Coroner: U.S. killed British TV reporter

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't think people have a problem with the fact they were killed in a war zone - if they had been hiding out in a building or something which was hit by a stray shell, well, you take the risk don't you.

What people here have a problem with is they were quite likely killed on purpose. In the report I saw, the car was clearly marked "TV", yet they shot it anyway. Would this have happened to an American TV crew? I think not. It seems there is a serious amount of hate for the British and Europeans in general in the US.

uhh, we have no hate for the British.. at least, I've never seen any.

Not all of you, I've met some very kind decent Americans, it's just some of you. American news channels, blogs, and forums are full of anti-European crap.

Now, I'm not denying there's anti-Americanism here - because there definately is - but it's not in the serious media. Fox news for example never ceases to amaze me. I saw a bit on Fox once which said that Britain is un-free (I believe the word fascist was mentioned too) because America has a bill of rights, completely ignoring the fact that Britain has a bill of rights that predates the American one by over 100 years. Why would they do that?

I believe that the UK does have fewer freedoms than Americans. (handguns for example).

We don't want your gun laws. If we did, we would vote them in - that is freedom.

that said, I have never heard anyone be anything but thankful for the allegiance England has showed the US throughout the last two centuries. trust me, we do count the UK as one of our only real allies... now, the same cannot be said for the rest of Europe. The rest of Europe often turns their collective back on the UK and America both.

Not participating in Iraq may heve been disloyal, but it may also have been the morally correct thing to do. Time will tell. I'ts not a cause for hate anyway.

Statisticly, if no one was shooting on purpose, there would have been an equal number of deaths on both sides right?

that right there is an ouright falicy. Quite often the US enters a fight and leaves unscathed while leaving the enemy in tattered ruins. This is due to superior equipment, preperations, and training. There are hardly any engagements that end with an equal number of casualties on both sides. I don't know what would make you think otherwise. Hell, in Afghanistan alone, we've killed hundreds for every soldier we've lost! the same is true for all of the major engagements in Iraq.

I will assume you did in fact read my post and are not confusing the friendly fire incidents I'm talking about with actual battles against the enemy...

You are not that much better equipped and trained than us, in fact, British Marines and special forces training was the basis for training the first American units of the same ilk. The reason the British are being killed by the Americans, but the Americans are not being killed by the British, is that the Americans are shooting at the British, but not the other way round.

I havent seen any recent statistics on friendly-fire incidents. If what you're saying is accurate, then yes, something is broken and needs to be fixed. However, we need that data first. I highly doubt that the Brits have somehow totally eliminated friendly-fire incidents. AFAIK, it's a sad reality for all militaries.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

you are going to sit there with a straight face and state that you believe that there were just as many journalists in Vietnam as there are and have been in Iraq? nevermind then, you are summarily dismissed for being ridiculous...

lol
Don't forget to blame the liberal meda for the downfall of your invasion

There was alot more actual reporting on Vietnam then there was on Iraq. Remember the mil blamed that failure on the media
The whole attach a reporter from Cnn to a squad and send them to nowhere was a blantant attempt to control any media

 

[Dean]

It is widely known by the coalition forces over there that the Americans have a fire first, ask questions later additude. It got to the point last year where the forces feared getting killed by the Americans as much as the enemy.

Yes accidents do happen, but of almost all the friendly fire incidents, the Americans come out listed as having the itchy trigger finger in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

If those responsible are not brought to justice, alot of the American soldiers will continue to look at Iraq as nothing more than a shooting gallery. If it moves, shoot.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Journalists killed in Iraq - 85
Journalists killed in Vietnam (1955-1975) - 66 or 71

what's the point of that statistic? Why dont you give a total # of journalists IN those countries to compare it to. I have no idea what that total is, but I'm guessing there is at least a 1000 to 1 ratio... give us a % of the total # of journalists in each country who have been killed.

thanks ahead of time!

Are you trying to say there is more journalists in Iraq then there was in Vietnam?
I remember watching the war happen every day back then (even here in Canada) I have seen very little actual footage of Iraq

Heres where I got the numbers, you do the math
Text

Looking at your stat page, 59 of the 85 were killed by insurgents. Included in those 59 are 49 outright murders. 64 of the 85 were Iraqi reporters. I think the situation and the stats would be a bit different if the insurgency wasn't going around murdering the local reporters who may be putting out stories they didn't like?

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Another side-affect, if you will, of war, is rape of women and girls, beatings and killings of the local populace, thievery and all manner of illegal activities. Are those actions to be forgiven as well? Following the logic of the Bush supporters in here, that would seem to be the case. Anything goes I guess. Shoot the journalists! :disgust:

No, it isn't. The logic is you are in a war zone. You take an inherent risk by putting yourself in the middle of the action. So don't be bitchin' when you get shot.

I agree. Notice how they blame everyone but the terrorists. That's like eating at McDonalds every day and being surprised when you get fat. There are risks and consequences associated with certain activities. I'm sorry that this guy got killed, but it IS a war zone - people get shot, killed, blown up, tortured, and all manner of horrible things.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Well, obviously. After all, they are in "the war zone"!

These people can't even detect the absurdity of their own statements.

No wonder 650,00 dead and counting.

This war has had me scratching my head - it's really weird to see the death stats on the news. They have the exact body count every day, plus the complete history of each soldier who died. For some reason I think that if we could track things that well we could prevent them :disgust:

 

[LunarRay]

You can't dance around the fact that an Inquest in England has found evidence that a crime may have been committed... That is a Fact!...
I think they are astute enough to understand the differences some of you are tossing about supporting the impossibility of a crime being committed interwoven with tangential or irrelevant commentary and the very real and tangible evidence presented to them.
Attack the source if you can.. but like the folks charged with murdering folks in a home... the same arguments were rendered... Get a clue... Crime is Crime no matter the locale or conditions if it is codified to be a crime - the act that was alleged to have been committed...