Because we haven't talked about Iraq enough...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

This came up on my friend's page this morning.

followed by this .

When Rupert Hamer, the British journalist who served as the Sunday Mirror's war correspondent, was embedded with US forces in Afghanistan and was killed when an IED took out the MRAP he was traveling in, nobody seemed to give much of a shit. No general outcry, no "Those murderers!", no wailing and gnashing of teeth from blogs as different as Balko and BoingBoing.

But when a Reuters journalist is embedded with insurgents in Iraq who are approaching US armored vehicles while armed with weapons specifically designed to destroy such vehicles, and is engaged and killed in their company by a gunship crew who follows rules of engagement and directly asks for permission first, a whole bunch of people just about wet themselves in their eagerness to decry those who killed him.

Why is this?
-"Phanatic"

I have my own take behind the cut but I'm curious about what others have to say.


There is no discernible difference in my eyes, both were killed in action.

The responses to this incident reminds me of the Joker's monologue from "Dark Knight".

Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, it's all "part of the plan"...

...But if one of our Soldiers "The Good Guys", blows up a journalist everyone loses their freaking minds.

An american helicopter crew spotted a group of men gathering near an american convoy.

Weapons are clearly visible, 2 RPGs and a Light Machine-Gun. The standard AQ fire-team everywhere from Afghanistan to Chechnya for the last 15-20 years. Since the insurgents don't wear uniforms this armament and organization is the single best identifier.

They reported the situation and waited for permission to engage.

The enemy was defeated. Additional Insurgents attempted to extract the wounded before they could be captured but in doing so exposed themselves to American forces and were defeated as well.

This is war.

Support it, or oppose it, I won't judge.

All I ask is that you be intellectually honest about it.


Disclamer:
I am an Iraq War vet, and a helicopter crewman to boot, so this story hits a little close-to-home for me.

Edit:
In the interests of "citing sources" here is CENTCOM's official report on the incident.

Comments

[paft.livejournal.com]

M: Seriously do you think tank crew stopped for a second to check that building's address first?

The Palestine Hotel was a rather significant landmark and yes, tank gunners are supposed to know what to fire on and what NOT to fire on.

M: And they could have been taking fire. I don't remember all the details.

I do. There is not a shred of evidence that they were taking fire from the hotel.

M: Who do you think was crouching around the corner of the building? If you read the reports (and I guess you didn't) there's a picture that was found on the reporter's camera - of the humvee several blocks away.

And this indicates....?

M: They didn't shoot while he was on the ground, they wanted to hence asking him to pick up a weapon, but they didn't. They shot when the van showed up, which by all accounts is a legitimate target.

A van picking up the wounded? No, that is not "by all accounts" a legitimate target.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

This indicates that a reporter in a group of armed men approached an intersection 200 meters away from army convoy and crouching behind the corner took a sneak picture of a humvee.

Now if you are circling 2km away above the city - you see a group of well armed men approaching an intersection 200 meters away from army convoy that you are protecting from above and see how one of the men sneaky crouching around the corner lifting up a long tube and aims it at the humvee...

If you are such a stickler to what you think are the rules everyone suppose to follow, did you ask yourself why the reporters didn't wear their PRESS blue jackets that would identify them?

A van that rushes on cue into an opening where people were just shot with 30mm chaingun, while several blocks away there's a moving convoy of humvees and bradleys, looks more like more insurgents coming in to rescue their buddies.

Re: But, but, but.......

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Well we are still the good guys who are trying to do some nation building with minimal casualties.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Same way the rest of us do. From news reports.

If you question really is, how were the American soldiers supposed to know, in the case of the Palestine Hotel, the hotel was supposed to be on a list of locations NOT to fire on. In the case of the Al Jazeera reporter, he was on the roof of a radio station -- another proscribed target.

In this most recent case, I'm sure the Apache helicopter had no way of knowing that the two journalists they killed were journalists, which is why my own objections center on them blowing away a wounded man and the people trying to help him. The fact that these two me were reporters, however, does fuel the issue of reporters being killed by "friendly fire."

[thies.livejournal.com]

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Cannon?

[paft.livejournal.com]

m: This indicates that a reporter in a group of armed men approached an intersection 200 meters away from army convoy and crouching behind the corner took a sneak picture of a humvee.

While he was crawling on his belly leaving a smear of blood on the ground? I didn't see anything in his hands in that footage.

