Appears the US is targeting journalists now, Al Jazeera was hit in two other incidents.
BillW wrote:Appears the US is targeting journalists now, Al Jazeera was hit in two other incidents.
I keep wanting to write, "You can't REALLY believe that," but I guess you do. And mostly, that fact makes me sad. I could take a lot of time to explain why, but why bother? I doubt you would want to know. You seem happy thinking the worst of the US and our men and women in uniform. Why would you care what I think about your disdain for our troops?
I have no disdain for the troops but plenty for you, but you don't have the capability to understand that.
I keep wanting to write, "You can't REALLY believe that," but I guess you do.
Kara, That is the same sentiment I hear from my Arab friends in Egypt and Tanzania. It's unfortunate that most Americans only see one side. c.i.
Obviously some troops know, how the war-propaganda-maschine works:
Quote:...
When told of the attack[US bombs may have killed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein], the Marines I'm traveling with ?- the 3rd Battalion of the 5th Brigade of the 1st Marine Division ?- were less than impressed: they've heard too many previous reports that later turned out to be untrue. Sure, they killed him, one Marine told me. "And they got Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar too."
Added another: "And they'll probably say they found [former Teamster leader] Jimmy Hoffa's body in there as well."
On their trip north from Kuwait to the city limits of Baghdad, the Marines have learned to trust only those things they can see in front of them. They started out thinking they would be rounding up prisoners of war, since the predictions were that the Iraqi regular army in southern Iraq would surrender en masse.
Instead, they found themselves in rolling firefights, against irregular troops dressed as civilians and armed only with machine guns or rocket-propelled grenades who attacked their columns with pickups or even motorcycles.
...
http://msnbc.com/news/897275.asp?cp1=1
Tuesday, 8 April
1650: UK security sources tell the BBC that they do not believe Saddam Hussein is dead.
If I had been told before the war that US forces would deliberately target and kill journalists, I would not have believed it.
But now I am not so sure.
I don't believe that tank commander didn't recognise the Palestine Hotel
I don't believe he came under RPG or sniper attack from the foyer
I don't believe he was unaware it was full of journalists and crew
I don't believe he would have fired at such a target without getting explict authorisation if not a direct order from way up the command structure.
As I said a few minutes after it happened, it was no accident. And no Americans were killed or injured.
I wouldn't be surprised if he had come under attack - iraqi untis using the hotel as a sheild. I am still highly suspiscious.
US military has surrounded the tv station in baghdad....
1632: A stray rocket, apparently fired in the war in neighbouring Iraq, killed one person in south-western Iran, the third such case since war began, reports said.
from the BBC - At a glance.
Grrrr....
frolic, remember this?
Gelisgesti wrote:
What will be said when the 'embeded' press corp get left at the gates of the city because is too 'dangerous' for them to proceed?
Some people here call me "The Al-Jazeera man". But you have to admit those journalists got a lot of nerve. They go to places and cities where no other journalists dare to go. They give us a different view on this conflict.
Gelisgesti, I can't wait until the books start coming out!
Chris Hedges, who has just written an increasingly famous and quoted book on being an "embedded" in the first Gulf War, writes the following:
Quote:War itself is venal, dirty, confusing and perhaps the most potent narcotic invented by humankind. Modern industrial warfare means that most of those who are killed never see their attackers. There is nothing glorious or gallant about it. If we saw what wounds did to bodies, how killing is far more like butchering an animal than the clean and neat Hollywood deaths on the screen, it would turn our stomachs. If we saw how war turns young people into intoxicated killers, how it gives soldiers a license to destroy not only things but other human beings, and if we saw the perverse thrill such destruction brings, we would be horrified and frightened. If we understood that combat is often a constant battle with a consuming fear we have perhaps never known, a battle that we often lose, we would find the abstract words of war--glory, honor and patriotism--not only hollow but obscene. If we saw the deep psychological scars of slaughter, the way it maims and stunts those who participate in war for the rest of their lives, we would keep our children away. Indeed, it would be hard to wage war...... The embedding of several hundred journalists in military units does not diminish the lie. These journalists do not have access to their own transportation. They depend on the military for everything, from food to a place to sleep. They look to the soldiers around them for protection. When they feel the fear of hostile fire, they identify and seek to protect those who protect them. They become part of the team. It is a natural reaction. I have felt it...... I doubt the journalists filing the hollow reports from Iraq, in which there are images but rarely any content, are aware of how they are being manipulated. They, like everyone else, believe. But when they look back they will find that war is always about betrayal. It is about betrayal of the young by the old, of soldiers by politicians and of idealists by the cynical men who wield power, the ones who rarely pay the cost of war. We pay that cost. And we will pay it again.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&c=2&s=hedges
I can understand being opposed to this war, but I find this notion of being opposed to ever taking military action to be one rooted in an absence of rational thought.
Tartarin what an amazing piece of writing. Thanks for posting.
[quote]I can understand being opposed to this war, but I find this notion of being opposed to ever taking military action to be one rooted in an absence of rational thought.[/quote]
tres, can't you imagine military action becoming so terrifyingly awful and end-of-the-world like -- surely we are not far from that now -- that no rational person would consider it even as a last solution?
Kara, it requires a civilization change to be able to approach your scenario. As a matter of fact, for us to reach the next civilized level, war has to become barbaric and only spoken of in the past tense! Easy for some of us, but currently, we have regressed
<sigh>