[I] More of the war (sorry)
Brian Wakeling
shit out of their own side again. I can't help thinking "why
don't they *train* their bloody pilots before posting them to the
front line?"
This time, they have not only attacked some of their own special
forces, but also some Kurdish allies, and a civilian news team.
It's bad enough them bombing Iraqi civilians [1], but to bomb
non-Iraqi civilians as well? One of the news team died, and none
of the others escaped injury.
If it was British Harrier GR7s or Tornado GR3s wiping out
American tank columns, we'd never hear the last of it - on the
news, from the Merkins, from the government. So far only
Americans have committed friendly fire atrocities, and mainly on
the British. If a Harrier "accidentally" [2] bombed a couple of
Abrams tanks, what do you think the chances are America would be
declaring war on us next?
[1] The Iraqi regime are claiming about 600 civilian casualties -
allowing for exaggeration and "human-shield" incidents, some of
them have *got* to be genuine victims of coalition weapons.
[2] As in when the A-10 attacked two British Warrior IFVs about a
week ago. The only survivor said the pilot seemed as though he
was "out on a jolly".
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Do not reply to the hotmail address, it will be instantly deleted
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net instead
AFPCode 2.0 ALi/PA/Mi(Hi) d s+:- a1978 UP F++ P? ?C L>+++ B
PT++ Pu68- e+@++ r-
Gid Holyoake
generously decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> So far only Americans have committed friendly fire atrocities, and mainly on
> the British.
Actually, that's not true.. One British tank has fired on another British
tank so far.. there were casualties AFAIK but not fatalities BICBW..
Gid
Andrew Gray
> This time, they have not only attacked some of their own special
> forces, but also some Kurdish allies, and a civilian news team.
> It's bad enough them bombing Iraqi civilians [1], but to bomb
> non-Iraqi civilians as well? One of the news team died, and none
> of the others escaped injury.
So some reporters were with civilians. It's what happens. I'm sorry to
sound callous, but if you're accepting the accidental deaths of the
civilians as something that will happen, then you must accept the
reporters as a lower-probability case of the same thing. It's all the
same from 30,000 feet - and it's still pretty vague from 30 sometimes.
> If it was British Harrier GR7s or Tornado GR3s wiping out
> American tank columns, we'd never hear the last of it - on the
> news, from the Merkins, from the government. So far only
> Americans have committed friendly fire atrocities, and mainly on
> the British.
Firstly, "atrocity" is a really, really bad word. An atrocity is an
action which is atrocious; I don't know about you, but my dictionary
defines that as "extreme wickedness". There is an argument that the
killing is in general an atrocity; I'll give that thoguht. But there
*isn't* an argument that it *becomes* an atrocity because of it being
friendly fire; it firstly implies that Our Boys are better than Them
What Deserve Killing, and secondly (or alternately) implies that there's
intentional wickedness, that some American pilot's going out and hunting
British tanks. Which is mildly offensive. The first is expectionally
offensive. </rant> I'm not getting at you, but pick your words better...
Secondly, is it surprising? Think about this abstractly. Any force will
commit friendly fire; that is the nature of combat, and no amount of
technology can save you from someone screwing up in the heat of battle.
This is, generally, down to failures of communication. So any force has
a proportion A of "blue-on-blue" friendly fire incidents (it's generally
quite small). These may vary drastically between forces, but it always
happens in some measure...
Now, put two forces on the same side in the situation; when they meet,
communications and liasion between those forces will almost by
definition be worse than intra-force commnunication (a UK battalion will
find it much easier to work with another UK battalion than a US one,
simply because of doctrinal practices, or accents, or commonalities of
thought, or pop-culture references, or whatever) - so the proportion B
of "blue1-on-blue2" incidents will be significantly higher than that of
A. Of course, this tends only to happen when the forces meet;
historically, this tended to happen in small regions, as forces fought
discretely and not intermixed (as is still the case) so the forces on
each side were about equal and thus the FF incidents (from both sources)
occured in roughly equal numbers.
Now, throw in airpower. The UK is providing *vastly* less air support
than the US; a result of this is that the US provides air support for
much of the British forces; indeed, for the theatre generally. So,
there's a US-UK interface with no corresponding UK-US interface, so the
US has greater opportunity to inflict B casualties than the UK does, and
so the UK suffers proportionally more B casualties...
(There is also the fact that the US has traditionally practised warfare
by a "to be sure" approach; if in doubt, wait and shell, or wait and
fire, or... but things are changing, and this may well be among them)
> [2] As in when the A-10 attacked two British Warrior IFVs about a
> week ago. The only survivor said the pilot seemed as though he
> was "out on a jolly".
You train people for ten years to do something, you train them to the
peak of perfection to do it, you get them all enthused about it, you
finally let them do it. He's unlikely to be pottering along watching the
clock and wondering if he can get off for the afternoon, this is
tedious, is he?
Um. Anyway.
Bottom line - this war is almost certainly being fought for the wrong
reasons, but it's almost certainly not being fought by incompetents. And
I've just started defending it, haven't I?
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Brian Wakeling
Gid Holyoake <ab...@brynamman.org.uk> typed:
Did it? Was there? Sorry, I've spent most of the last three days
asleep for various reasons, and this was the first bit of news I
managed to see for a week.
Brian Wakeling
Andrew Gray <andre...@durham.ac.uk> typed:
> In article <b6ptkg$7rrad$1...@ID-188625.news.dfncis.de>, Brian
> Wakeling wrote:
>
>> This time, they have not only attacked some of their own
>> special
>> forces, but also some Kurdish allies, and a civilian news
team.
>> It's bad enough them bombing Iraqi civilians [1], but to bomb
>> non-Iraqi civilians as well? One of the news team died, and
>> none
>> of the others escaped injury.
>
> So some reporters were with civilians.
Not quite. The reporters were civilians, they were travelling in
a convoy with some US special forces (who called in an airstrike
to scrag a lone Iraqi tank a couple of miles away) and some
Kurdish militia.
> It's what happens. I'm
> sorry to sound callous, but if you're accepting the accidental
> deaths of the civilians as something that will happen, then you
> must accept the reporters as a lower-probability case of the
> same thing. It's all the
> same from 30,000 feet - and it's still pretty vague from 30
> sometimes.
I would say it's probably harder to aim accurately from 30 feet
than from 30,000 when you're flying a jet at a couple of hundred
knots. At 30 feet at 250 knots, if you dip the nose to 1 degree
below horizontal, you've got about half a second to pull up or
you're scenery. Most ground attacks (with missiles/bombs) and
strafes (with guns/rockets) happen between 200 and 1000 feet,
from which height even I could see the massive stars and stripes
flag that the live footage showed one jeep was flying when the
bomb hit them.
>> If it was British Harrier GR7s or Tornado GR3s wiping out
>> American tank columns, we'd never hear the last of it - on the
>> news, from the Merkins, from the government. So far only
>> Americans have committed friendly fire atrocities, and mainly
>> on
>> the British.
>
> Firstly, "atrocity" is a really, really bad word. An atrocity
> is an
> action which is atrocious; I don't know about you, but my
> dictionary defines that as "extreme wickedness". There is an
> argument that the killing is in general an atrocity; I'll give
> that thoguht. But there *isn't* an argument that it *becomes*
> an atrocity because of it being friendly fire; it firstly
> implies that Our Boys are better than Them
> What Deserve Killing,
I was thinking more along the lines of it being a "the person who
did it will be feeling absolutely sick when they realise", and it
was "atrocious aiming", or "atrociusly bad practice" (as in the
Patriot missile that shot down a Tornado returning to base in
formation last week).
> and secondly (or alternately) implies
> that there's intentional wickedness, that some American pilot's
> going out and hunting British tanks. Which is mildly offensive.
> The first is expectionally offensive. </rant> I'm not getting
> at you, but pick your words better...
Yes, I do have a tendency to say the wrong thing, and eventually
end up having to say "pass me a shovel".
> Secondly, is it surprising? Think about this abstractly. Any
> force will commit friendly fire; that is the nature of combat,
> and no amount of technology can save you from someone screwing
> up in the heat of battle. This is, generally, down to failures
> of communication. So any force has
> a proportion A of "blue-on-blue" friendly fire incidents (it's
> generally quite small). These may vary drastically between
> forces, but it always happens in some measure...
>
> Now, put two forces on the same side in the situation; when
> they meet, communications and liasion between those forces will
> almost by
> definition be worse than intra-force commnunication (a UK
> battalion will find it much easier to work with another UK
> battalion than a US one, simply because of doctrinal practices,
> or accents, or commonalities of thought, or pop-culture
> references, or whatever)
Pointless interjection here for an unconfirmed anecdote: In WWII,
Tyneside regiments didn't have to use the same radio codes as
other regiments. The reasoning being, that since other Englishmen
had trouble understanding them, what chance did the Germans have?
Anyway, back to the plot...
> - so the proportion B
> of "blue1-on-blue2" incidents will be significantly higher than
> that of
> A. Of course, this tends only to happen when the forces meet;
> historically, this tended to happen in small regions, as forces
> fought discretely and not intermixed (as is still the case) so
> the forces on
> each side were about equal and thus the FF incidents (from both
> sources) occured in roughly equal numbers.
>
> Now, throw in airpower. The UK is providing *vastly* less air
> support
> than the US; a result of this is that the US provides air
> support for
> much of the British forces; indeed, for the theatre generally.
> So,
> there's a US-UK interface with no corresponding UK-US
> interface, so the
> US has greater opportunity to inflict B casualties than the UK
> does, and so the UK suffers proportionally more B casualties...
Yes, that is statistically true. Statistics are usually bollocks
though. The fact that these ones happen to be accurate changes
nothing. [1]
> (There is also the fact that the US has traditionally practised
> warfare
> by a "to be sure" approach; if in doubt, wait and shell, or
> wait and
> fire, or... but things are changing, and this may well be among
> them)
It only tended to work against opponents who had roughly the same
sort of technology level and combat doctrines. eg. in WWII,
American planes bombed the dug-in German forces in their concrete
pillboxes and steel-lined bunkers to smithereens. On the other
side of the world though, when American ships shelled Japanese
fortifications consisting of palm-logs and sand, they remained
surprisingly intact.
