Why is everybody surprised about the reporter's death?

[Garet Jax]

It seems to me, that if someone is in the heart of a war and they die that it shouldn't be a surprise. Maybe that's just me.

What surprises me is that reporters willingly put themselves in the middle of the war. Are they stupid or is that just me too?

 

[UNCjigga]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
It seems to me, that if someone is in the heart of a war and they die that it shouldn't be a surprise. Maybe that's just me.

What surprises me is that reporters willingly put themselves in the middle of the war. Are they stupid or is that just me too?

If you're talking about the guy who died when a tank shelled his hotel...he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some fsckers a few floors up were sniping at the troops and firing RPGs...

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
If you're talking about the guy who died when a tank shelled his hotel...he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some fsckers a few floors up were sniping at the troops and firing RPGs...

Interesting...

In my opinion, any hotel in that area is the wrong place. Anybody who is in Iraq right now is putting their life on the line. Some people have no choice (like the Iraqi people), some people are serving their country valiantly (American and British soldiers), some people are stupid (reporters and anyone else who is there for any other reason).

Again. Just my opinion.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: uncJIGGA

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
It seems to me, that if someone is in the heart of a war and they die that it shouldn't be a surprise. Maybe that's just me.

What surprises me is that reporters willingly put themselves in the middle of the war. Are they stupid or is that just me too?

If you're talking about the guy who died when a tank shelled his hotel...he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some fsckers a few floors up were sniping at the troops and firing RPGs...

Yea this pisses me off, its a warzone and there were people in the building fire at U.S. troops so they defended themselves before they took casualties. The reporters deaths are getting more publicity then the deaths of U.S. and British soldiers, who are in fact the real heros.

Going into a war zone with no military training, when you were warned and told to exit the city (all reports have been warned) and staying in a building where people are firing out at U.S. soldiers is utterly stupid and the consequences are your own damn fault. The U.S. should not take any blame for this, its unfortunate how much heat this will actually bring though. It was not intentional, none of the innocent deaths were, but I have almost no sympathy for those reports, they knew the risks.

 

[brtspears2]

I guess its the cost of trying to win the Pulitzer. They clearly knew the risk.

 

[SuperTool]

Well, we are trying to win hearts and minds of the people in the region and the world. And knowingly firing on a hotel where a lot of the media was staying is not helping the cause, unless the goal is to turn everyone against us.
It's willful disregard for the safety of reporters, because it's well known they are staying in that building. Clearly if there was a sniper in the hotel, randomly firing into the building, knowing that there are reporters there, is reckless.
It is obvious that even if there was a sniper in there that firing a shot into the building without knowing where the sniper is is not very likely to kill the sniper, but it is very likely to kill a reporter.
And none of the people in the building saw or heard any shots or rpg's fired from it.
The pentagon is getting heat for this, and rightly so.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, we are trying to win hearts and minds of the people in the region and the world. And knowingly firing on a hotel where a lot of the media was staying is not helping the cause, unless the goal is to turn everyone against us.
It's willful disregard for the safety of reporters, because it's well known they are staying in that building. Clearly if there was a sniper in the hotel, randomly firing into the building, knowing that there are reporters there, is reckless.
It is obvious that even if there was a sniper in there that firing a shot into the building without knowing where the sniper is is not very likely to kill the sniper, but it is very likely to kill a reporter.
And none of the people in the building saw or heard any shots or rpg's fired from it.
The pentagon is getting heat for this, and rightly so.

Well known to you and I perhaps, but perhaps not to the tank commander on the ground who's receiving fire and has to defend himself or die. At yesterday morning's CENTCOM briefing, one of the reporters asked something like "what are you doing to guarantee the safety of journalists in Baghdad?" I just about fell out of my chair laughing at the stupidity of that questions. The correct answer, of course, is NOTHING.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, we are trying to win hearts and minds of the people in the region and the world. And knowingly firing on a hotel where a lot of the media was staying is not helping the cause, unless the goal is to turn everyone against us.
It's willful disregard for the safety of reporters, because it's well known they are staying in that building. Clearly if there was a sniper in the hotel, randomly firing into the building, knowing that there are reporters there, is reckless.
It is obvious that even if there was a sniper in there that firing a shot into the building without knowing where the sniper is is not very likely to kill the sniper, but it is very likely to kill a reporter.
And none of the people in the building saw or heard any shots or rpg's fired from it.
The pentagon is getting heat for this, and rightly so.

Well known to you and I perhaps, but perhaps not to the tank commander on the ground who's receiving fire and has to defend himself or die. At yesterday morning's CENTCOM briefing, one of the reporters asked something like "what are you doing to guarantee the safety of journalists in Baghdad?" I just about fell out of my chair laughing at the stupidity of that questions. The correct answer, of course, is NOTHING.

Did you see that tank video? Didn't look like he was receiving fire to me. You are saying the commander didn't know there were media in the hotel? Maybe he should do his homework.
And while it can't be expected that US would guarantee safety for anyone, they also should not be targeting buildings where they know media is staying. It's just bad PR, and hurts our cause.

 

[Garet Jax]

So we're fighting a war, but some buildings are off limits because media are supposed to be staying there. If I was Saddam, I would put all my snipers in these buildings and hope America takes the high ground and chooses not to fire on them.

The media should never interfere in any way shape or form on how a war is fought. If they do, then they have over stepped their boundaries.

It is bad enough that Saddam is already using civilian looking women as fighters as well as women and children as human shields as well false surrender tactics, but now we need to worry about keeping media safe.

No thanks. America, the military units and in particular the tank commander and his staff should be held totally blameless.

It is war afterall.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
So we're fighting a war, but some buildings are off limits because media are supposed to be staying there. If I was Saddam, I would put all my snipers in these buildings and hope America takes the high ground and chooses not to fire on them.

The media should never interfere in any way shape or form on how a war is fought. If they do, then they have over stepped their boundaries.

It is bad enough that Saddam is already using civilian looking women as fighters as well as women and children as human shields as well false surrender tactics, but now we need to worry about keeping media safe.

No thanks. America, the military units and in particular the tank commander and his staff should be held totally blameless.

It is war afterall.

grrr...this new fusetalk is behaving differently...too easy to post a blank msg.

Anyway...I'd say let the resistance hole up in hotels and such and we shouldn't go blasting at them with tanks. I mean, we have thousands upon thousands of troops in the area....just go in and root them out. Where are they going to hide? The kitchen?

 

[DT4K]

If they were receiving fire, they had every right to return fire. If they were not, or it was from a different location, they made a mistake. This is a war, people are edgy. Somtimes there will be mistakes. It is part of the risk of being in a warzone. Those reporters chose to voluntarily risk their lives by being there. I have deep sympathy for their deaths. It is unfortunate but the tankers should not be blamed. They were trying to defend themselves and they already know that the Iraqi's use human shields and try to intentionally cause civilian casualties whenever possible.

This is not a spectator event and a telephoto lens sticking out of a window could be mistaken for a sniper scope or some kind of weapon.

 

[Insane3D]

I don't claim to know the full circumstances surrounding that incident, but I think the questions surround the level of return fire from the tank. These coalition troops were in the most powerful tank in the world, and I don't know for sure, but I would imagine a sniper with a rifle is little or no danger to a tank. They returned fire to a supposed sniper with a rifle with a full tank cannon round. Most of the questions surrounding that incident are because of the level of return fire to a guy with a rifle. That being said, the reporters in Iraq should understand they are taking a risk, and had the chance to get out before it started. I guess it will just be chalked up to an unfortunate result of war.

 

[AmerDoux]

The Geneva Convention states that civilians and civilian buildings are not to be bombed or fired upon. The exception to this is if a military force moves into and occupies the site. Only then does it become free game.

Everybody knew that this hotel was housing reporters. It should never have been fired upon. Now that the incident has occured, the US military is saying that they were fired upon first (as a means to justify the action). However, not a single reporter who was in the building; Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC and all the rest... not a single one said that any weapons were fired from their building.

There have been other journalists killed without any complaints. They all know they are risking their lives for the story. The issue here is the intentional firing upon of a civilian building.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: AmerDoux
The Geneva Convention states that civilians and civilian buildings are not to be bombed or fired upon. The exception to this is if a military force moves into and occupies the site. Only then does it become free game.

Everybody knew that this hotel was housing reporters. It should never have been fired upon. Now that the incident has occured, the US military is saying that they were fired upon first (as a means to justify the action). However, not a single reporter who was in the building; Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC and all the rest... not a single one said that any weapons were fired from their building.

There have been other journalists killed without any complaints. They all know they are risking their lives for the story. The issue here is the intentional firing upon of a civilian building.

Yea, doesn't it make sense that they would randomly shoot into the window of a civilian building? Are you really going to assume the soldiers would risk killing people in a civilian building if their lives were not at risk? It takes more then one person to aim and shoot the shell from a tank, I don't think they all screwed up.

 

[SuperTool]

When you shoot into a building that is full of reporters, there is a good chance you are going to kill some of them. You can't just say, oh well, we thought there was a sniper in there, so we fired onto a building full of civilians.
Because then no building is off limits, all you gotta do is say "I thought there was a sniper there", just like cops can say "I thought he had a gun". Unless you see where the sniper is, you shouldn't be firing into just any spot on the building.
You are not going to kill the sniper, and you will kill civilians, in all likelyhood. Not that a sniper can do anything to an Abrams anyways.

 

[Tom]

I saw a bit of video that I think showed the balcony where the reporter who was killed probably was. I saw a video camera on a tripod sitting on the balcony. I would imagine that from the ground a black camera on a tripod 13 stories up is hard to tell from a gun mounted on a tripod, especially if you are being fired on and it might be coming from that building.

It's a shame any press people get killed, or anyone else for that matter. It's a shame there are people like Saddam that cause these kind of things to happen.

 

[AmerDoux]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: AmerDoux
The Geneva Convention states that civilians and civilian buildings are not to be bombed or fired upon. The exception to this is if a military force moves into and occupies the site. Only then does it become free game.

Everybody knew that this hotel was housing reporters. It should never have been fired upon. Now that the incident has occured, the US military is saying that they were fired upon first (as a means to justify the action). However, not a single reporter who was in the building; Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC and all the rest... not a single one said that any weapons were fired from their building.

There have been other journalists killed without any complaints. They all know they are risking their lives for the story. The issue here is the intentional firing upon of a civilian building.

Yea, doesn't it make sense that they would randomly shoot into the window of a civilian building? Are you really going to assume the soldiers would risk killing people in a civilian building if their lives were not at risk? It takes more then one person to aim and shoot the shell from a tank, I don't think they all screwed up.

LOL - I am imagining the imminent danger to a tank from a lone rifle sniper on a rooftop.

Look, I am not saying it was one way or the other. I am pointing out that there is a valid reason behind this being an issue.

 

[AmerDoux]

I am going to add that it is the responsibility of the US military to know what it is shooting at prior to doing any actual shooting.
What if that building housed a medical complex?
What if that building housed a school?
The point is that it did house media from all over the world and everybody knew it.
You dont simply shoot at anything that "looks" like it might be a sniper.

 

[Tom]

"LOL - I am imagining the imminent danger to a tank from a lone rifle sniper on a rooftop."

First of all, at some point they get out of the tank, secondly there were troops and others that weren't in tanks, third, unless you were there how do you know there was one sniper ? and that they didn't also have shoulder-type anti-tank weapons ?

Bottom line- war is best left to warriors.

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: AmerDoux
I am going to add that it is the responsibility of the US military to know what it is shooting at prior to doing any actual shooting.
What if that building housed a medical complex?
What if that building housed a school?
The point is that it did house media from all over the world and everybody knew it.
You dont simply shoot at anything that "looks" like it might be a sniper.

Were you there? Do you know the full story? Or do you just want to take this opportunity to bash the US troops?

 

[Insane3D]

Were you there? Do you know the full story? Or do you just want to take this opportunity to bash the US troops?

I don't see him claiming he has all the facts, or "bashing the troops". He is pointing out why this is an issue, which is what the original thread poster was asking. Try not to read so much into a person's posts.

 

[Sxotty]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
If you're talking about the guy who died when a tank shelled his hotel...he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some fsckers a few floors up were sniping at the troops and firing RPGs...

Interesting...

In my opinion, any hotel in that area is the wrong place. Anybody who is in Iraq right now is putting their life on the line. Some people have no choice (like the Iraqi people), some people are serving their country valiantly (American and British soldiers), some people are stupid (reporters and anyone else who is there for any other reason).

Again. Just my opinion.

I appreciate the reporters being there, and you should too, the press is very important, otherwise we would never know what happened over there except from what the disinformation minister had told us. We should all appreciate the journalists even if we get pissed when they bias and shade the truth since apparently journalism school no longer teaches that journalists should report facts but rather opinions.

 

[Sxotty]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
I don't claim to know the full circumstances surrounding that incident, but I think the questions surround the level of return fire from the tank. These coalition troops were in the most powerful tank in the world, and I don't know for sure, but I would imagine a sniper with a rifle is little or no danger to a tank. They returned fire to a supposed sniper with a rifle with a full tank cannon round. Most of the questions surrounding that incident are because of the level of return fire to a guy with a rifle. That being said, the reporters in Iraq should understand they are taking a risk, and had the chance to get out before it started. I guess it will just be chalked up to an unfortunate result of war.

Now not to be rude but every at all credible report says there were infantry there as well with no armor. It is not unusual that the tank fired, in fact that is what they do it is much more effective than a hollywood sniper duel.

The problem is that no one is sure if they were actually being fired upon.

IMHO it could easily have been flash bulbs going off from photographers, and a sniper somewhere else so they thought the fire came from there, they were under fire, that is not in doubt. There was danger, and they responded.

The only questions are whether the fire was actually from the hotel.

It is sad that more innocents died, but it would be equally sad if an infrantryman died because they did not respond.

 

[AmerDoux]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Were you there? Do you know the full story? Or do you just want to take this opportunity to bash the US troops?

I don't see him claiming he has all the facts, or "bashing the troops". He is pointing out why this is an issue, which is what the original thread poster was asking. Try not to read so much into a person's posts.

Exactly and Thank You!
First off - I am not a "him", I am a "her" and that just goes to show that some things are always assumed.
Second - No way in hell I am bashing the troops. I am from a military family and my own son is joining up. Please explain to me what I said that is "Troop Bashing"???
Lastly - None of us here, in our comfy little lives, really know what happened. The post topic was "Why is everybody surprised..." My response is directed to the original post question.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Sxotty

Originally posted by: Insane3D
I don't claim to know the full circumstances surrounding that incident, but I think the questions surround the level of return fire from the tank. These coalition troops were in the most powerful tank in the world, and I don't know for sure, but I would imagine a sniper with a rifle is little or no danger to a tank. They returned fire to a supposed sniper with a rifle with a full tank cannon round. Most of the questions surrounding that incident are because of the level of return fire to a guy with a rifle. That being said, the reporters in Iraq should understand they are taking a risk, and had the chance to get out before it started. I guess it will just be chalked up to an unfortunate result of war.

Now not to be rude but every at all credible report says there were infantry there as well with no armor. It is not unusual that the tank fired, in fact that is what they do it is much more effective than a hollywood sniper duel.

The problem is that no one is sure if they were actually being fired upon.

IMHO it could easily have been flash bulbs going off from photographers, and a sniper somewhere else so they thought the fire came from there, they were under fire, that is not in doubt. There was danger, and they responded.

The only questions are whether the fire was actually from the hotel.

It is sad that more innocents died, but it would be equally sad if an infrantryman died because they did not respond.

You are not being rude at all. I was not aware there was infantry with them as well, and I thought it was the tank only. This goes to show the first sentence of my original post was right on. I would never second guess the troops as they are there on the ground in the thick of it, and I am here in, as AmerDoux pointed out, my comfy little home. I was just trying to answer the posters question as to why this was an issue.