The BBC's intrepid World Affairs Editor and liberator of Kabul was lightly wounded in an attack by a US aircraft on a convoy of US special forces and Kurdish troops. 10 people were killed.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I guess it was time to give the Canadaians a break.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Hooray for precision bombing.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The BBC have got off quite lightly. Both ITV and Channel 4 have had reporters killed by the US.
What apparently happened is that the convoy saw an Iraqi tank up ahead, so they radioed in asking for air support to take the tank out. The air support - one fighter jet - turned up, and promptly bombed the convoy.
Do they do any sort of Friend Or Foe recognition training in the US, or what?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Do they do any sort of Friend Or Foe recognition training in the US, or what?
I think we can be relatively sure they don't. I imagine the differance between an Iraqi tank and a convoy of jeeps and trucks is pretty big.
Maybe the US are still pissed off about that Kabul thing.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Or perhaps they decided they didn't really like some of the Kurdish officials Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
They have an excellent system for FOF recognition.
Them and US.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
They're getting better, though - that Iraqi tank was only a mile away from the convoy. Cor, only one mile out - nobody does precision bombing like the Yanks. 8)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If you need a solution to your infestation of Canadians, we're the ones to call.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
...and now the journalist's hotel gets "blasted". I mean it's a hotel for crying out loud. They must've known which one the journalists were in and it's not as if hotels are heavily disguised.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
They also fired on some Al-Jazeera's offices. IIRC, they also bombed Al-Jazeera's offices in Afghanistan last year. Possibly the same kind of 'mistake' that destroyed the Chinese embassy during the 1999 (?) NATO bombings of Kosovo?
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Wraith - That particular hotel had a fake moustache on.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Ahhhhh.... Well, I suppose that's an understandable mistake. Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Supposedly there was a sniper in this building - two miles away! Two miles! This man must be a Sniper God. . .
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
Ok, so there is a sniper in a hotel full of reporters... Solution: Fire into said hotel full of civilians WITH A FUCKING TANK?!
Hmmmm... This could be the start of somthing intresting:
PROBLEM: Robbers hold up 7-11 on corner... SOLUTION: Fire into 7-11 with a tank.
PROBLEM: Snot-nosed punk beans me with slushball in parking lot. SOLUTION: Airstrike dropping cluster bombs all over neighborhood.
I hope that whoever ordered the tank to fire into the hotel and the commander & crew of that tank are tried and convicted.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Of course, the best part is when CNN gets mad at the international media for biased coverage:
quote: CNN report scorns CBC war coverage CBS News accepts U.S. army ads By JOHN McKAY
TORONTO (CP) -- The single, circular drop of cherry-red blood appeared first in the upper left corner of the frame.
Then it began to trickle downwards, as though competing for the viewer's attention with the rest of the screen where, in blurry shots, men could be seen running, jumping and falling. Then the BBC camera operator, apparently with a head cut from shrapnel, tried to wipe away the trickle, but succeeding only in smearing the lens, creating an accidental but gut-wrenching war metaphor as the action became filtered through a haze of human blood.
It was the latest and most deadly "friendly fire" incident of the Iraq war as an errant U.S. missile smashed into a convoy of American and Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq last weekend, killing at least 18, including the BBC crew's Kurd translator.
The dramatic report by correspondent John Simpson was introduced with the usual dispassionate calm by the BBC and later rebroadcast on ABC World News Tonight.
But as one media editor commented, coverage of the incident was almost non-existent on CNN where, it seems, friendly fire events and stats are always greeted with skepticism when they air at all.
Gillian Steward, a visiting professor at the University of Regina school of journalism, says the fact that the U.S. is at war is no excuse for the country's news media adopting a pro-war bias.
"You look at BBC -- their country is also at war -- and it's like you're looking at two different wars. It's so obvious actually when you watch CNN for a long time that they basically see themselves as the voice of the government."
Steward says it's a problem with competing all-news networks that they repeat whatever they're told by the Pentagon without caring whether it's true or not, just to get it on the air first.
The situation is typical of a growing disparity between most of the U.S. networks and their counterparts in Canada and elsewhere in the world. In particular, CNN, CBS and Fox News appear to have jumped gleefully aboard the American war wagon, emphasizing the positive and minimizing the negative.
And apparently they expect others to do likewise.
A report Monday night on CNN was especially scornful of CBC-TV. While clips of Peter Mansbridge were shown, it was noted that CBC accepted at face value Saddam Hussein's latest public appearance on the streets of Baghdad.
"Saddam is alive and well and very much in charge," Washington correspondent David Halton was seen reporting, prompting an irked CNN to question why, unlike on U.S. networks, there was no expression of doubt as to when the footage was shot or whether it really was Saddam or one of his body doubles.
In fact, CBC says, later on in the same newscast its correspondent Neil Macdonald did a "reality check" that did question the validity of the Saddam tape.
CBC spokeswoman Ruth-Ellen Soles says it should be remembered that Canada is not at war.
"And so of course our coverage is going to be different, less emotional, less involved than the American media. And that shouldn't come as any surprise to viewers."
