after all the denials

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

PARIS (Reuters) - The commander of a U.S. tank unit that hit a Baghdad hotel, killing two cameramen during the battle for the Iraqi capital, says he was unaware the building was packed with journalists, according to a French magazine.
Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso, a cameraman for Spanish channel Tele 5, were killed when a tank shell hit the 15th floor of the Palestine Hotel. Three other members of the Reuters team were wounded.
Capt. Philip Wolford, who led the Abrams tanks defending a bridge near the Palestine Hotel on April 8, was quoted as saying he authorized the attack after his men spotted what appeared to be someone using binoculars on the roof of the same building.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,156 • Replies: 40

No top replies

OK, what is wrong in attacking those that make observations after the force? These might be people tracing enemy force for attacking it. The officer was unaware of their being journalists. It happens in course of war.

0 Replies

steissd,

1. In technological terms, this was no WWI. It was a known fact, around the world, that the Palestine Hotel was the headquarters of the international press.

2. The Central Command declared that it was subject to sniper fire, and kept on declaring it after all the journalists said they had heard none. Pro-war US media speculated that the hit "couldn't have been made" by a tank with the characteristics of the alleged attacker, and that it must have been another "desperate attempt" of Saddam killing innocents and blaming impolute America.

3. This incident was discussed in the "US, UN and Iraq" thread. It was relatively easy, and less commiting, for those supporting the war to go by the Centcom's declarations or to digress about the tank's capability of shooting that high, regardless of facts such as the tank aiming calmly to the 14th floor while the alleged snipers were on the lobby. I really think that, on that time, you should have stated that it was all right to attack those "making observations after the force", and unmask your ideological willingness of victory at any human or political cost.

0 Replies

So, you claim that this was a deliberate killing of journalists? IMo, this was an error, just like errors with "Patriots" shooting at British fighters, and U.S. pilot attacking "Patriot" battery. Such things happen in course of war: wrong identification of target resulting in wrong action. By the way, when a hostile militant observes the soldiers or machines, he often searches for targets among them, therefore, such an observer poses a real and immediate danger to the force.

0 Replies

i would guess that it was indeed an error of the battle-the far bigger ERROR is the outright denial of it happening by Rumsfeld/Pentagon.

0 Replies

I wrote in the said thread, and in others, that I thought it was an error of the American forces, not an intent on killing journalists.

I think it is a error who tells a lot about the American GIs' nerviousness, a "kill first, find out later" attitude.

What I disliked most was the "let's put the dirt under the carpet" attitude by the Central Command. I never believed in the sniper theory. This sniper theory was typical propaganda from Centcom.

If CentCom had said: "our tank confused the journalists with snipers because of the camera lenses, we're deeply sorry; things like these happen in wars", then I would have thought: "this people have honor".
They didn't.

0 Replies

The original artile is here, in French of course (sorry, but use google or bablefish or translate it yourself :wink: ):

Nouvelle Observateur 17.04.03

The tank commander was asked, if he really didn't know that htere civilians, journalists in the hotel, a fact, the whole world knew. He said: "No."

0 Replies

Have to agree with fbaezer on this one.

0 Replies

What do you think about the bombing of Al-Jazeera's offices in Baghdad that occurred the same day? Error? Deliberate attempt to silence?

What about this story that seems to have slipped through the cracks?

Quote:

Israelis shoot dead cameraman

"An Israeli soldier shot and killed a cameraman with Associated Press television news who was covering a skirmish between troops and rock-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank city of Nablus today, witnesses said.

The Israeli military had no immediate comment but said it was looking into the shooting."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,939837,00.html

0 Replies

Quote:

IDF cameraman, five Palestinians killed in Rafah

By Amos Harel and Arnon Regular

IDF cameraman Cpl. Lior Ziv, 19, from Holon, was killed early yesterday and three other soldiers were wounded during an operation to destroy a Hamas smuggling tunnel in Rafah. Five Palestinians were killed and 30 others wounded in the operation.

Source:HaAretz
Journalists try to find interesting facts to record, therefore they neglect safety rules on the battlefield and get killed or wounded. I do not think that Palestinians aimed the cameraman specifically for his being a journalist. Neither do the IDF soldiers do such things.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The original article is here, in French of course [...]

I do not think that the French media may be considered trustworthy in anything pertaining to the U.S. operation in Iraq.

