TV Reporter killed during live broadcast from Baghdad

[Isshinryu]

Originally posted by: Vic
I do not think that our soldiers should be firing on crowds of civilians, regardless of what those civilians might be celebrating.

Reminds me of Rules of Engagment...what if those civilians had guns?

 

[phreakah]

Originally posted by: Vic
I do not think that our soldiers should be firing on crowds of civilians, regardless of what those civilians might be celebrating.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

"As the helicopters flew over the burning Bradley they received small arms fire from the insurgents in the vicinity of the vehicle," said Major Philip Smith of the 1st Cavalry Division. "Clearly within the rules of engagement, the helicopters returned fire destroying some anti-Iraqi forces in the vicinity of the Bradley."

Investigation is being ordered, obviously.

- M4H

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Isshinryu

Originally posted by: Vic
I do not think that our soldiers should be firing on crowds of civilians, regardless of what those civilians might be celebrating.

Reminds me of Rules of Engagment...what if those civilians had guns?

"What if's" are irrelevant (and usually used as a way to peddle fear).

 

[Cable God]

Originally posted by: HoodRich
us our army shouldnt be durr anywayz

lurnd ehhbonix huh?

 

[Isshinryu]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Isshinryu

Originally posted by: Vic
I do not think that our soldiers should be firing on crowds of civilians, regardless of what those civilians might be celebrating.

Reminds me of Rules of Engagment...what if those civilians had guns?

"What if's" are irrelevant (and usually used as a way to peddle fear). There is no mention that they did.

Well, it was stated they recieved fire, so I believe the retaliation was appropriate.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Isshinryu

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Isshinryu

Originally posted by: Vic
I do not think that our soldiers should be firing on crowds of civilians, regardless of what those civilians might be celebrating.

Reminds me of Rules of Engagment...what if those civilians had guns?

"What if's" are irrelevant (and usually used as a way to peddle fear). There is no mention that they did.

Well, it was stated they recieved fire, so I believe the retaliation was appropriate.

Including the killing of civilians? Granted that they might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but those who would label others as "collateral damage" should prepare themselves for the same fate.
You'll pardon me if I find it inexcusable that we are engaged in the wholesale slaughter of those same Iraqi people that we are supposed to be "liberating".

 

[mrCide]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: jtusa4
War is a dangerous business, even if you're just an "observer". That reporter knew the risks.

Yup, that's pretty much all there is to it. Unfortunate, but anyone who wants to get up close & personal with war accepts the risk.

Viper GTS

Agreed, however I was watching this documentary from a british film crew in israel and they were trying to leave had their press jerseys on and were telling them they were a british film crew, the israeli's fired a warning shot so they stopped and tried to explain further and then one of them was shot in the neck. OT I know, just reallly f'd up.

Care to make some more anti-semitic comments and spread more lies about Israel?

genius. there was a documentary that's been playing on HBO that shows this happening. israelis fired at the british film crew hitting one (cameraman) in the neck, thats where the documentary ended.

http://www.hbo.com/docs/progra..._in_gaza/synopsis.html

 

[Isshinryu]

Originally posted by: Vic
Including the killing of civilians? Granted that they might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but those who would label others as "collateral damage" should prepare themselves for the same fate.
You'll pardon me if I find it inexcusable that we are engaged in the wholesale slaughter of those same Iraqi people that we are supposed to be "liberating".

They're definately more than "collateral damage," and it's a shame that it happened, but if it's a situation of our troops in immediate danger, the troops should protect themselves however possible. This is a reason war is bad.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Isshinryu

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Isshinryu

Originally posted by: Vic
I do not think that our soldiers should be firing on crowds of civilians, regardless of what those civilians might be celebrating.

Reminds me of Rules of Engagment...what if those civilians had guns?

"What if's" are irrelevant (and usually used as a way to peddle fear). There is no mention that they did.

Well, it was stated they recieved fire, so I believe the retaliation was appropriate.

Including the killing of civilians? Granted that they might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but those who would label others as "collateral damage" should prepare themselves for the same fate.
You'll pardon me if I find it inexcusable that we are engaged in the wholesale slaughter of those same Iraqi people that we are supposed to be "liberating".