>> [2] As in when the A-10 attacked two British Warrior IFVs
>> about a
>> week ago. The only survivor said the pilot seemed as though he
>> was "out on a jolly".
>
> You train people for ten years to do something, you train them
> to the
> peak of perfection to do it, you get them all enthused about
> it, you finally let them do it. He's unlikely to be pottering
> along watching the clock and wondering if he can get off for
> the afternoon, this is
> tedious, is he?
Yes, but if he's going to go on an unauthorised mission to stop
himself from getting bored, why wasn't the plane unarmed? Or why
didn't he shoot up some Iraqi armour? Or if he felt that was too
dangerous for his off-hours, why didn't he just blow up a sand
dune?
> Um. Anyway.
>
> Bottom line - this war is almost certainly being fought for the
> wrong reasons, but it's almost certainly not being fought by
> incompetents. And I've just started defending it, haven't I?
You're defending the execution of the war, not the war itself.
You're right it's not being fought by incompetents - idiots
maybe, but not incompetents. My view is, that while we're
fighting this illegal war anyway, we may as well get on with it
and fight it as quickly and cleanly as possible.
[1] I'm probably ready for that shovel now...
Gerben Dirksen
> Just been watching the news, and the Americans have bombed the
> shit out of their own side again. I can't help thinking "why
> don't they *train* their bloody pilots before posting them to the
> front line?"
Well... they just need to figure out one basic lesson.
Friendly fire isn't!
Just my two cents.
Gerben
Daniel Smart
news:slrnb91i...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk:
> reasons, but it's almost certainly not being fought by incompetents.
> And I've just started defending it, haven't I?
>
I would exclude the CinC from the "not incompetent" list, but otherwise
100% agreed.
Dan "Anti-Saddam, Pro-Armed-Services, Anti-This-War" Smart
This position is really difficult to explain in the US at the moment.
</delurk>
--
\\\\\ Pope Dan (afp...@dansmart.com)
\\\\\\\__o The Reformed Church of The Hedgehog
____\\\\\\\'/____ We sacked the Inquisition and hired Lawyers,
Private Eyes, and Spammers. Thanks L Ron. Sue the Heretic!
Kegs
> "Brian Wakeling" wrote in message:
> > Just been watching the news, and the Americans have bombed the
> > shit out of their own side again. I can't help thinking "why
> > don't they *train* their bloody pilots before posting them to the
> > front line?"
>
> Well... they just need to figure out one basic lesson.
>
> Friendly fire isn't!
It might also help if the USAF didn't routinely give it's pilots
amphetamines (speed) so they could fly more missions.
--
James
jamesk[at]beeb[dot]net
Don't kiss an elephant on the lips today.
David Chapman
> Andrew Gray <andre...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in
> news:slrnb91i...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk:
>> Bottom line - this war is almost certainly being fought for the wrong
>> reasons, but it's almost certainly not being fought by incompetents.
>> And I've just started defending it, haven't I?
>>
> <delurk>
> I would exclude the CinC from the "not incompetent" list, but
> otherwise 100% agreed.
I very much disagree. Nobody can doubt American competence at killing
people, but killing people isn't war. War is co-ordination of force to
achieve strategic objectives, and unless the avowed American intent is to
kill allied troops and civilians then they're nothing more than glorified
butchers.
--
At the tone, please leave your name, telephone number, warranty
information, and the reason you should never have bought a computer
in the first place, you friggin' moron!
Alec Cawley
>
> Pointless interjection here for an unconfirmed anecdote: In WWII,
> Tyneside regiments didn't have to use the same radio codes as
> other regiments. The reasoning being, that since other Englishmen
> had trouble understanding them, what chance did the Germans have?
During the retreat to Dunkirk, a Welsh Regiment certainly used Welsh for
transmissions "in clear" on the (well founded, I think) opinion that there
were probably very few Welsh speakers in the German Army. And some American
unit used Navaho.
Michael Gilbert
<URL:mailto:da...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Brian Wakeling" <bpwak...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Just been watching the news, and the Americans have bombed the
> > shit out of their own side again. I can't help thinking "why
> > don't they *train* their bloody pilots before posting them to the
> > front line?"
>
> very very low. Civilian deaths are relatively very very low. Of
> course, even one is bad. It looks very bad if this is the only major
> war you've seen live, and the reporting is more prevalent now than
> earlier. These accidents don't happen because of lack of training,
> but because of the confusion and disarray of war. Someone phones in
> "put a bomb at this location, and do it fast because we're under
> fire", and before someone else can phone in to say "but *we're*
> at that location" it's too late.
>
> The best solution is just not to go to war. But to say American
> soldiers and pilots are inept is a distortion.
When the friendly forces are visibly marked by sodding great orange
squares on the roof, it does take an amazingly high level of ineptitude
to hit them rather than a solitary tank. Moreover, in the most recent
incident, a convoy with HMVs was hit. Not a vehicle the Iraqi military
have.
Look, the American military have a reputation for being bad people to be
in front of. This certainly dates from WW2, if not before. This is not a
recent phenomenon; maybe the gung-ho, "Top Gun" "Air Cav" attitude needs
examining.
--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write
Was you ever stung by a dead bee?
Richard Bos
> Just been watching the news, and the Americans have bombed the
> shit out of their own side again. I can't help thinking "why
> don't they *train* their bloody pilots before posting them to the
> front line?"
On a similar note, after having watched the Merkins go into Bagdad and
the UKians into Basra, is it just me or are the latter really
_massively_ better at this, not to mention more grown-up and more aware
of what the fsck they're up to in the first place?
Richard
Andrew Gray
>>
>> So some reporters were with civilians.
>
> Not quite. The reporters were civilians, they were travelling in
> a convoy with some US special forces (who called in an airstrike
> to scrag a lone Iraqi tank a couple of miles away) and some
> Kurdish militia.
Mea culpa; assumed it was the standard well-it-looked-military-from-here
situation. Given up on following the specifics of the news these days;
the morning paper has twelve pages on the war and the the journalists
get allowed to write something...
> I would say it's probably harder to aim accurately from 30 feet
> than from 30,000 when you're flying a jet at a couple of hundred
> knots. At 30 feet at 250 knots, if you dip the nose to 1 degree
> below horizontal, you've got about half a second to pull up or
> you're scenery.
When I said 30 feet, I was meaning as in some poor bastard crouched on
the other side of the road wondering which side you're on...
> Most ground attacks (with missiles/bombs) and
> strafes (with guns/rockets) happen between 200 and 1000 feet,
> from which height even I could see the massive stars and stripes
> flag that the live footage showed one jeep was flying when the
> bomb hit them.
Height isn't everything. Consider the closing speeds; consider the
muzzle velocity of the guns; consider the range they start firing at.
Shit will happen, no matter how much you try to prevent it. You have
dust, you have movement, there may or may not be a moving coloured thing
there, it's hard to tell, but from where they're sitting either they
open fire or they potentially get fired on as they go overhead to check.
Choose...
>> and secondly (or alternately) implies
>> that there's intentional wickedness, that some American pilot's
>> going out and hunting British tanks. Which is mildly offensive.
>> The first is expectionally offensive. </rant> I'm not getting
>> at you, but pick your words better...
>
> Yes, I do have a tendency to say the wrong thing, and eventually
> end up having to say "pass me a shovel".
Indeed. :-)
>> Now, throw in airpower. The UK is providing *vastly* less air
>> support
>> than the US; a result of this is that the US provides air
>> support for
>> much of the British forces; indeed, for the theatre generally.
>> So,
>> there's a US-UK interface with no corresponding UK-US
>> interface, so the
>> US has greater opportunity to inflict B casualties than the UK
>> does, and so the UK suffers proportionally more B casualties...
>
> Yes, that is statistically true. Statistics are usually bollocks
> though. The fact that these ones happen to be accurate changes
> nothing. [1]
> [1] I'm probably ready for that shovel now...
Damn right...
This isn't a statistical proof, as such; it's an abstract problem with
names tacked on to help thinking. Think of it as algebra more than
statistics.
A lot of military theory can be boiled down to something similar to
that; when you remember that the macropredictions are subject to a
million and one microvariables, and take the results as guidelines, for
a known situation they can predict things remarkably well. Subject to
Private Chance and General Incompetence, of course ;-) Unfortunately for
the practical application of it, militaries have a habit of inventing
new and stupid things to do, or new and unknown people to fight...
> It only tended to work against opponents who had roughly the same
> sort of technology level and combat doctrines. eg. in WWII,
> American planes bombed the dug-in German forces in their concrete
> pillboxes and steel-lined bunkers to smithereens. On the other
> side of the world though, when American ships shelled Japanese
> fortifications consisting of palm-logs and sand, they remained
> surprisingly intact.
Hmm, I think you're generalising too much here. The method didn't deal
too well with fortifications (of any kind) because, well, that's what
fortfications are for.
The issue was that, on meeting resistance, American doctrine was to
stop, deploy cautiously, find where the resistance was and then get
something to deal with it. The benefit of this was that you didn't need
good low-level leadership - so you could use a massively conscript force
with the professionals elsewhere - and that it made the most of the
American material advantage by centralising resources in large artillery
parks, air forces, &c. If you have a simple way of dealing with all
problems, and you can afford to do it, it offers massive savings with
the fact that you have much less need to train the front-line units to
be much more than artillery spotters.
Compare and contrast to, for example, German doctrine, which theorised
that a strong point was either to be screened and bypassed, or to be
dealt with by the unit encountering it using available resources; the
resources were put into training the quality of the front-line units,
improving their flexibility and general quality at the expense of the
support echelons - because the issue was seen as the quality of the
infantry, not of the artillery.
It's essentially a case of "this is how we do things, because this is
how we've laways done them"; the method and the reason has changed, but
old habits linger. Indeed, the numerical inferiority and firepower
superiority has led to it essentially re-inventing itself...
...and this system, simply put, is one which lends itself more to
friendly fire casualties. So we have the force more likely to cause
them, in a position where it will be causing a higher propoertion of
them, and they'll go up.