0 Replies

When I am shot at, I don't stop to ask who is doing the shooting. I shoot back until the bullets stop coming my way. Anyone who would do otherwise will not live long. Anyone within a combat zone is liable to be injured, or killed. It is a risky, dangerous environment and only soldiers or fools go into such areas willingly.

Mao said, "war is not a tea party", and he was right. However, the U.S. military has always taken great care to keep casualties and destruction to the minimum. Our capability to efficiently direct our violence onto specific targets has greatly reduced collateral damage of all sorts. A little over fifty years ago, hundreds of thousands died as a result of combat in a single day. We lost over 50,000 during both the Korean War and Vietnam ... again there were days when thousands were injured or died. Some units in Vietnam and Korea suffered over 40% casualties in a single battle. This campaign is nearly concluded and less than 150 of our troops paid the ultimate price! They moved further, faster, and with greater efficiency than any previous campaign. Shucks, I would have regarded U.S. casualties of up to 10,000 (about 3% of 300,000) as acceptable, and 5,000 would have been regarded as light casulaties.

Though hard numbers are not available, nor may they ever be, similar reductions in casualties rates probably also exist for enemy civilians. Iraqi military deaths are also not easily quantifiable, but were almost certainly fewer than if we were still utilizing older miltiary technology and munitions.

Go Army!

0 Replies

Those that opposed and oppose this war will not be satisfied with any result except the American troops being defeated and retreating from Iraq, leaving behind them thousands of corpses, destroyed tanks and shot down strategic bombers, surrendering to Saddam's republican guards in whole divisions. Since such a thing is impossible (the opposite thing seems to be true), they search for different excuses to criticize the U.S. military. Well, there is an Arab proverb: "The dog barks at camels, but the caravan goes on"...

0 Replies

fbaezer

Quote:

I think it is an error who tells a lot about the American GIs' nerviousness, a "kill first, find out later" attitude.

Nervousness! Who wouldn't be as you say nervous when they are in the midst of battle and people are shooting at them. It is amazing how we safely sitting at our computers can make judgments on how to act when in harms way. I don't know what runs through peoples minds in those situations. However, placed in that situation there is no doubt that I would be inclined to shoot first.

0 Replies

As a former soldier, I feel necessary to confirm Au1929's words. Battlefield is not the most quiet environment possible... And pressure the battle poses on its participants makes errors being more probable to occur than in any other situations.

0 Replies

Was there any EVIDENCE of actual shooting from the hotel, Asherman, other than post hoc fiddling by the American command?

I am firmly with Fbaezer's view on this one.

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
The original article is here, in French of course [...]

I do not think that the French media may be considered trustworthy in anything pertaining to the U.S. operation in Iraq.

So you think this interview is a fake?

Why, just of your above said opinion or do you have any further proof?

0 Replies

dlowan
To you I can only ask
Vas You Dare charlie?

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

Those that opposed and oppose this war will not be satisfied with any result except the American troops being defeated and retreating from Iraq, leaving behind them thousands of corpses, destroyed tanks and shot down strategic bombers, surrendering to Saddam's republican guards in whole divisions. Since such a thing is impossible (the opposite thing seems to be true), they search for different excuses to criticize the U.S. military. Well, there is an Arab proverb: "The dog barks at camels, but the caravan goes on"...

Steissd, i've always had huge respect for your posts in the past - you've argued a side I do not agree with, but did it intelligently and fairly. But that post is gibberish!

Once the war began, I think just about everyone opposed to the war wanted a swift, painless victory on the side of the coalition. Had there been a lot of resistance, Bush would have upped the ante and we would be seeing the death toll raised by a factor of ten or a hundred, and possible threats of nuclear bombing. Not to mention the anguish we'd have seen from other countries in the region.

I think most of also expected a very quick victory too. Some were maybe suprised by the lack of an uprising, but in heinsight I guess it's understandable.

I was also against the war on Afghanistan, but complementary on the American troops for the low number of casualties. This war was different though, and there've been a lot more needless civilian deaths and deaths caused by friendly fire.

It's fair to say we have opposing views on the choice of war, but we have similar views on the outcome - noone wants to see humans die.

0 Replies

I know what is the general tone of the French media toward this war, and the general attitude of the French people and government toward this war and its results. I do not claim that French would distort facts (Nouvelle Observateur is not Pravda or Völkischer Beobachter), but presentation of information, suggestions and conclusions may be misleading.

0 Replies

after all the denials

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know