M; A van that rushes on cue into an opening where people were just shot with 30mm chaingun, while several blocks away there's a moving convoy of humvees and bradleys, looks more like more insurgents coming in to rescue their buddies.

"Rushes in on cue?" I didn't see anything to indicate that. It happened to be there. The driver saw someone who was obviously severely injured, and stopped to do the right thing.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Was that what that wounded guy was weilding while he was crawling around on the ground?

Funny. I didn't see that.

Want a little cheese with that whine?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Soooo.

How's the wait going?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You do know that I'm on your side here, right?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Yes. Sometimes the snark factor gets out of control. My apologies for not writing more coherently.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Considering how short a time it takes for an RPG to be fired, and the damage it can do, I cannot fault military personnel for shooting first. It's called self-preservation. Photographers have been warned over and over and over and over about telephoto lenses.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No biggie. It's weird when we're on the same side of an argument.....

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Very cute. Very wrong.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I have my own take behind the cut but I'm curious about what others have to say.

It was a mistake and failure.

The only issue is whether or not people should be "morally outraged" and then everyone can argue about whether or not they should be "morally outraged", and then we can carry on with the circus of self-righteous politics and anger mercantilism.

Nobody gives a shit about the reporter. They give a shit about being better by their reaction to it.

[paft.livejournal.com]

da: Considering how short a time it takes for an RPG to be fired, and the damage it can do, I cannot fault military personnel for shooting first. It's called self-preservation. Photographers have been warned over and over and over and over about telephoto lenses.

First, I want to get one thing out of the way here. I've said it once. I've said it twice. Okay. I'll say it one more time.

The Palestine Hotel WAS KNOWN to the American Military as a place where unembedded reporters were gathered. The American military was supposed to know NOT TO FIRE ON THE PALESTINE HOTEL. Given the job these reporters have, the American military was also supposed to know that reporters were going to be TAKING PICTURES OF THE WAR.

Because, you see, that was their job. As war correspondents.

Second, by every account, the tank firing on the Palestine was not some split second decision, done almost on reflex in response to a danger. It was quite deliberate. The tank turret swiveled. It aimed. It fired. This was not something that happened "quickly."

[paft.livejournal.com]

Speak for yourself, bub.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

You mean like watching a dying man crawl away and begging him to go for a weapon so they can kill him?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Deliberately targeting and firing on an obviously wounded man and the people trying to help him goes waaaay beyond unavoidable "collateral damage."

[paft.livejournal.com]

e: My immediate reaction as the enemy on receiving that intelligence: Deploy an ambush team to the hotel, breaking in the back and into rooms at the front. Kill all witnesses. Initiate ambush on passing convoy with RPGs. The American Military Running Dogs will never expect an attack from a hotel containing journalists and if they fire back, their own people will eviscerate them for firing on innocent reporters and so popular support will diminish. Either way, I win!

I see Art Malik as the evil Islamofascist head of the ambush team, with maybe Kate Winslett as the feisty unembedded reporter and Keifer Sutherland as the tank commander. Bitchin!

Unfortunately, we're talking here about reality and nothing like that happened. The people who died in that hotel during the battle were killed by an American tank.

[paft.livejournal.com]

You think there's some doubt about what happened at the Palestine Hotel. That Al Jazeera reporter WASN'T killed? The radio station WASN'T bombed? Those guys in the recent wikileaks footage WEREN'T reporters?

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

The terrorists might use disguises, Troops won't be able to identify them from real civilians until it's too late. Let's kill everybody. It's the only way our Troops can ever fight safely.

[paft.livejournal.com]

e:When you see what you think are enemy soldiers, fire on them, and then see what appear to be enemy logistical support attempting to evacuate those enemy soldiers, it is not considered to be good military protocol to let just let them go off, get healed, and come back for more fighting.

Uh, no, firing on the wounded and those trying to move them out of harms way has never been considered "good military protocol."

e: To use gaming parlance, the military does not approve of respawns.

This is not a game. These people are not merely little images on a screen.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Yeah man like historically speaking medics wore those arm patches as a polite notification to enemy soldiers to shoot them first. That's exactly it, you understand the basic principles of being a civilized human being in a society so exactly.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Yeeeeah what've those pussy faggot commie pinkos got to complain about *belch* people get KILLED in war, get over it! God you'd think it's like they want the army to try NOT to kill civilians or something, what a bunch of fairies!