Jessica 0
Recommended Posts
Quote...It's a tragic incident, and an investigation is proper, and implying that he somehow deserved to be shot and killed for having a television camera when such coverage was endorsed and facilitated by the military is fucking disgusting.
The reporters are no longer "embeded." They are no longer being facilitated by the military. They ARE just wandering around in a war zone.
I am not saying he diserved to be shot. I am saying in the situation the soldier was facing, the soldier had to shoot to defend himself. Yes it was a tragic incident as I said earlier. And like I said earlier and agree with you, it needs to be investigated.
QuoteTHANK you. The reporters, photographers, etc. who kept all of us informed about the war were PUT THERE by the military.
And why were they put there? Because the military got tired of dumb ass journalists wandering around war zones and getting killed. It makes for BAD press. So...they figured if they imbedded them with troops they could protect them....and control them somewhat. Jessica....don't even blame tht shit on the military. Those assholes WANTED to be there. Don't go cryin when one fucked up and got themslves killed. WHAAAA!
Sorry....but I had to put the SMACK DOWN on this,
vonSanta 0
Quote
And why were they put there? Because the military got tired of dumb ass journalists wandering around war zones and getting killed.
Well, the military isn't ignorant about control issues. Having reporters embedded gives the military a *great* deal of control over the journalists. They won't go anywhere unless the military says so. Can always use 'sensitive information' excuse for censorship. And if there's a major CF somewhere, you think they're gonna send some camera crews to document it for the fine folks at home?
The 'free' press isn't free when it's controlled to a large extent by the military which naturally has its own agenda. The press in this case is just another tool in the box.
QuoteIt makes for BAD press. So...they figured if they imbedded them with troops they could protect them....and control them somewhat.
Protection is secondary to control. It'd be even worse press if some unfortunate 'incident' was filmed by a cameracrew no one knew was there. Reporters from war zones have always accepted the risk of their job. A lot were killed in the Balkans for instance. They live under many restrictions and if the dominant force in the area sets up hard rules, there's little they can do but follow them if they want *any* news at all to report.
Skydivers accept the risks in the sport. Wartime reporters do the same, for many of the same reasons. Their job is part of who they are etc. An embedded reporter is like a freeflier that's forced to fly on his tummie with a parafoil on his back. Sure it's SORTA like freeflying, in that you're skydiving, but it's not the same thing.
Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst
QuoteHowever, if we have troops over there that can't tell cameras from RPG's we have big problems.
This is just showing how little you know about the weapon systems, imaging devices, and stresses involved in modern war. A large video camera seen through a thermal imaging device on an M1 Abrams looks a lot like an RPG. Hell, it looks a lot like one when viewed quickly with the naked eye. Compare the camera with a TOW missile, Dragon missile, or Milan. You don't wait until these missiles fire to determine if they are weapons.
I can't believe that people sitting comfortable at their computer are second guessing this soldier! There should be an investigation to determine what happened. There should only be an investigation into this soldier to determine if he intentionally and knowingly killed a civilian journalist.
The Army does not practice journalist recognition. We practice NATO vs Soviet vehicle recognition to prevent fratricide. This was a procedural breakdown either with the journalist or the military. It was not an individual skills problem with the soldier. Journalists in wartime are in a dangerous situation and are subject to being accidentally killed. Hell, we even kill our own soldiers and allies sometimes. People under stress are going to see things differently than you and I, sitting in the air conditioning, eating moon pies, and drinking RC cola. Quit second guessing him!
Some of the assessments being made in this thread are like me (at 100 jumps) criticizing and giving advice on swooping to someone with 3,000 jumps. I'm sure I would be "corrected" by other members. If you don't have any experience in the matter then steer away from criticizing this soldier.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteAnd why were they put there? Because the military got tired of dumb ass journalists wandering around war zones and getting killed. It makes for BAD press. So...they figured if they imbedded them with troops they could protect them....