>> peak of perfection to do it, you get them all enthused about
>> it, you finally let them do it. He's unlikely to be pottering
>> along watching the clock and wondering if he can get off for
>> the afternoon, this is
>> tedious, is he?
>
> Yes, but if he's going to go on an unauthorised mission to stop
> himself from getting bored, why wasn't the plane unarmed? Or why
> didn't he shoot up some Iraqi armour? Or if he felt that was too
> dangerous for his off-hours, why didn't he just blow up a sand
> dune?
One can assume he *thought* he was shooting up Iraqi armour; if it was
common for American pilots to be thiking "well, didn't get a towelhead
today, but an ally's a good second", we'd all be having rather
significant worries unrelated to this war itself.
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Lots42 bomb vice president
>amphetamines (speed) so they could fly more missions.
>
>--
>James
>jamesk[at]beeb[dot]net
Cite?
Buzzholio
> "Brian Wakeling" <bpwak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b6ptkg$7rrad$1...@ID-188625.news.dfncis.de>...
> > Just been watching the news, and the Americans have bombed the
> > shit out of their own side again. I can't help thinking "why
> > don't they *train* their bloody pilots before posting them to the
> > front line?"
In this case it is quite possible that the SF officer was the one who screwed
up after all he called the airstrike. In previous conflicts ppl have received
medals (posthumous mainly) for calling fire onto thier own positions :)
> Well... they just need to figure out one basic lesson.
>
> Friendly fire isn't!
Suppressive fire doesn't
Your equipment was made by the lowest bidder
Extracts from Murphy's Laws of armed conflict
Sorry I refuse to make any sensible or reasoned comments on any War thread ;)
--
Buzzholio - Innappropriate humour since 1975 (probably)
Barking
Just two of many examples.
http://www.talkleft.com/archives/001702.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_pilotpills021220.html
The line about pilots being unfit if they haven't taken it is interesting.
The pilots were also taking them in 1991 too.
Barking
I am, but I think they might be too:-)
Kegs
> >It might also help if the USAF didn't routinely give it's pilots
> >amphetamines (speed) so they could fly more missions.
> Cite?
In addition to the links Barking posted there is
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_pilotpills021220.html
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine
the use of amphetamines is thought to have been a contributory factor
in the A10 incident where two warrior AFVs were attacked by a flight
of A10s in the 1991 Gulf War, killing several troops.
After that incident Amphetamines were removed from service use, but
reintroduced sometime in 1992.
--
James
jamesk[at]beeb[dot]net
"It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it
happens." Woody Allen
Eric Jarvis
just more experienced...I should think lot of senior military
personnel served in Northern Ireland...and I'd be surprised if it
hadn't had a strong influence not only on training but also on
how British forces have been operating in Kosovo
when it comes to learning how to deal with armed opposition mixed
in with the civilian population, nothing matches having to do it
amongst ones own people
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"
James Turner
> On a similar note, after having watched the Merkins go into Bagdad and
> the UKians into Basra, is it just me or are the latter really
> _massively_ better at this, not to mention more grown-up and more
> aware of what the fsck they're up to in the first place?
>
in, in the meantime law and order has gone to pot (the looting, the chaos
whenever aid appears). Baghdad is/was _much_ more heavily defended, and the
Americans are at the end of a much longer supply train.
I'm sure the Americans know exactly what they're doing, they've been
thinking about this for quite some time.
--
James
war...@affordable-afpers.co.uk
bpwak...@hotmail.com says...
> In news:MPG.18fabaf07...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk,
> Gid Holyoake <ab...@brynamman.org.uk> typed:
> > In article <b6ptkg$7rrad$1...@ID-188625.news.dfncis.de>, Brian
> > Wakeling generously decided to share with us..
> >
> > Snippetry..
> >
> >> So far only Americans have committed friendly fire atrocities,
> >> and mainly on the British.
> >
> > Actually, that's not true.. One British tank has fired on
> > another British tank so far.. there were casualties AFAIK but
> > not fatalities BICBW..
>
> Did it? Was there? Sorry, I've spent most of the last three days
> asleep for various reasons, and this was the first bit of news I
> managed to see for a week.
I spent them drugged up to the hilt and mostly asleep. The opiates are
wearing off though and BBC News24 stopped making me giggle so I stopped
watching it. I *was* impressed at the Iraqi spokesman insisting that
they were in full control of the city and that the invaders were being
purged while in the background American vehicles went past.
Warwick -- Mostly thinking straight now
Brian Wakeling
Buzzholio <buzz...@dodo.com.au> typed:
Seems fair enough to me - almost all wars are neither sensible or
reasonable
Eric Jarvis
> In news:1268f351.03040...@posting.google.com,
> Buzzholio <buzz...@dodo.com.au> typed:
> >
> > War thread ;)
>
> Seems fair enough to me - almost all wars are neither sensible or
> reasonable
>
I've now attempted to make sense of it all as best I can
<http://www.ericjarvis.co.uk/stories/crimson.html>
Lesley Weston
jetur...@hotmail.com wrote on 08/04/2003 2:06 PM:
<snip>
> I'm sure the Americans know exactly what they're doing, they've been
> thinking about this for quite some time.
You could be right. Baghdad fell today, on the anniversary of the
Confederate army's surrender to the Union army.
Lesley Weston.
Orjan Westin
news:BAB99789.8D8F%les...@vancouverbc.net...
>
> Baghdad fell today, on the anniversary of the
> Confederate army's surrender to the Union army.
On the anniversary of nazi Germany's invasion of Norway.
On my birthday, FFS!
Can I change that present?
Orjan
David Underdown
> Richard Bos wrote:
>> "Brian Wakeling" <bpwak...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just been watching the news, and the Americans have bombed the
>>> shit out of their own side again. I can't help thinking "why
>>> don't they *train* their bloody pilots before posting them to the
>>> front line?"
>>
>> On a similar note, after having watched the Merkins go into Bagdad
>> and the UKians into Basra, is it just me or are the latter really
>> _massively_ better at this, not to mention more grown-up and more
>> aware of what the fsck they're up to in the first place?
>>
>
> just more experienced...I should think lot of senior military
> personnel served in Northern Ireland...and I'd be surprised if it
> hadn't had a strong influence not only on training but also on
> how British forces have been operating in Kosovo
>
> when it comes to learning how to deal with armed opposition mixed
> in with the civilian population, nothing matches having to do it
> amongst ones own people
Since the Americans today managed to bomb the Al-Jazeera office (again,
they flattened the one in Kabul too) and fire a tank round at the hotel
containing most of the foreign press based in Baghdad you do have to
wonder at their competence.
--
David Underdown
kilyth
> Richard Bos wrote:
>> just more experienced...I should think lot of senior military
> personnel served in Northern Ireland...and I'd be surprised if it
> hadn't had a strong influence not only on training but also on
> how British forces have been operating in Kosovo
>
> when it comes to learning how to deal with armed opposition mixed
> in with the civilian population, nothing matches having to do it
> amongst ones own people
Is it just me who thinks that GWB should keep his war-mongering hands
off of Northern Ireland. I dont' know what other people think about
him being there today but I've heard that as far as a lot of people
are concerned the US's involvement ended with Clinton.
I would like everyone to remember that this is my own personal
opinion, and I dont' want people angry at me 8-)
Kilyth
(has gotten a hair cut)
(and doesn't like it)
(hair grows, hair grows, hair grows)
Eric Jarvis
> Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.18fd08d34...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> > Richard Bos wrote:
> >> just more experienced...I should think lot of senior military
> > personnel served in Northern Ireland...and I'd be surprised if it
> > hadn't had a strong influence not only on training but also on
> > how British forces have been operating in Kosovo
> >
> > when it comes to learning how to deal with armed opposition mixed
> > in with the civilian population, nothing matches having to do it
> > amongst ones own people
>
> Is it just me who thinks that GWB should keep his war-mongering hands
> off of Northern Ireland. I dont' know what other people think about
> him being there today but I've heard that as far as a lot of people
> are concerned the US's involvement ended with Clinton.
>
personally I hope that some of what was said at the summit press
conference is a little more than cant and blather
the Northern Ireland peace process is far from perfect...but it
is one of the most positive things that has happened anywhere in
the world during my lifetime...and it's been done by encouraging
talking and by offering amnesties to those prepared to promise to
lay down their arms and talk instead...exactly what has never
been seriously tried in Israel/Palestine...though the abortive
attempts at it have actually shown the possibility of a long term
peace there too
we can only hope
Sylvain Chambon
nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk says...
> "Lesley Weston" <les...@vancouverbc.net> wrote in message
> news:BAB99789.8D8F%les...@vancouverbc.net...
> >
> > Baghdad fell today, on the anniversary of the
> > Confederate army's surrender to the Union army.
>
> On the anniversary of nazi Germany's invasion of Norway.
>
> On my birthday, FFS!
Well... Happy birthday anyway, Örjan.
Sylvain.
The Knight Who Says ....... Ni!
"Gid Holyoake" <ab...@brynamman.org.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.18fabaf07...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk...
> In article <b6ptkg$7rrad$1...@ID-188625.news.dfncis.de>, Brian Wakeling
> generously decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
> > So far only Americans have committed friendly fire atrocities, and
mainly on
> > the British.
>
> Actually, that's not true.. One British tank has fired on another British
> tank so far.. there were casualties AFAIK but not fatalities BICBW..
That was in actual combat, none of the airforce were under attack when they
did their fragging.
> Gid
>
>
>
Brian Wakeling
Orjan Westin <nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> typed:
> "Lesley Weston" <les...@vancouverbc.net> wrote in message
> news:BAB99789.8D8F%les...@vancouverbc.net...
>>
>> Baghdad fell today, on the anniversary of the
>> Confederate army's surrender to the Union army.
>
> On the anniversary of nazi Germany's invasion of Norway.
Rumsfeld said something about "Saddam Hussein joining the ranks
of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, [some more dictators I can't
remember] - dictators who have been defeated" or words to that
effect.
Maybe someone should tell him Lenin and Stalin never actually
lost a war and were never deposed by a foreign power, they both
retired/died in office.
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Do not reply to the hotmail address, it will be instantly deleted
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net instead
Someone pass me that shovel.
melinda
> In article <b6qmjf$7fpc3$1...@ID-188625.news.dfncis.de>,
> bpwak...@hotmail.com says...
