideration.
I don’t see the death of this reporter as being any more tragic or more heinous then the death of any other civilian.
But it is, MG, just by circumstances, rather than right. The newsman was a Palistinian taking video of an American tank. Then he got shot by an American soldier. I have little doubt your summary is correct, but the truth matters less than the impact, regretably. To many people, this is directly parallel to the American tank round that wiped out the Al Jazz reporters.
Of course, one doesn’t blame the luckless soldiers who are stuck in this miserable situation. One blames those who stuck them there.
Does none of the blame lie with those that are making the soldiers so jumpy? I would think at least some blame lies with the guys that actually are using rocket launchers and rifles against US solciers, and are blowing up banks and pipelines. Or are they absolved because they aren’t related to Bush?
And when a cop is killed do you jump online and decry the horrible people that killed him/her? And when a soldier is killed (and there have been plenty killed very recently in Iraq) do you start a thread decrying the horrible Iraqis that killed him/her? To accuse anyone else of a double-standard is quite silly when you’re so clearly applying one yourself.
I believe the point is that you can’t equate the death of a reporter – while tragic – with the death of an Iraqi civilian. The Iraqi civilians are in the line of fire because they live in Iraq and have nowhere else to go. It’s an accident of geography. These reporters are putting themselves dangerously close to the line of fire because they are paid to do so. War correspondents know that jumping out of a truck and swinging a camera around at an armed vehicle partolling for terrorists is a risky proposition. They do it at their own peril, but they do it for their own reasons. That’s not the same thing as a stray bomb landing in an Iraqi market, or a bomb planted in an Iraqi bank, which kills or maims those that have no intention of being involved in the fighting.
I could have sworn that the OP asked specifically what the effect of this incident might be, but many of the follow-up posts strike me as purely partisan bickering about who might or might not be to blame. Well, I guess that’s one answer: to increase partisan bickering.
In terms of overall effects on the occupation, IMO the accidental killing of one journalist probably means very little. My opinion: no immediate effect, but one more brick in a wall of bad press about US tactics that may eventually force the occupying forces to present (or at least give the impression of presenting) a less aggressive posture towards civilians, even at an increased short-term risk of casualties.
I of course feel for the family and friends of the journalist, but in terms of real effects, it would seem that such things as the recent trend towards sabotage of pipelines and water supplies by parties unknown would have more significance, as they more directly affect the Iraqi people and thus their attitudes toward the occupying forces.
They’re defending their country from hostile invaders. What are they supposed to do, surrender?
It’s stupid to illegally invade another country and then get bent out of shape if that country fights back.
Bush sent these troops into a situation where these kind of guerilla attacks were bound to occur. He did it without just cause. He is to blame for any and all deaths incurred on either side. This war was his idea, not the Iraqis.
Ah yes, more nervous troops being used as targets. That would make the cameraman safer. :dubious:
The success of the operation lies with the will of the Iraqi people. Basically they have to learn to live with each other. Until they can be shown that they will benefit from their own labor they will never advance beyond the current state of affairs.
The low troop fatality rate suggests a relatively small group of resistance. Their impact however, can be devastating if water and fuel cannot be delivered.
Yeah, if those Iraqis would just do what the Americans told them to do then everything would be fine. :rolleyes:
The Iraqi people never asked for this war in the first place, and their overriding “will” right now is for the Americans to fuck off already so they can put their country back together in a manner which suits them, not Bush and Cheney. It would also be nice if the Americans weren’t trying to exploit Iraqi suffering for corporate profits.
Yeah, and the lack of peace on earth lies with the will of all the people. No shit Sherlock.
I suspect the Iraqis could learn to live with each other a little more easily if there weren’t tens of thousands of foreign troops in their country.
One more journalist assassinated in Iraq. Soon he will be “embedded” in the earth. There were about 10 journalists assassinated during the war out of about 100 American soldiers killed. Jee whiz, a 10% fatality rate, that would be comparable to say, 3 million journalists killed during WWII.
Roger_Mexico do you think 30 million US troops died in WWII?
People in dangerous situations die I realise this but AFAIC the US need to re-evaluate the way they deal with these mistakes. The whole support the soldier no matter what stance a lot of you guys take is silly. If there are soldier that can’t handle the pressure of the situation they need to be taken out of it. I couldn’t do it and that’s why I work in IT rather than the army.
Being in the Army in a dangerous situation does not give you carte blanche to shoot at everything you think may be possibly dangerous. I’m positive if this was a Brit soldier they would look into it harder than the US will.
As I mentioned in my last post the US has hit certain Arab news outlets in the last 2 conflicts even after they were givent the exact coordinates of the offices. The US have left themselves open to accusations of attacking journalists. I believe that these were mistakes/hotheadedness etc and not intentional but one way or another with the deaths of civilians and journalists the US troops need to reign themselves in somewhat.