You may have been in the military Clay, but you were obviously not on the information control and public relations side. I think protecting the reporters was pretty much the last item on the list of reasons for embedding them.
Pretty naive to think that was the main reason....
QuotePretty naive to think that was the main reason....
So "Free Press" is SO important that we should let reporters in a War put what ever they want on TV. Even if it puts our troops at risk? Give me a fucking break. Are you people really that stupid?
KA-CHINK The sound of me cutting away this thread. It's gotten even more rediculous than I can imagine.
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteSo "Free Press" is SO important that we should let reporters in a War put what ever they want on TV. Even if it puts our troops at risk? Give me a fucking break. Are you people really that stupid?
That is not what I said, nor implied, nor was it the original point.
You claimed that the press was embedded so they could get protected, would not get killed and therefore no bad press. I stated that I thought that was pretty naive to think?
So, where did I say or imply that press should roam freely and report whatever they want?
Hence, I would leave the word stupid out of the thread
juanesky 0
You may have been in the military Clay, but you were obviously not on the information control and public relations side. I think protecting the reporters was pretty much the last item on the list of reasons for embedding them.
Pretty naive to think that was the main reason....
It sounds to me that that is exactly what you are implying the same as Von, once an operation is over, yes, no problem on telling the tactics after, but if you think we should allow a stupid press that is bent sometimes in bombing us with shitty bad, ignorant crap (as was when the OJ simpson trials) I for one will believe that they will publish sensitive information that could endanger the troops. Operations should be kept secret. Now, if the press wants to be waiting in these areas, they should just accept the risk and move on.
Pretty naive to think that was the main reason....
QuoteQuoteSo "Free Press" is SO important that we should let reporters in a War put what ever they want on TV. Even if it puts our troops at risk? Give me a fucking break. Are you people really that stupid?
That is not what I said, nor implied, nor was it the original point.
You claimed that the press was embedded so they could get protected
So, where did I say or imply that press should roam freely and report whatever they want?
Hence, I would leave the word stupid out of the thread
It sounds to me that that is exactly what you are implying the same as Von, once an operation is over, yes, no problem on telling the tactics after, but if you think we should allow a stupid press that is bent sometimes in bombing us with shitty bad, ignorant crap (as was when the OJ simpson trials) I for one will believe that they will publish sensitive information that could endanger the troops. Operations should be kept secret. Now, if the press wants to be waiting in these areas, they should just accept the risk and move on.
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
Tonto 1
QuoteI am saying in the situation the soldier was facing, the soldier had to shoot to defend himself.
Really? I would have thought he would have been video'ed. Did he really need to shoot to defend himself? Against a camera? I don't think so.
t
It's the year of the Pig.
juanesky 0
So you are saying that his action, given the environment was not suspicious, even though people who know best than you, say that this camera could be confused as an RPG by the tanks?
Why do you refuse to stick to the facts?
Just wondering...Post a better joke, at least is better to laugh a little than being sad for a terrible thing that happened.
Why do you refuse to stick to the facts?
Just wondering...Post a better joke, at least is better to laugh a little than being sad for a terrible thing that happened.
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
Tonto 1
I've had my own war, and had my own pressure.
The soldier had a brain fart. He was shitting himself - and when someone pointed something harmless at him, he over reacted. It's the classic "shoot now - ask questions later" philosophy.
It's sad. It's understandable. Shit happens.
But he wasn't right.
The journo was doing his job. The soldier fucked up his.
t
The soldier had a brain fart. He was shitting himself - and when someone pointed something harmless at him, he over reacted. It's the classic "shoot now - ask questions later" philosophy.
It's sad. It's understandable. Shit happens.
But he wasn't right.
The journo was doing his job. The soldier fucked up his.
t
It's the year of the Pig.
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteIt sounds to me that that is exactly what you are implying the same as Von
really, then read again.
Quotebut if you think we should allow a stupid press that is bent sometimes in bombing us with shitty bad, ignorant crap (as was when the OJ simpson trials) I for one will believe that they will publish sensitive information that could endanger the troops.