>> In news:MPG.18fabaf07...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk,
>> Gid Holyoake <ab...@brynamman.org.uk> typed:
>> > In article <b6ptkg$7rrad$1...@ID-188625.news.dfncis.de>, Brian
>> > Wakeling generously decided to share with us..
>> >
>> > Snippetry..
>> >
>> >> So far only Americans have committed friendly fire atrocities,
>> >> and mainly on the British.
Sorry to jump in on an old part of the thread, but this reminded
me of a WWII quote that A came across the other day,
"When the Brits fire the Germans duck, when the Germans fire the Brits
duck, but when the Americans fire everybody ducks."
Sorry if this offends any Merkins.
--
Melinda
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Since the Americans today managed to bomb the Al-Jazeera office (again,
>they flattened the one in Kabul too)
I don't see what's wrong with destroying the enemie's capabillities to give
orders.
> and fire a tank round at the hotel
>containing most of the foreign press based in Baghdad you do have to
>wonder at their competence.
Enemy fire was coming -from- the hotel.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>"When the Brits fire the Germans duck, when the Germans fire the Brits
>duck, but when the Americans fire everybody ducks."
>
>Sorry if this offends any Merkins.
>
That's the problem today. Too many Merkins get offended at stupid nonsense.
Richard Bos
> Since the Americans today managed to bomb the Al-Jazeera office (again,
> they flattened the one in Kabul too) and fire a tank round at the hotel
> containing most of the foreign press based in Baghdad you do have to
> wonder at their competence.
Actually, those were some of the incidences that make me believe that
_someone_ in the US army knows what he's doing. The USA government's
attitude towards independent media, especially during wartime, is well
enough known to suggest quite strongly that those were not accidents.
Richard
kilyth
I never want to suggest that peace in Northern Ireland, or the peace
process, isn't something worth striving for with every (thing you
strive with). I just don't trust GWB. But then I don't really trust
Tony Blair either and I certainly dont' trust Bertie Ahern. I just
wish that something so important wasn't in the hands of a cheating
warmonger, a yes-man, and someone who buys airplanes when there are
schools that desperately need funding.
I guess I'd feel more confident if I thought that they were more
competant.
Kilyth
Barking
>
>
>>Since the Americans today managed to bomb the Al-Jazeera office (again,
>>they flattened the one in Kabul too)
>
>
> I don't see what's wrong with destroying the enemie's capabillities to give
> orders.
the enemy or at least Arabic ones are.
>
>>and fire a tank round at the hotel
>>containing most of the foreign press based in Baghdad you do have to
>>wonder at their competence.
>
>
> Enemy fire was coming -from- the hotel.
US Military Intelligence said so. There is some dispute about this,
which is along the lines of "everyone else who was there disagrees".
Barking
I am, are you?
Terry Pratchett
writes
>If you do some comparisons historically, the friendly fire rate is
>very very low. Civilian deaths are relatively very very low. Of
>course, even one is bad. It looks very bad if this is the only major
>war you've seen live, and the reporting is more prevalent now than
>earlier. These accidents don't happen because of lack of training,
>but because of the confusion and disarray of war. Someone phones in
>"put a bomb at this location, and do it fast because we're under
>fire", and before someone else can phone in to say "but *we're*
>at that location" it's too late.
This is, alas, true. It's also true that if you put hundreds of
thousands of young men and millions of dollars of heavy technology in a
testing environment you're line for quite a few deaths even in the
absence of any enemy activity. Vehicles will crash or malfunction, guys
will forget they're holding a loaded weapon...shit will happen.
I have a suspicion that if you looked at the total Alliance deaths in
this war, and compared them to the 'normal' death toll of those age
groups in civvy street, you might be surprised.
--
Terry Pratchett
Suzi
<melindam...@idl.net.au> wibbled...
[Snip]
> Sorry to jump in on an old part of the thread, but this reminded
> me of a WWII quote that A came across the other day,
>
> "When the Brits fire the Germans duck, when the Germans fire the Brits
> duck, but when the Americans fire everybody ducks."
>
> Sorry if this offends any Merkins.
Why should it? It does rather appear to be true... in the first Gulf War
we lost more people to the Americans than to anyone on the other... I
can imagine the outcry from the Americans if the situation were reversed
too :-(
Suzi
rich hammett
IIRC, the rate was significantly lower than the US average for their
age cohort. So I didn't use that statistic in What Is Bad About
The Military.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
Lora D
president) wrote:
>Enemy fire was coming -from- the hotel.
Well, not according to anyone except the US military ---
According to Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, a USian media
watchdog organization:
----
Journalists who witnessed the attack unequivocally rejected Pentagon
claims that the tank had been fired on from the hotel. "I never heard
a single shot coming from any of the area around here, certainly not
from the hotel," David Chater of British Sky TV told Reuters (4/8/03).
Footage shot by French TV recorded quiet in the area immediately
before the attack (London Independent, 4/9/03).
Earlier in the day, the U.S. launched separate but near-simultaneous
attacks on the Baghdad offices of Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV, two
Arabic-language news networks that have been broadcasting graphic
footage of the human cost of the war. Both outlets had informed the
Pentagon of their exact locations, according to a statement from the
Committee to Protect Journalists. As with the hotel attack, Pentagon
officials claimed that U.S. forces had come under fire from the press
offices, charges that were rejected by the targeted reporters.
----
and --
----
But the Pentagon, while expressing regret over the loss of life,
rejected the idea that its forces did anything wrong, and appeared to
place blame on the press corps for being in Baghdad in the first
place: "We've had conversations over the last couple of days, news
organizations eager to get their people unilaterally into Baghdad,"
said Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke (Associated Press, 4/9/03).
"We are saying it is not a safe place; you should not be there."
Kate Adie, a British war correspondent during the 1991 Gulf War, told
Irish radio prior to the war (RTE Radio1, 3/9/03; GuluFuture.com,
3/10/03) that she had received an even more direct threat from the
U.S. military: "I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that
if uplinks-- that is, the television signals out of... Baghdad, for
example-- were detected by any planes...of the military above
Baghdad... they'd be fired down on. Even if they were journalists....
He said: ' Well...they know this.... They've been warned.' This is
threatening freedom of information, before you even get to a war."
----
That's from today's email. FAIR has a very informative website at:
and one can subscribe to their mailing list as well.
--
Lora in MT
Lots42 bomb vice president
>I suppose this was irony, 'cause I don't believe for a minute this was
>not exactly what they wanted to do. The serious newscasters here speak
>from the US Army declaring the Hotel a military target.
They were being fired upon -from- the hotel. They had to do something.
Seriously, people, it was not a huge conspiracy to kill all the reporters. (If
it was, there would be none left).
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Al-Jazeera are not the enemy, unless you believe all media sources are
>the enemy or at least Arabic ones are.
>
Calm down. Sheesh. Al-Jazeera regularly ran tapes from Iraqi goverment
officials. These tapes could have easily contained coded orders. Willingly or
not, Al-Jazeera was putting US troops at risk. What the Americans should have
done is called them up, told them they had a half hour to leave and bombed
their buildings flat.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Irish radio prior to the war (RTE Radio1, 3/9/03; GuluFuture.com,
>3/10/03) that she had received an even more direct threat from the
>U.S. military: "I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that
>if uplinks-- that is, the television signals out of... Baghdad, for
>example-- were detected by any planes...of the military above
>Baghdad... they'd be fired down on. Even if they were journalists....
>He said: ' Well...they know this.... They've been warned.' This is
>threatening freedom of information, before you even get to a war."
Oh no it isn't. Ms. Adie is being hysterical. What really happened is that the
media in general was told that unapproved transmissions risked having their
transmission capabillity destroyed. Which makes sense. You don't want
independent reporters running amok in the battlefield, transmitting
god-knows-what to god-knows-who? Hell, look at Peter Arnett. Big 3 television
reporter and even he proved incapable of shutting his big yap when appropiate.
There may have been no ships involved but loose lips still do damage.
Sanity
lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 bomb vice president) wrote:
> >From: Barking bar...@insaneworld.org.ukX
>
> >Al-Jazeera are not the enemy, unless you believe all media sources
> >are the enemy or at least Arabic ones are.
> >
> Calm down. Sheesh. Al-Jazeera regularly ran tapes from Iraqi
> goverment officials. These tapes could have easily contained coded
> orders.
First of all, I don't believe that as easily. Second, there's still
the 'freedom of the press'. You don't bomb the press, it's as simple
as that. Al-Jazeera is a respected and popular TV station, and they do
at least as well as CNN in news reporting.
> Willingly or not, Al-Jazeera was putting US troops at risk.
Come on, how? And if the Iraqi's would have shot all CNN reporters
because they might put the Iraqi troups at risk, wouldn't that be just
as bad? I think it's very naive to assume that through a simple
television message (that can probably be sent and received through
much more reliable ways and communication channels) the US forces are
at risk.
> What the Americans should have done is called them up, told them
> they had a half hour to leave and bombed their buildings flat.
What the Americans should do is stop attacking the press and stop
manipulating the press. I found this page rather interesting in that
respect: <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm>
If anything, the press is the enemy of the people in general because
nothing can be trusted. Let's bomb 'em all.
TTFN,
Michel AKA Sanity
--
"Sanity shall make ye -ing fret" Doing Affordable things to AFP:
www.affordable-prawns.co.uk www.affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk
AFP Chess Tournament: http://www.affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk/chess/
Matt Silberstein
<tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk>:
IIANM in GWI the U.S. military death rate was *lower* than it was
in the States. (This may have been before the Patriot missile
made the Scud hit the barracks.) The explanation was that the
G.I.s did not have access to alcohol and so there were fewer
deaths, particularly driving deaths.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.
Andrew Spray
sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk says...
> First of all, I don't believe that as easily. Second, there's still
> the 'freedom of the press'. You don't bomb the press, it's as simple
> as that. Al-Jazeera is a respected and popular TV station, and they do
> at least as well as CNN in news reporting.
ITYM "a much, much, much better job than".