Hey, if you can find a way to make an M230A1 accurate enough, go for it. Until there, there will be "innocent" bystanders. Better that than use a Hellfire to scrap the Bradley.

- M4H

 

[mrCide]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Isshinryu

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Isshinryu

Originally posted by: Vic
I do not think that our soldiers should be firing on crowds of civilians, regardless of what those civilians might be celebrating.

Reminds me of Rules of Engagment...what if those civilians had guns?

"What if's" are irrelevant (and usually used as a way to peddle fear). There is no mention that they did.

Well, it was stated they recieved fire, so I believe the retaliation was appropriate.

Including the killing of civilians? Granted that they might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but those who would label others as "collateral damage" should prepare themselves for the same fate.
You'll pardon me if I find it inexcusable that we are engaged in the wholesale slaughter of those same Iraqi people that we are supposed to be "liberating".

i very much agree with you on the issue.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Isshinryu

Originally posted by: Vic
Including the killing of civilians? Granted that they might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but those who would label others as "collateral damage" should prepare themselves for the same fate.
You'll pardon me if I find it inexcusable that we are engaged in the wholesale slaughter of those same Iraqi people that we are supposed to be "liberating".

They're definately more than "collateral damage," and it's a shame that it happened, but if it's a situation of our troops in immediate danger, the troops should protect themselves however possible. This is a reason war is bad.

In what way were our troops in danger, except for possibly a danger they had created for themselves? If you agree that war is so bad, then why did we start it?

 

[Isshinryu]

Originally posted by: Vic
In what way were our troops in danger, except for possibly a danger they had created for themselves? If you agree that war is so bad, then why did we start it?

Small arms fire == danger. They were there carrying out their orders, they fell into a dangerous situation, they returned fire. The real reason for the war may never be known, only specualated upon...but that doesn't mean that the troops who have been ordered over there shouldn't do what they need to do to stay alive.

 

[slag]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: jtusa4

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: jtusa4
War is a dangerous business, even if you're just an "observer". That reporter knew the risks.

So anyone that goes over there "knows the risks" and gets what is coming to them?

Yes. It's sad but true. I'm not saying that they deserve to die, but you can't realistically go over there and not know that you can get killed.

Just trolling.

There, fixed that for you..

 

[toekramp]

i like to talk in circles

 

[jyates]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Isshinryu

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Isshinryu

Originally posted by: Vic
I do not think that our soldiers should be firing on crowds of civilians, regardless of what those civilians might be celebrating.

Reminds me of Rules of Engagment...what if those civilians had guns?

"What if's" are irrelevant (and usually used as a way to peddle fear). There is no mention that they did.

Well, it was stated they recieved fire, so I believe the retaliation was appropriate.

Including the killing of civilians? Granted that they might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but those who would label others as "collateral damage" should prepare themselves for the same fate.
You'll pardon me if I find it inexcusable that we are engaged in the wholesale slaughter of those same Iraqi people that we are supposed to be "liberating".

Maybe we need to drop flyers and go door to door to tell these "civilians"
not to hang around burning bradleys and where gunfire is present.

These reporters have a death wish that want to run with the Iraqi opposition.

 

[Hammer]

i guess its not a good idea to celebrate the destruction of american armored vehicles and fire wildly into the air...

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: jtusa4
War is a dangerous business, even if you're just an "observer". That reporter knew the risks.

Yup, that's pretty much all there is to it. Unfortunate, but anyone who wants to get up close & personal with war accepts the risk.

Viper GTS

Agreed, however I was watching this documentary from a british film crew in israel and they were trying to leave had their press jerseys on and were telling them they were a british film crew, the israeli's fired a warning shot so they stopped and tried to explain further and then one of them was shot in the neck. OT I know, just reallly f'd up.

Care to make some more anti-semitic comments and spread more lies about Israel?

Just to recap, if I disagree with any Israeli policy or believe anything that I deem to be true that in any way sheds a bad light on Israel, I'm anti-Semitic, right?

Tnitsuj likes to stir things up, he doesn't mean anything by it.
As far as the documentary goes, I'm sure the Israelis can make a documentary showing that the guy was shot by accident. It all depends on the perspective of the guy making the film and what his agenda is.