I agree with you, hence they embedded they embedded the reporters so they could more closely control the information flow. The did NOT embedd the reporters to protect them. That is what all I said. I did not say let them run free, I did not say they should be allowed to just report whatever they wanted, etc etc.
So, where was I implying that?
juanesky 0
QuoteI've had my own war, and had my own pressure.
The soldier had a brain fart. He was shitting himself - and when someone pointed something harmless at him, he over reacted. It's the classic "shoot now - ask questions later" philosophy.
It's sad. It's understandable. Shit happens.
But he wasn't right.
The journo was doing his job. The soldier fucked up his.
t
Indeed, but the soldier was not the only one to fuck up. The camera guy could have been more careful too, and I think that this is what seems to have happened.
Still it is sad, but the soldier was also doing his. Defending his men, unit, and trying to be safe.
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
billvon 2,442
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>The Army does not practice journalist recognition. We practice NATO
> vs Soviet vehicle recognition to prevent fratricide.
Correct. And we occasionally screw up. The correct response: fix the problem. Practice more so we don't kill the wrong people. The incorrect response: "Hey, sometimes we're gonna kill British soldiers, so just deal with it! It's war! We're not going to try to fix it."
>Hell, we even kill our own soldiers and allies sometimes.
And you're OK with that? We shouldn't try to avoid that? I disagree - if that's what you're saying.
>There should be an investigation to determine what happened.
> There should only be an investigation into this soldier to determine
> if he intentionally and knowingly killed a civilian journalist.
That's exactly right. Find out what the problem was and fix it. It may well not be his fault at all; he may simply not have the training to tell a camera from an RPG. If he doesn't, that training has to be added. We are now an occupying foreign army in a country where major combat has ended. That means that being able to tell a reporter from a enemy soldier is now a more important skill to have.
> vs Soviet vehicle recognition to prevent fratricide.
Correct. And we occasionally screw up. The correct response: fix the problem. Practice more so we don't kill the wrong people. The incorrect response: "Hey, sometimes we're gonna kill British soldiers, so just deal with it! It's war! We're not going to try to fix it."
>Hell, we even kill our own soldiers and allies sometimes.
And you're OK with that? We shouldn't try to avoid that? I disagree - if that's what you're saying.
>There should be an investigation to determine what happened.
> There should only be an investigation into this soldier to determine
> if he intentionally and knowingly killed a civilian journalist.
That's exactly right. Find out what the problem was and fix it. It may well not be his fault at all; he may simply not have the training to tell a camera from an RPG. If he doesn't, that training has to be added. We are now an occupying foreign army in a country where major combat has ended. That means that being able to tell a reporter from a enemy soldier is now a more important skill to have.
billvon 2,442
>I am saying in the situation the soldier was facing, the soldier
> had to shoot to defend himself.
The situation was that he was facing a camera. A camera does not threaten a soldier's life; he did not need to kill the journalist to defend himself. I would find it hard to believe that you think it's OK to kill reporters armed only with cameras, so I have a feeling you misspoke above. (At least I sure hope so.)
That's not the issue anyway. The issue is the soldier mistakenly thought that the reporter had a weapon. From all indications it sounds like an honest mistake, for reasons others have listed. So we take steps to not make the same mistake in the future. Seems pretty straightforward.
> had to shoot to defend himself.
The situation was that he was facing a camera. A camera does not threaten a soldier's life; he did not need to kill the journalist to defend himself. I would find it hard to believe that you think it's OK to kill reporters armed only with cameras, so I have a feeling you misspoke above. (At least I sure hope so.)
That's not the issue anyway. The issue is the soldier mistakenly thought that the reporter had a weapon. From all indications it sounds like an honest mistake, for reasons others have listed. So we take steps to not make the same mistake in the future. Seems pretty straightforward.
