![[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: 11/4/10 00:31 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 00:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 01:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 03:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/4/10 01:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 04:23 (UTC)Endorsed and seconded. As the opening post said, people who were genuinely concerned about these reporters would also have been indignant about reporters killed while accompanying americans. People who are hollering about holding american troops to a higher standard seem oddly eager to simultaneously assume the worst about them.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 05:17 (UTC)Basically what I was getting at.
Hense the closing line about being "intellectually honest".
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 17:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 19:58 (UTC)Your comment doesn't address my point, which is that many people condemning (and, really, in this case distorting) the actions of american soldiers simultaneously give a free pass to the same level of behavior on the part of anyone who's not an american.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 21:50 (UTC)Do you live somewhere where American military is a occupation force?
that "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy has worked so well in the past.
Au contraire, occupation forces are welcomed with dates and flowers by the locals since they know how much their lives will improve under military occupation. Hell, in my state, we have two or three a year.
Your comment doesn't address my point, which is that many people condemning (and, really, in this case distorting) the actions of american soldiers simultaneously give a free pass to the same level of behavior on the part of anyone who's not an american.
That's because actions are in Iraq and not America. Its never in America. Always in someone else's county.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 22:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/10 02:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/10 04:34 (UTC)Sorry, still not going to try to convince you that not all american soldiers are teh evuls.
(no subject)
Date: 13/4/10 00:04 (UTC)Those soldiers did exactly what they were trained to do. The question of morality lies in the larger system that chooses to train soldiers to act in this way. As far as assuming the worst, no one is assuming, its being shown on video. As far as being accountable for ones actions, are soldiers accountable for their actions?
(no subject)
Date: 13/4/10 00:10 (UTC)