HTH
Andy Spray
Eric Jarvis
a hotel in which a large number of war correspondents were
resident, none of whom (so far) seem to be able to corroborate
that there was ANY gunfire at all prior to the shot from the tank
never mind...history has now been rewritten and it's officially
true that there was a sniper whether or not there was
Sanity
Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
> Lots42 bomb vice president wrote:
> > >From: Aleks A.-Lessmann al...@lessmann-consulting.com
> >
> > >I suppose this was irony, 'cause I don't believe for a minute this was
> > >not exactly what they wanted to do. The serious newscasters here speak
> > >from the US Army declaring the Hotel a military target.
> >
> > They were being fired upon -from- the hotel. They had to do something.
> > Seriously, people, it was not a huge conspiracy to kill all the reporters.
> > (If
> > it was, there would be none left).
> >
>
> a hotel in which a large number of war correspondents were
> resident, none of whom (so far) seem to be able to corroborate
> that there was ANY gunfire at all prior to the shot from the tank
>
> never mind...history has now been rewritten and it's officially
> true that there was a sniper whether or not there was
They don't need guns. If the pen is mightier than the sword, it's a
weapon of mass destruction. Enough reason to bomb them.
Or they might have taken good advice and keep a gun^Wsword ready for
when the pen fails...
Sherilyn
> >From: Aleks A.-Lessmann al...@lessmann-consulting.com
>
> >I suppose this was irony, 'cause I don't believe for a minute this was
> >not exactly what they wanted to do. The serious newscasters here speak
> >from the US Army declaring the Hotel a military target.
>
> They were being fired upon -from- the hotel.
If this were true, then it would have been self defence. But on
Wednesday's official briefing, when asked about this subject, General
Brooks came up with the ambiguous formulation: "The circumstances of
yesterday revealed that there was fire occurring inside of Baghdad and
fire was returned."
Apparently there is footage from a French TV crew covering the thirty
second leading up to the tank shelling of the Palestine Hotel. There
is no sound of nearby gunshots on the footage.
--
Sherilyn
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -Bierce
Sherilyn
> >From: Barking bar...@insaneworld.org.ukX
>
> >Al-Jazeera are not the enemy, unless you believe all media sources are
> >the enemy or at least Arabic ones are.
> >
>
> Calm down. Sheesh. Al-Jazeera regularly ran tapes from Iraqi goverment
> officials. These tapes could have easily contained coded orders.
The UK and US stations have also run the same tapes from the same
Iraqi government officials. These tapes could easily have contained
coded orders.
Seriously, though, the US has in fact had the decency to deny that
Al-Jazeera (bombed also in Afghanistan) was deliberately targetted.
If it really were true that the US chose its targets on such specious
grounds, and word got around, it would not be good.
Dante
news:20030411094845...@mb-ce.aol.com:
> You don't want independent reporters running amok in the
> battlefield, transmitting god-knows-what to god-knows-who?
Yeah, cos then maybe people would hear the truth about what's happening,
and not believe their goverment's [1] propaganda, and that would be bad...
Seriously, I can't believe anyone thinks independent reporting is a bad
thing.
[1] *all* gov't, not specifying America here!
--
caz
"Kiss Rocks? Why would I want to kiss... oh, wait, I get it."
Willow Rosenberg
Beth Winter
>
Current correspondence (of a rather large volume here - the Reuters
photographer who was killed, was living in Warsaw and IIRC had applied
for Polish citizenship) seems to indicate that no shots were fired from
the hotel and the soldiers mistook the satellite equipment and cameras
on the roof for snipers with guns. I don't think it was deliberate, but
it *was* a Really Big Blunder (TM).
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://www.extenuation.net/disc/>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
Sherilyn
> >Kate Adie, a British war correspondent during the 1991 Gulf War,
> >told Irish radio prior to the war (RTE Radio1, 3/9/03;
> >GuluFuture.com, 3/10/03) that she had received an even more direct
> >threat from the U.S. military: "I was told by a senior officer in
> >the Pentagon, that if uplinks-- that is, the television signals out
> >of... Baghdad, for example-- were detected by any planes...of the
> >military above Baghdad... they'd be fired down on. Even if they
> >were journalists.... He said: ' Well...they know this.... They've
> >been warned.' This is threatening freedom of information, before
> >you even get to a war."
>
> Oh no it isn't. Ms. Adie is being hysterical. What really happened
> is that the media in general was told that unapproved transmissions
> risked having their transmission capabillity destroyed. Which makes
> sense. You don't want independent reporters running amok in the
> battlefield, transmitting god-knows-what to god-knows-who?
Yes you can. That is precisely what the very unhysterical,
battle-hardened war reporter, Kate Adie was talking about when she
referred to a threat to freedom of information.
> Hell, look at Peter Arnett. Big 3 television reporter and even he
> proved incapable of shutting his big yap when appropiate.
Your language here seems to be unnecessarily harsh. Peter Arnett
upset the military by saying in Baghdad nothing that Mr Saddam Hussein
could not also heard on the BBC World Service. What upset the
Pentagon and the White House was the way in which he said it. He
dared to criticise the government of his own country. But that's what
you're fighting for, isn't it?
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Come on, how? And if the Iraqi's would have shot all CNN reporters
>because they might put the Iraqi troups at risk, wouldn't that be just
>as bad?
No, because my scenarios involved people NOT dying.
> Second, there's still
>the 'freedom of the press'. You don't bomb the press, it's as simple
>as that.
You stop them from giving information to the enemy.
>Al-Jazeera is a respected and popular TV station, and they do
>at least as well as CNN in news reporting.
That's not saying much at all.
>I think it's very naive to assume that through a simple
>television message (that can probably be sent and received through
>much more reliable ways and communication channels) the US forces are
>at risk.
Why? Words are transmitted. Along with images. Either one can send information
to the enemy. Hell, that's why Peter Arnett was sacked, because he spilled info
ON Al-Jazeera.
Why is the above so hard to believe?
>What the Americans should do is stop attacking the press and stop
>manipulating the press.
The press should have unlimited freedom on the battlefield?
Lots42 bomb vice president
>
>The UK and US stations have also run the same tapes from the same
>Iraqi government officials.
That's news to me. All I saw were one or two stills from one or two tapes.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>never mind...history has now been rewritten and it's officially
>true that there was a sniper whether or not there was
>
I don't subscribe to the 1984 mentallity you do.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>How many quotes do you want to read to realize that that information is
>erroneous at least, false for sure and a deliberate lie if you are so
>disposed?
>
I'm just trying to consider it logically.
It's either there were shots fired and the return fire was justified.
Or there weren't and the soldiers made a blunder.
Or there weren't and the soldiers deliberatly attacked the hotel.
I'm trying to point out that one and two are incredibly more likely then three.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Seriously, I can't believe anyone thinks independent reporting is a bad
>thing.
Independent reporting on a battlefield is a bad thing. Loose lips sink ships.
Please try to comprehend this.
Rogue camera crews reporting millitary positions...Iraqi forces drive out,
shoot up position, kill two soldiers. I really don't think some nebolous
'freedom of the press' thing in the middle of the battlefield is worth putting
soldier's lives at risk.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Yes you can. That is precisely what the very unhysterical,
>battle-hardened war reporter, Kate Adie was talking about when she
>referred to a threat to freedom of information.
Kate Adie can want independent reporters transmitting whatever the hell they
want in the middle of a battlefield. I want a pony that can fly. Neither of us
will get our wish.
Alec Cawley
I'll disagree with you here. While, of course, deliberate revealing of
military information should be stopped, "Freedom of speech" has a
considerable value which justifies some risk to soldiers lives. It is not
black and white thing - there are judgements to be made. But "there is a
war on" has been used by totalitarian regimes to destroy legitimate (by my
standards, of course) criticism. If reporters feel the *cannot* report,
atroocities will occur. To thos who say America would not do this, I
mention My Lai. While some are better than others, all (nearly) humans are
corruptible and will, under pressure, do things that even they would
criticize in other circumstances.
--
@lec Šawley
Knig fo teh tyops
Dante
OK. I think it probably depends on whether you assume everybody should
automatically be on your side - I see you don't complain about people
reporting Iraqi military positions. I would always assume that an
independent reporter was of more value than an "embedded" one. I *don't*
think they, in general, give away military positions, and I certainly don't
think that's justification for banning them altogether.
Do you think the only news we should get about wars is what is chosen for
our viewing/ hearing by the top troops and the government? Do you trust
people that much generally, with so much evidence that both these
governments specifically and governments in wartime generally lie to the
populace as a matter of course? If someone has lied to you before, do you
not think twice before believing everything they say in the future, and try
and get more information from another source? In fact, even in general, do
you believe eveything you hear once, or do you seek confirmation from
reliable sources?
--
caz
"an actual hellspawn!!" - Graycat, afp
Topi Saavalainen
> Lots42 bomb vice president wrote:
>>
>> Rogue camera crews reporting millitary positions...Iraqi forces drive
>> out, shoot up position, kill two soldiers. I really don't think some
>> nebolous 'freedom of the press' thing in the middle of the
>> battlefield is worth putting soldier's lives at risk.
>
> I'll disagree with you here. While, of course, deliberate revealing of
> military information should be stopped, "Freedom of speech" has a
> considerable value which justifies some risk to soldiers lives.
Not to mention that the Arab world has the right to have their point of
view represented in the media. And what about the lives of *civilians* that
might be saved by active reporting of what's going on with the war?
Topi.
Lots42 bomb vice president
> I *don't*
>think they, in general, give away military positions, and I certainly don't
>think that's justification for banning them altogether.
They probably don't. Only logical. But it's still justification for banning
them, IMHO.
>Do you think the only news we should get about wars is what is chosen for
>our viewing/ hearing by the top troops and the government?
If it's in the middle of a battlefield, what information comes out and goes to
CNN -should- be controlled by the millitary people who are in charge of the
battlefield.
>Do you trust
>people that much generally, with so much evidence that both these
>governments specifically and governments in wartime generally lie to the
>populace as a matter of course?
I don't share the same distrust level you do.
>If someone has lied to you before, do you
>not think twice before believing everything they say in the future, and try
>and get more information from another source?
I would not do so if it put American soldiers (or their allies) lives at risk.
>In fact, even in general, do
>you believe eveything you hear once, or do you seek confirmation from
>reliable sources?
I've yet to find a reliable source. Every news outlet I know of is not one
hundred percent reliable.
I still don't see how this corresponds to letting unrestricted news crews out
in the midst of a war. It just does not compute. It is the same, IMHO, as
dropping fragments of the battleplan near suspected enemy positions. The risk
is just too damn great.
--
"Geez. Eat one newbie around here and
you're marked for life." - the-whiteboard.com
"Mirror mirror, on the wall..."
"Shut up, you're ugly!" - 'Whose Line...'
Lora D
president) wrote:
>Why? Words are transmitted. Along with images. Either one can send information
>to the enemy. Hell, that's why Peter Arnett was sacked, because he spilled info
>ON Al-Jazeera.
Peter Arnett was interviewed not on Al-Jazeera but on Iraqi state TV.
He did not "spill information"; everything he said in the interview
could have been read on the front page of any US newspaper in the
couple of days before the interview.
--
Lora in MT
Lora D
president) wrote:
>>Kate Adie, a British war correspondent during the 1991 Gulf War, told
>>Irish radio prior to the war (RTE Radio1, 3/9/03; GuluFuture.com,
>>3/10/03) that she had received an even more direct threat from the
>>U.S. military: "I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that
>>if uplinks-- that is, the television signals out of... Baghdad, for
>>example-- were detected by any planes...of the military above
>>Baghdad... they'd be fired down on. Even if they were journalists....
>>He said: ' Well...they know this.... They've been warned.' This is
>>threatening freedom of information, before you even get to a war."
>
>Oh no it isn't. Ms. Adie is being hysterical. What really happened is that the
>media in general was told that unapproved transmissions risked having their
>transmission capabillity destroyed. Which makes sense.
I think there's some misunderstanding going on here. Adie was talking
about satellite uplinks being used by reporters _behind_enemy_lines_.
In, for example Baghdad. The information in their reports wouldn't be
news to the enemy -- just to the public at home. And possibly to the
US military.
Targeting journalists is also a violation of the Geneva Convention.
>You don't want
>independent reporters running amok in the battlefield, transmitting
>god-knows-what to god-knows-who?
This happens? Cite. (Geraldo doesn't count, because everyone knows
he's an idiot loose cannon. Can't seem to get himself fired, though --
more's the pity.)
>Hell, look at Peter Arnett. Big 3 television
>reporter and even he proved incapable of shutting his big yap when appropiate.
You keep harping on Peter Arnett in a way that suggests you've heard
about the incident but not bothered to find out what he actually said
and to whom. Or what his assignment was in Baghdad. Or who owns the
network that fired him.
Mr. Arnett, BTW, is not merely a "Big 3 television reporter". He's a
Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent, with decades of experience,
and he does have a clue.
--
Lora in MT
Sanity
lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 bomb vice president) wrote:
Your consideration is indeed logical now, your conclusion isn't IMO. I
think you'll find that, considering the statements that go against the
US army, two and three are the most likely.
Sanity
lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 bomb vice president) wrote:
> >From: Sanity sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk
> > Second, there's still
> >the 'freedom of the press'. You don't bomb the press, it's as simple
> >as that.
>
> You stop them from giving information to the enemy.
If the press has the information, than the troops are more likely to
have the information already or have the correct information. As I
said, there are better ways to get a message across.
> >Al-Jazeera is a respected and popular TV station, and they do
> >at least as well as CNN in news reporting.
>
> That's not saying much at all.
Indeed. But it's not influenced more or less by the Iraqi's than CNN,
so not any more a target.
> >I think it's very naive to assume that through a simple
> >television message (that can probably be sent and received through
> >much more reliable ways and communication channels) the US forces are
> >at risk.
>
> Why? Words are transmitted. Along with images. Either one can send
> information to the enemy. Hell, that's why Peter Arnett was sacked,
> because he spilled info ON Al-Jazeera.
Like? And what if he did so on CNN? You do know that the Iraqi's read
newspapers and watch sattelite tv, don't you?
> Why is the above so hard to believe?
Because I don't believe anyone in this war.
> >What the Americans should do is stop attacking the press and stop
> >manipulating the press.
>
> The press should have unlimited freedom on the battlefield?
Yes. We, the common folk, have the right to know what's going on.
Unmanipulated, free press. I don't trust countries that invade other
countries just like that without justification, so I'd like to know
what's going on. With the manipulation and limited press, it only
strengthens my opinion that the merkins are playing a dirty game there.
The Stainless Steel Cat
lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 bomb vice president) wrote:
How about the latest doublethink then?
Donald Rumsfeld and Buff Hoon complaining that reports about looting in
Baghdad are exagerated and that the media (the BBC in particular) should be
talking about the liberation, not the fact that hospitals are being
stripped and peple are now barricading themselves in their homes in fear.
Maybe Mr Rumsfeld - when he talks about being sick of seeing the same clip
of one man carrying a vase a dozen times on the news - is just fed up after
spending two hours explaining to his boss that that was the same clip, not
a dozen different people who just happened to look the same...
Cat.
--
JLSM(CCA)
La Rustimuna ^Stalkato
LoneCat
>
>
> > I *don't*
> >think they, in general, give away military positions, and I certainly don't
> >think that's justification for banning them altogether.
>
> They probably don't. Only logical. But it's still justification for banning
> them, IMHO.
Wait a minute. Did you just say journalists should be banned because
they do something they probably don't do?
Yours truly, confused,
--
Susan/LoneCat, AFPgoddess of indecision
http://www.lonecat.org/
Music: http://www.numfrunct.co.uk/
The cat who walks by herself
Eric Jarvis
> Lots42 bomb vice president wrote:
> >
> > >From: Dante da...@geeklife.com
> >
> > > I *don't*
> > >think they, in general, give away military positions, and I certainly don't
> > >think that's justification for banning them altogether.
> >
> > They probably don't. Only logical. But it's still justification for banning
> > them, IMHO.
>
> Wait a minute. Did you just say journalists should be banned because
> they do something they probably don't do?
>
> Yours truly, confused,
>
all I can assume is that truth may be the first casualty of
war...but logic seems to get caught in the crossfire fairly early
too
my favourite so far is the one whereby it's up to other people to
prove that Bush and Blair don't have the clear proof of links
between Al Qaeda and Iraq possessing WoMD that they promised to
present some months ago...otherwise, apparently, we are to assume
that they were telling the truth even though they still haven't
presented it...that one completely beats me
or that since both armies have chemical protection suits that
must mean that our expect the Iraqis to use chemical weapons and
the Iraqis expect to use chemical weapons themselves
Brian Wakeling
Lots42 bomb vice president <lot...@aol.comaol.com> typed:
>> From: Aleks A.-Lessmann al...@lessmann-consulting.com
>
>> I suppose this was irony, 'cause I don't believe for a minute
>> this was
>> not exactly what they wanted to do. The serious newscasters
>> here speak
>> from the US Army declaring the Hotel a military target.
>
> They were being fired upon -from- the hotel. They had to do
> something. Seriously, people, it was not a huge conspiracy to
> kill all the reporters. (If it was, there would be none left).
The BBC news crew (and all the other news crews) in the building
said they never heard any shooting coming from the building. The
tank fired at a 15th floor balcony and destroyed the room it
belonged to. The Merkins gave a press conference about the
incident a little later from Qatar. The extremely high-ranking
general giving the briefing said the tank came under small arms
fire from the lobby of the hotel in question. Someone asked "why
did they fire at a 15th floor balcony then?" This high-ranking
general who would presumably be intelligent and had also
presumably read the full report that the tank crew had submitted
more than once, then said "I may have been mistaken about the
source of the fire."
Opinions please.
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Do not reply to the hotmail address, it will be instantly deleted
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net instead
"Get a new car for your spouse. It'll be a great trade."
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Wait a minute. Did you just say journalists should be banned because
>they do something they probably don't do?
>
>Yours truly, confused,
Probably would -not- do. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Targeting journalists is also a violation of the Geneva Convention.
Then it even makes more sense for the US millitary to warn reporters. After
all, from what I understand, a transmission sattallite looks a heck of a lot
like millitary equipment. Nobody really wants Australian News Team 5 to get a
Hellfire missile up the ass.
>I think there's some misunderstanding going on here. Adie was talking
>about satellite uplinks being used by reporters _behind_enemy_lines_.
>In, for example Baghdad. The information in their reports wouldn't be
>news to the enemy -- just to the public at home. And possibly to the
>US military.
This stirs in a hell of a lot of confusion. I'll have to re-evaluate everything
now
>>You don't want
>>independent reporters running amok in the battlefield, transmitting
>>god-knows-what to god-knows-who?
>
>This happens?
Why does it have to happen to be a concern? I don't know of any enemy
combatants successfully slipping past base fences but they still have gaurds.
>Geraldo doesn't count, because everyone knows
>he's an idiot loose cannon.
So because he would presumably do what I'm concerned about, he doesn't count?
Odd.
>He's a
>Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent, with decades of experience,
>and he does have a clue.
>
If he did, he wouldn't have gone on Iraqi television and babbled nonsense.
(Yes, I did read what he said. He's a moron).
Sanity
"Brian Wakeling" <bpwak...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The BBC news crew (and all the other news crews) in the building
> said they never heard any shooting coming from the building. The
> tank fired at a 15th floor balcony and destroyed the room it
> belonged to. The Merkins gave a press conference about the
> incident a little later from Qatar. The extremely high-ranking
> general giving the briefing said the tank came under small arms
> fire from the lobby of the hotel in question. Someone asked "why
> did they fire at a 15th floor balcony then?" This high-ranking
> general who would presumably be intelligent and had also
> presumably read the full report that the tank crew had submitted
> more than once, then said "I may have been mistaken about the
> source of the fire."
>
> Opinions please.
I bet they had reports that Saddam was staying there.
Seriously, this is either so stupid one wonders how they conquered
Iraq, or it is a conspiracy against a particular journalist. Either
way, it's scary.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>> The press should have unlimited freedom on the battlefield?
>
>Yes. We, the common folk, have the right to know what's going on.
Even if it means the death of American soldiers? You sir, are confusing.
You -want- anyone with press credentials to be able to report, say, that the
Fourth Armored Division is going to approach from the west at such and such a
time and with these many soldiers.
Do you actively hate American soldiers that much or are you just clueless?
I'm hoping for the latter.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Donald Rumsfeld and Buff Hoon complaining that reports about looting in
>Baghdad are exagerated and that the media (the BBC in particular) should be
>talking about the liberation, not the fact that hospitals are being
>stripped and peple are now barricading themselves in their homes in fear.
I think the news does exaggerate. I also think the news focuses, to a lopsided
degree, on only the negative sides of the war. Someone once said (paraphrased)
'Every incident is the Battle Of the Bulge' until 24 hours later'.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Your consideration is indeed logical now, your conclusion isn't IMO. I
>think you'll find that, considering the statements that go against the
>US army, two and three are the most likely.
>
Let's re-examine what two and three were.
>> I'm just trying to consider it logically.
>>
>> It's either there were shots fired and the return fire was justified.
>>
>> Or there weren't and the soldiers made a blunder.
>>
>> Or there weren't and the soldiers deliberatly attacked the hotel.
So the soldiers simultaneously made a tragic mistake -and- they deliberately
attacked a hotel full of innocent journalists.
I suppose there's a chance you might be saying some of the soldiers involved
were mistaken while some of them had a homicidal mad-on for innocent
journalists. But that doesn't make sense either.
Michael Gilbert
something about Michigan that made no sense to me at all. Like Michigan
was a place where the entire Iraqi exile population lived, and nobody
else. At least, that's what it sounded like to me. Anyone got clue one
about this?
--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write
Was you ever stung by a dead bee?
Terry Pratchett
<sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk> writes
>
>Yes. We, the common folk, have the right to know what's going on.
>Unmanipulated, free press.
If you really want them to be free to go anywhere, then you're going to
end up with dead journalists. Some have already died in this war
because they were in the wrong place on the battlefield.
You simply don't need a conspiracy theory when you've got a lot of
nervous men with guns, especially when civilian clothing and vehicles
are being used by Iraqi fighters.
Terry Pratchett
Eric Jarvis
> In article <b79eli$cgscg$1...@ID-188625.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Brian Wakeling" <bpwak...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The BBC news crew (and all the other news crews) in the building
> > said they never heard any shooting coming from the building. The
> > tank fired at a 15th floor balcony and destroyed the room it
> > belonged to. The Merkins gave a press conference about the
> > incident a little later from Qatar. The extremely high-ranking
> > general giving the briefing said the tank came under small arms
> > fire from the lobby of the hotel in question. Someone asked "why
> > did they fire at a 15th floor balcony then?" This high-ranking
> > general who would presumably be intelligent and had also
> > presumably read the full report that the tank crew had submitted
> > more than once, then said "I may have been mistaken about the
> > source of the fire."
> >
> > Opinions please.
>
> I bet they had reports that Saddam was staying there.
>
> Seriously, this is either so stupid one wonders how they conquered
> Iraq, or it is a conspiracy against a particular journalist. Either
> way, it's scary.
>
I wouldn't put it down to stupidity...I would put it down to
fear, carelessness and a certain amount of optimistic arrogance
at the political level
US troops are quite sensibly in fear of their lives...few of them
have much experience of that...even fewer have any experience of
urban guerilla warfare...and the politicians seem to have assumed
that things will just turn out OK if Iraq is hit with a large
enough hammer
Alec Cawley
The sort of good intentions crystallised, IMO, in the US Constitution.
Checks and balances. Free speech, fair trial. All or which seems very much
at odds with your view - central govenment is, buy defintion right; since
doubt might have a cost, doubt cannot be permitted. Tjhose who promote
doubt may be disposed of if they get in the way.
Alec Cawley
>>
> On the Rumsfeld person; in a news briefing yesterday he mentioned
> something about Michigan that made no sense to me at all. Like Michigan
> was a place where the entire Iraqi exile population lived, and nobody
> else. At least, that's what it sounded like to me. Anyone got clue one
> about this?
Pobably more than 50% of Iraquis exiles in the US live in Michigan. They
form the core of the Iraqui lobby in the US and, since people outside the
US don't vote in US elections, are the only Iraquis thah matter.
Eric Jarvis
not to mention the US using Kurdish un-uniformed fighters
accompanied by US special forces and journalists...and with the
journalists wearing stuff that looks like combat gear but not
like a coalition uniform
there's no point looking for conspiracies in places where cock
ups are inevitable
Sanity
lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 bomb vice president) wrote:
> >From: stee...@atuin.demon.co.uk (The Stainless Steel Cat)
>
> >Donald Rumsfeld and Buff Hoon complaining that reports about looting in
> >Baghdad are exagerated and that the media (the BBC in particular) should be
> >talking about the liberation, not the fact that hospitals are being
> >stripped and peple are now barricading themselves in their homes in fear.
>
> I think the news does exaggerate. I also think the news focuses, to a lopsided
> degree, on only the negative sides of the war.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Allow me to laugh sarcastically. War *is* negative, we can't go "ooh,
shiny" and smile when a missile is launched. It's war. People die.
Buildings are destroyed. Should we focus on the happy side of war?
There's a lot less of happy stuff happening.
Anyway, I think the news is fairly balanced. First we saw the gross
excaggeration of the tearing down of Saddam's statue, with a massive
150 people gathered to celebrate their liberation for all the media to
see, and now we see that the coalition forces are breaking the Geneva
convention by allowing looting of hospitals.
But perhaps I get different news than you do?
Sanity
lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 bomb vice president) wrote:
> >From: Sanity sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk
>
> >> The press should have unlimited freedom on the battlefield?
> >
> >Yes. We, the common folk, have the right to know what's going on.
>
> Even if it means the death of American soldiers? You sir, are confusing.
Well, first of all, I'm against war, so if I was in charge, there
wouldn't be any American soldiers to die over there.
Second of all, I don't think that soldiers would die because of
reporters running around. Unless it's a badly organised army. With
massive leaks to the press.
> You -want- anyone with press credentials to be able to report, say, that the
> Fourth Armored Division is going to approach from the west at such and such a
> time and with these many soldiers.
>
> Do you actively hate American soldiers that much or are you just clueless?
>
> I'm hoping for the latter.
Thank you for hoping I'm clueless. Now please stop putting words in my
mouth. I have not stated that I actively hate American soldiers. I
consider anyone that joins the army willingly and knowingly to be
silly, because it means at some point that you will have to kill
people, and find yourself in unpleasant circumstances. But I do not
hate people for doing so.
Now, if a reporter is so well up to date about what an army is going
to do, the enemy army will know it too, probably more detailed than
the reporter himself. If it isn't, than we will still have to consider
that a journalist is still a human being capable of thinking. A
journalist will think about the story to tell to the people. A
journalist will consider what the merit is of giving detailed
information about troup movements. Because the journalist will also
consider what the enemy might do with that information. So the
journalist can then decide to not mention the information, or not go
into a level of detail that might get soldiers killed. But at least
the journalist has free access to the information, and can judge for
himself whether to use it, and how to use it. Which might still mean
we won't get to see the exact troup movements, only now it's a
concious decision by a journalist, and not the result of manipulation
by an army.
To go back to my original statement that we have the right to know
what's going on: I don't care about some division attacking from the
west with a certain number of soldiers. But I do care about the
information that there is an attack, and what is happening (death
toll, wounded, damage to buildings and infrastructure, reaction of the
civilians, etc).
I hope I made myself clear, and please do not assume that someone is
clueless just because their opinion differs from yours, okay?
Lesley Weston
11/04/2003 3:06 PM:
> Lots42 bomb vice president wrote:
>
>>> From: Dante da...@geeklife.com
>>
>>> Seriously, I can't believe anyone thinks independent reporting is a bad
>>> thing.
>>
>> Independent reporting on a battlefield is a bad thing. Loose lips sink
>> ships. Please try to comprehend this.
>>
>> Rogue camera crews reporting millitary positions...Iraqi forces drive out,
>> shoot up position, kill two soldiers. I really don't think some nebolous
>> 'freedom of the press' thing in the middle of the battlefield is worth
>> putting soldier's lives at risk.
>
> I'll disagree with you here. While, of course, deliberate revealing of
> military information should be stopped,
Perhaps the issue is more about inadvertent revealing of
military information. Reporters can't be expected to make the right
judgement every time, especially while they are under such stress.
> "Freedom of speech" has a
> considerable value which justifies some risk to soldiers lives.
I'm not sure the individual soldiers whose lives might be considered worth
risking in this way would agree with you there.
>It is not
> black and white thing - there are judgements to be made. But "there is a
> war on" has been used by totalitarian regimes to destroy legitimate (by my
> standards, of course) criticism. If reporters feel the *cannot* report,
> atroocities will occur. To thos who say America would not do this, I
> mention My Lai. While some are better than others, all (nearly) humans are
> corruptible and will, under pressure, do things that even they would
> criticize in other circumstances.
Agreed. However, I don't think anyone is suggesting that all war reporting
should be stopped, just that reporters who are actually involved in a battle
should be careful what they say, and should be subject to some kind of
editorial authority, until the battle is over.
Lesley Weston.
Lesley Weston
sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk wrote on 12/04/2003 2:49 AM:
> In article <20030411153336...@mb-fb.aol.com>,
> lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 bomb vice president) wrote:
>
>>> From: Aleks A.-Lessmann al...@lessmann-consulting.com
>>
>>> How many quotes do you want to read to realize that that information is
>>> erroneous at least, false for sure and a deliberate lie if you are so
>>> disposed?
>>>
>>
>> I'm just trying to consider it logically.
>>
>> It's either there were shots fired and the return fire was justified.
>>
>> Or there weren't and the soldiers made a blunder.
>>
>> Or there weren't and the soldiers deliberatly attacked the hotel.
>>
>> I'm trying to point out that one and two are incredibly more likely then
>> three.
>
> Your consideration is indeed logical now, your conclusion isn't IMO. I
> think you'll find that, considering the statements that go against the
> US army, two and three are the most likely.
>
No, I can't agree. There's no reason why the soldiers would deliberately
attack the hotel - it just wouldn't make sense, and they have shown
considerable sense in this campaign. Two is the most likely, IMO, but one is
possible.
Lesley Weston.
Nigel Stapley
"Lesley Weston" <les...@vancouverbc.net> wrote in message
news:BABDD634.9171%les...@vancouverbc.net...
<snip>
> >It is not
> > black and white thing - there are judgements to be made. But "there is a
> > war on" has been used by totalitarian regimes to destroy legitimate (by
my
> > standards, of course) criticism. If reporters feel the *cannot* report,
> > atroocities will occur. To thos who say America would not do this, I
> > mention My Lai. While some are better than others, all (nearly) humans
are
> > corruptible and will, under pressure, do things that even they would
> > criticize in other circumstances.
>
> Agreed. However, I don't think anyone is suggesting that all war reporting
> should be stopped, just that reporters who are actually involved in a
battle
> should be careful what they say, and should be subject to some kind of
> editorial authority, until the battle is over.
Possibly, *as long as we are told that that is the case*. All too often in
this 'war', that has *not* happened.
For example, all of the BBC's reports from Iraq prior to the 'fall' of the
regime which I saw were prefaced with the newsreader intoning something
like, "Rageh Omaar's report has been compiled under scrutiny by Iraqi
officials". OK, I can take that. I'd like to know.
What I find unacceptable is the complete lack of preface to any report by an
'embedded' journo with the words, "This report from John Simpson (1) has
been compiled under scrutiny of the Pentagon / MoD / State Dept."
In giving the impression by this omission that there was *no* censorship of
dispatches from reporters in with the 'coalition', the broadcasters are
guilty of, at the very least, lack of objectivity ; at the worst,
dishonesty.
(1) Or whover.
--
Nigel Stapley
(remove <gwrthsbam.> to reply)
All sigs suspended until further notice as a
mark of respect to the victims of US/UK illegality.
Lesley Weston
sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk wrote on 12/04/2003 12:39 PM:
<snip>
> Anyway, I think the news is fairly balanced. First we saw the gross
> excaggeration of the tearing down of Saddam's statue, with a massive
> 150 people gathered to celebrate their liberation for all the media to
> see, and now we see that the coalition forces are breaking the Geneva
> convention by allowing looting of hospitals.
>
> But perhaps I get different news than you do?
I watched the statue being brought down, live on CNN; it went on for about
two hours, much longer than the snippets shown in all the news programmes.
From time to time, the camera pulled back to show the large crowd, all of
them jubilant. I thought it was a nice piece of symbolism - the Iraqis
struggled on their own to bring down the statue, showing enthusiasm and
ingenuity but, being without the proper tools, were unable to do it. After
some time, an American tank recovery vehicle appeared and a group of five
Iraqis went up to talk to the Americans. The vehicle then circled to reach a
position where it could be used and, with technical help from the Americans,
the Iraqis brought down the statue. For a short time - about two minutes -
there was an American flag on the statue, but it was immediately replaced by
a pre-Gulf War Iraqi flag handed up the ladder by an Iraqi.
How are the coalition forces to prevent looting, without imposing
martial law? If they did that, they would be even less popular with their
detractors. As it is, the curfew they have introduced is being presented as
a Bad Thing.
Lesley Weston.
Sherilyn
What are the American soldiers doing in that country?
--
Sherilyn
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -Bierce
Sherilyn
I don't know whether this applies to TV, which I do watch but not for
news, but the radio reports from embedded reporters _were_ prefaced by
a warning that location and operational details could not be
discussed. Some embedded reporters definitely do seem to have become
denatured, but I think most of us are bright enough to realise that
this happens.
Stevie D
> You -want- anyone with press credentials to be able to report, say,
> that the Fourth Armored Division is going to approach from the west
> at such and such a time and with these many soldiers.
If a press reporter can find out confidential information like that, I
would be very surprised if the Iraq military intelligence¹ had not
already found out several days before.
No, I don't want to see reporters giving away state secrets on
international TV, but that's not going to happen. What they could give
us is /relatively/ unbiased, factual information about what has
happened and what is happening. But Shrub and his buddies don't want
that, for fairly obvious reasons².
¹ This phrase brought to you by Oxymorons'R'Us ™.
² ie., they would be shown *not* to be the saviours of the world as
they like to pretend, but as megalomaniac glory-hunters with a
personal vendetta.
--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
Lots42 bomb vice president
>If you really want them to be free to go anywhere, then you're going to
>end up with dead journalists.
And dead Marines.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Which might still mean
>we won't get to see the exact troup movements, only now it's a
>concious decision by a journalist, and not the result of manipulation
>by an army.
I trust J. Random Lt. to control vital information more then I trust J. Random
Reporter.
>To go back to my original statement that we have the right to know
>what's going on: I don't care about some division attacking from the
>west with a certain number of soldiers.
The soldiers in that division do care and would not want someone going on TV
and saying so. You seem to be under the impression that since the division
knows what they're going to do and so does the embedded reporter, this means
the enemy knows also. I could be wrong but if I'm not, well, you're wrong.
>But I do care about the
>information that there is an attack, and what is happening (death
>toll, wounded, damage to buildings and infrastructure, reaction of the
>civilians, etc).
If the division doing the attacking wants to reveal the information, more power
to them. If they tell the embedded reporter, "You can't say this this and
this." more power to them. If we can't trust them with vital information, why
are we trusting them with guns?
>I hope I made myself clear, and please do not assume that someone is
>clueless just because their opinion differs from yours, okay?
I didn't. I was asking.
>I
>consider anyone that joins the army willingly and knowingly to be
>silly, because it means at some point that you will have to kill
>people,
I disagree with that very much. I wish we didn't have a world where an army is
needed but we do. And anyone who voluntarily joins up earns my respect.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>² ie., they would be shown *not* to be the saviours of the world as
>they like to pretend, but as megalomaniac glory-hunters with a
>personal vendetta.
>
What personal vendetta?
Lots42 bomb vice president
>No, I don't want to see reporters giving away state secrets on
>international TV, but that's not going to happen. What they could give
>us is /relatively/ unbiased, factual information about what has
>happened and what is happening.
A good argument can be made on reporting what is happening and what has
happened. (Not that I agree in total) But the person I'm debating with also
wants reporters to be able to report what is -going- to happen. Doing so is
insanely dangerous for all involved.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Should we focus on the happy side of war?
>There's a lot less of happy stuff happening.
I consider the liberation of most of Iraq to be good news.
>and now we see that the coalition forces are breaking the Geneva
>convention by allowing looting of hospitals.
>
>But perhaps I get different news than you do?
Apparently so, since you believe the coalition forces are allowing the looting
of hospitals.
News.google.com has links indicating the coalition forces are working on
stopping the looting.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>a Bad Thing.
>
>Lesley Weston.
>
The news informed me that the curfew isn't policy for all of Coalition forces.
It's just that ground commanders have the discretion to impose curfew in
certain areas as they see fit. That makes a hell of a lot of sense.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>All or which seems very much
>at odds with your view - central govenment is, buy defintion right; since
>doubt might have a cost, doubt cannot be permitted. Tjhose who promote
>doubt may be disposed of if they get in the way.
>
I don't know what you're going on about but I certainly do not agree with those
last two statements.
Lora D
president) wrote:
>>From: lo...@eudoramail.com (Lora D)
>
>>Targeting journalists is also a violation of the Geneva Convention.
>
>Then it even makes more sense for the US millitary to warn reporters. After
>all, from what I understand, a transmission sattallite looks a heck of a lot
>like millitary equipment. Nobody really wants Australian News Team 5 to get a
>Hellfire missile up the ass.
Right. that's why the reporters make sure the military knows where
they are, for instance, the Palestine hotel. And that's why
Al-Jazeera, and every other news agency, notifies the military of
their office location. So, if the military shells the press, it's
_very_ hard to believe it's an accident.
>>>You don't want
>>>independent reporters running amok in the battlefield, transmitting
>>>god-knows-what to god-knows-who?
>>
>>This happens?
>
>Why does it have to happen to be a concern? I don't know of any enemy
>combatants successfully slipping past base fences but they still have gaurds.
>>Geraldo doesn't count, because everyone knows
>>he's an idiot loose cannon.
>
>So because he would presumably do what I'm concerned about, he doesn't count?
>Odd.
Odd, indeed, that you snip my post so as to distort the meaning. I
wrote:
>This happens? Cite. (Geraldo doesn't count, because everyone knows
>he's an idiot loose cannon. Can't seem to get himself fired, though --
>more's the pity.)
To clarify, I asked you to cite an occurrance of "independent
reporters running amok in the battlefield, transmitting god-knows-what
to god-knows-who", not counting the much-publicized Geraldo incident,
in which he appeared on network TV *drawing a map of troop movements
in the sand*, thus proving what everyone already knew, that he's an
idiot. (FWIW, he's not exactly "independent", nor has he ever been a
responsible journalist. Not only did he not lose his job, he was
allowed back into Iraq.)
To avoid answering the question, you distorted my point. If you don't
want to discuss facts, for heaven's sake just say so. You're welcome
to speculate about mights and maybes all you like, but if you can't
back it up with facts, it's just hot air.
>>He's a
<you snipped reference to Peter Arnett (not Geraldo)>
>>Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent, with decades of experience,
>>and he does have a clue.
>
>If he did, he wouldn't have gone on Iraqi television and babbled nonsense.
>(Yes, I did read what he said. He's a moron).
What part of the interview do you think was a problem? And was it
because he "babbled nonsense" or because he "spilled info" as you said
before? BTW, if you found a transcription, could you post the URL? I
was only able to find the video (on the CBC website).
My impression was that he was interviewed as a commentator and said
basically the same stuff that all the stateside commentators were
saying, in print and on the air.
Major media outside the U.S. have reported that he consented to the
interview, with the approval of his bosses, because he was courting
the co-operation of Iraqi officials, probably trying to wangle an
interview with Saddam (whom he has interviewed before). If he had
achieved that, we'd know if Saddam were dead or alive. NBC initially
supported him, then abruptly fired him the next day. The network is
owned by GE, which depends greatly on military contracts.
--
Lora in MT