Meanwhile over at CBS, the network has begun adding U.S. army commercials to Dan Rather's Evening News report.
The "Go Army" spots are part morale booster, part recruitment, and even include slow motion images of Gen. George S. Patton. It seems the jolting optics of the military sponsoring a war newscast have eluded executives at CBS.
"For the most part, U.S. media have signed on to the Bush administration's plan," says Tim Blackmore, a professor in media studies at the University of Western Ontario. "If it weren't for the Internet, CBC and National Public Radio, we would be completely at the mercy of networks who see an American narrative of strength, righteousness, patriotism and Christianity in the war."
Blackmore says NBC's sacking of correspondent Peter Arnett is a blatant example of a corporate information machine that sees one of its players as a traitor, and he believes many similar examples will come to light but only long after the war ends when memoirs are written.
CNN, CBS and Fox News seem obsessed with new war technology and old armchair generals while minimalizing such negativity as friendly-fire statistics, to say nothing of blood. One of CNN's retired generals Monday night even dismissed friendly fire as a fact of war and nothing the troops should concern themselves with.
"You hear about one horrendous thing -- like all those women and children getting shot at the checkpoint -- well, that's news one day and then it's gone," notes Steward.
But if CNN is perceived to be offering a skewed perspective of the war, the liberal-minded might lament that the network is losing the ratings race south of the border to an even more right-wing competitor, Fox News, which wears its patriotism proudly on its sleeve and its screen. The network's war correspondents have included such super-conservatives as Geraldo Rivera and Oliver North.
"There is nothing wrong with taking sides here," Fox anchor Neil Cavuto said on the air to one of his critics, a journalism professor. "You see no difference between a government that oppresses people and one that does not, but I do."
According to the Web site of the Poynter Institute, a U.S. journalism school that emphasizes ethics, independence and integrity, Cavuto then proceeded to label the professor an "obnoxious pontificating jerk," a "self-absorbed, condescending imbecile" and an "Ivy League intellectual Lilliputian."
David Folkenflik, a Poynter columnist, says that in its war coverage Fox News is clearly patriotic and pugilistic and it takes things personally.
"As the invasion of Iraq unfolds," he says, "Fox has switched into even higher gear, encouraging a resolutely pro-American, sometimes explicitly pro-war stance."
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: Supposedly there was a sniper in this building - two miles away! Two miles! This man must be a Sniper God. . .
That's according to the yanks. The journalists (who were actually in the building) heard no firing. This sort of overkill does seen rather typical though; there was a piece in the paper a few days ago about two similar situations involving US and British troops. A group of US troops were told there might be some Iraqi army personnel in a building. They subjected it to an artillery barrage. A group of British APCs were fired on from a building; they deployed troops, who entered the building and arrested the two gunmen.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Tom: That's fair & balanced coverage for ya.
Anyway in relation to overkill, never forget that they have the biggest guns. That's what you get when you have nutcases like Perlman and Wolfywits forming your foreign policy.
(Authors note: All references to 'they', 'them' and other purgorative terminology from this point on are in reference to the Untied Shites & their oh-so-brilliant-virtuous-parody-of-freedom).
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Wraithy: don't YOU start. It's hard enough the Yanks not knowing sarcasm when they see it, without Brits failing to spot it either. Of course there was no bloody sniper, unless he was actually a lot closer and (more likely) in the opposite direction.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"It's hard enough the Yanks not knowing sarcasm when they see it..."
Give us a break. We don't even know a civilian hotel when we see it.
Posted by Dr. Phlox (Member # 878) on :
Hmm, they don't seem to be having any trouble identifying the journalists' hotel now. Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: Wraithy: don't YOU start. It's hard enough the Yanks not knowing sarcasm when they see it, without Brits failing to spot it either. Of course there was no bloody sniper, unless he was actually a lot closer and (more likely) in the opposite direction.
Um... actually, that's what it said in the paper; well, that there was allegedly firing from the hotel. So, Ok not actually a sniper and the distance was probably smaller, but hey, I was at school. My brain always works slower there.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
We'll have to send old Johnny out to cover the northern front now, see if we can get closer than 10 yards....
Maybe paint a maple leaf on his back for IFF....
Maybe we should help good old Tony over throw his people, since they are all terrorist.... Oh, wait, that's only a couple of factions from an occupied part of another country.....
Maybe the thread should read US media attacks this clown.....
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by Styrofoaman: Ok, so there is a sniper in a hotel full of reporters... Solution: Fire into said hotel full of civilians WITH A FUCKING TANK?!
Hmmmm... This could be the start of somthing intresting:
PROBLEM: Robbers hold up 7-11 on corner... SOLUTION: Fire into 7-11 with a tank.
PROBLEM: Snot-nosed punk beans me with slushball in parking lot. SOLUTION: Airstrike dropping cluster bombs all over neighborhood.
I hope that whoever ordered the tank to fire into the hotel and the commander & crew of that tank are tried and convicted.
Reporters, Lawyers, Snipers, It's all good.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
RE: firing on a sniper with a tank.
Nobody ever said war was FAIR.