QuoteThe Army does not practice journalist recognition. We practice NATO
> vs Soviet vehicle recognition to prevent fratricide.
Correct. And we occasionally screw up. The correct response: fix the problem. Practice more so we don't kill the wrong people.
No that's NOT correct. Once again...if any of you knew what you were talking about you might know why this is wrong. In damn near EVERY military exercise the Army puts "Non-combatants" on the battlefield. These run the spectrum from journalists, to women and children, angry protestors, people dressed in civilian clothes that are trying to "kill" you, etc etc. Hmmm....sounds sorta like the "real" thing doesn't it. Any idea what happens if a soldier "kills" someone they aren't supposed to in an exercise? They can go to jail. No...not "exercise pretend" jail. They can and usually are prosecuted. The Army takes that shit VERY seriously. So...the soldiers ARE trained in just this type of situation. Now...can all of you that don't know what you are talking about because you haven't even BEEN CLOSE to this kind of situation please CLOSE YOUR HOLE. You are just wasting bandwidth.
billvon 2,442
>>Correct. And we occasionally screw up. The correct response: fix the
>> problem. Practice more so we don't kill the wrong people.
>No that's NOT correct . . .
Sorry, I was replying to his "we practice NATO vehicle recognition" thing.
>So...the soldiers ARE trained in just this type of situation.
Interesting. Sounds like good news for the future of journalists in occupied countries, but bad news for this particular soldier.
>> problem. Practice more so we don't kill the wrong people.
>No that's NOT correct . . .
Sorry, I was replying to his "we practice NATO vehicle recognition" thing.
>So...the soldiers ARE trained in just this type of situation.
Interesting. Sounds like good news for the future of journalists in occupied countries, but bad news for this particular soldier.
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteNow...can all of you that don't know what you are talking about because you haven't even BEEN CLOSE to this kind of situation please CLOSE YOUR HOLE. You are just wasting bandwidth
right, so am I to assume that you really have fucked sheep? Cause you certainly seem to talk about it much. With your reasoning, since you talk about it and discuss it, you really have fucked sheep.
Speaking of waisting bandwith........
juanesky 0
Quote>I am saying in the situation the soldier was facing, the soldier
> had to shoot to defend himself.
The situation was that he was facing a camera. A camera does not threaten a soldier's life; he did not need to kill the journalist to defend himself. I would find it hard to believe that you think it's OK to kill reporters armed only with cameras, so I have a feeling you misspoke above. (At least I sure hope so.
That's not the issue anyway. The issue is the soldier mistakenly thought that the reporter had a weapon. From all indications it sounds like an honest mistake, for reasons others have listed. So we take steps to not make the same mistake in the future. Seems pretty straightforward.
Bill, this is the issue, the camera guy could have been more careful, and identify himself, a lot of people with training in this matter, I will include myself, that this person was in a war zone, so if you think that soldiers are going to be waiting for the sppeding person car, coming at them during these situations, that is far from truth.
The responsible things for all parties, should be to be careful where you are, what you do. Don't trigger suspicion for people to shoot you. It is sad indeed, but in every war there will be going to be casualties.
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
billvon 2,442
>Bill, this is the issue, the camera guy could have been more careful, and identify himself . . .
Definitely. The end result of this is (I hope) that both sides will be more careful to identify both who they are and who they are shooting.
Definitely. The end result of this is (I hope) that both sides will be more careful to identify both who they are and who they are shooting.
Wow, this thread is spinning downward towards a very slow and painful death...
I created a monster.
I created a monster.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
QuoteWith your reasoning, since you talk about it and discuss it, you really have fucked sheep.
So you're saying that there is some doubt?
THANK you. The reporters, photographers, etc. who kept all of us informed about the war were PUT THERE by the military. This was not some random jerk wandering around a war zone uninvited. It's a tragic incident, and an investigation is proper, and implying that he somehow deserved to be shot and killed for having a television camera when such coverage was endorsed and facilitated by the military is fucking disgusting.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites