![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThis 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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 10/4/10 23:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/10 23:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/10 23:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/10 23:59 (UTC)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."
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 00:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 01:16 (UTC)Pitiful.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 01:33 (UTC)LIke I said, scared shitless.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 01:47 (UTC)Pathetic is the operative term.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 02:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 02:59 (UTC)Quit trying to rewrite reality.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 03:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 06:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 00:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 00:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 00:29 (UTC)But, but, but.......
Date: 10/4/10 23:31 (UTC)Re: But, but, but.......
Date: 10/4/10 23:34 (UTC)Re: But, but, but.......
Date: 10/4/10 23:46 (UTC)"Rules of engagement" are what get a lot of "our guys" killed, going at least back to Viet Nam. I'm not sure that there was such a thing before, altho I've heard stories about Korea. Maybe we should just stop "police actions" and make everything war....more "collateral damage" but fewer casualties I would think.
Re: But, but, but.......
Date: 10/4/10 23:57 (UTC)Re: But, but, but.......
Date: 11/4/10 01:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 02:14 (UTC)The coalition forces operate under "rules of engagement" that are to mitigate civilian casualties. The enemy doesn't, hence using hospitals, mosques and "wogs in T-shirts" (oh that's not bigoted) as cover. Sheesh, only Americans have to ask permission to fire, that is not a prescription for a long life in a combat situation.
War is hell, and sometimes the wrong people die, but ask almost anyone who has ever been in combat, or even in a war zone, if it wasn't them, it wasn't the wrong person. Call me selfish, if the ROK guys and whoever else was responsible for protecting the peninsula where I sat at a desk, accidently killed someone they shouldn't have in the fulfilling of their duties, well I confess I didn't really think about it, as long as my butt was safe.