If you're on the ground and a sniper is firing at you from behind a concrete barricade on top of a building, returning equal riflr fire isn't going to do the job. Remember the sniper scene in "Full Metal Jacket?" It really is like that.
Dang, I can't find that old post concerning "war fair" and enforced military equity. It was funny...
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Now, you boys and girls fight fair, no tank rounds fired in response to sniper fire.
I don't care if you are trying to protect the lowly infantryman caught in the open, you'll just have to watch your friend die.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If it's a choice between a military officer being killed in battle, and a bunch of civilians getting blown up so those soldiers can save their own asses, then, yes, it's the soldier who should be dying.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
So how many soldiers would you consider an acceptable trade per civilian, Tim? All of them? It's hardly as simple as you suggest.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
No one's saying you should trade soldiers for civilians; it is possible to do a job with a minimum of force rather than overkill. It's called precision warfare, remember? Our army seems able to do it ok.
quote: Maybe we should help good old Tony over throw his people, since they are all terrorist.... Oh, wait, that's only a couple of factions from an occupied part of another country.....
Hopefully both the IRA and Unionist paramilitaries will soon be disarming, we do have an agreement, y'know. We also had a referendum in which the majority of those who voted voted for remaining in the UK. Northern Ireland is not part of another country. It is part of the UK.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I'm all for twatting snipers with 88mm rounds, but, hello? High-rise building, two miles away? Anyone who pinpointed the location - "THAT building, that very specific one over there, WAY over there, thats the one!" could maybe have done with a reality check or two.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: We also had a referendum in which the majority of those who voted voted for remaining in the UK.
Incorrect, actually. A majority voted for respecting the territory's place in the UK until such a time as a further referendum could be held. Apologies for the nixpicking, but if what you said were true then Herr Paisley would have been dancing in the streets instead of telling good Protestants to fear the coming Papist takeover.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"So how many soldiers would you consider an acceptable trade per civilian, Tim? All of them? It's hardly as simple as you suggest."
The soldiers volunteered to potentially be killed.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Tom: Oh, right. Know what you mean about Paisley. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So did the journalists.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
Or at least a vigorous painful full-cavity court-marshal.
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: I'm all for twatting snipers with 88mm rounds, but, hello? High-rise building, two miles away? Anyone who pinpointed the location - "THAT building, that very specific one over there, WAY over there, thats the one!" could maybe have done with a reality check or two.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Huh?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"So did the journalists."
Not by the US.
The soldiers signed up for their jobs w/ the expectation that people would be actively trying to kill them. The journalists knew they might get caught by enemy fire, but they shouldn't have had any reason to think US soldiers would fire a tank directly at them because they thought there might have been a single person w/ a gun in their general vicinity.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Yeah, but the guy had a slingshot.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Hush, don't tell anyone it wasn't even a writst rocket....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: The journalists knew they might get caught by enemy fire, but they shouldn't have had any reason to think US soldiers would fire a tank directly at them because they thought there might have been a single person w/ a gun in their general vicinity.
Or to think that a US pilot might have fired on them after mistaking their convoy for a single Iraqi tank.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The convoy which called for the air-strike, no less.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yup. Good thing that Luke Skywalker wasn't trained by the US Military, or he'd have turned right around and blown up Yavin himself.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
*chesthair curls at oversimplification* "FROOMP!" Aagh!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
What nonsense. Warzone = unhealthy place to be. Any "journalist" who can't figure that out is probably uncapable of feeding themselves, much less reporting on any actual news. I have zero sympathy.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
They still shouldn't expect to be shot at/blown up by US soldiers any more than other US soldiers should.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So, they should, then, since the expectation that mistakes will be made is the most basic expectation one should have?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Mistakes, perhaps. Repeated demonstrations of incompetence, no.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think we must simply differ in our interpretation of events, I suppose. Where you see incompetance on a system-wide scale, I see isolated incidents of mistakes or stupidity performed by a few soldiers out of whatever huge number is currently in Iraq.
It is quite possible that I am simply cynical and callous. I don't know.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
At least its not incontinence on a large scale.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Well have you ever taken a tracer in the loins? Smells like barbeque. And the bladder boils like so much teapot.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I've a little teapot I've no handle but here is my spout....
Has anyone thought that the soldiers hadn't expected to get shot at by journalists??
How many bombs were dropped that hit a friendly target, as a percentage of total ordinance? So we can see if an oops here and there was really blowen out of proporation, since there were so few combat casualties they are easier to focus on.
How many cases of 'friendly' fire happened during WWII. Didn't here about very many of them, did you, maybe because there were other things happening, or, all of the troops in WWII were better shots....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Has anyone thought that the soldiers hadn't expected to get shot at by journalists??"
If you're not talking about shooting photographs, then you've got to be joking...
[ April 14, 2003, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: How many cases of 'friendly' fire happened during WWII. Didn't here about very many of them, did you, maybe because there were other things happening, or, all of the troops in WWII were better shots....
Or maybe because we lacked a global news service, information superhighway, satellite communications, and maybe, just maybe, because we weren't alive then.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: How many cases of 'friendly' fire happened during WWII. Didn't here about very many of them, did you, maybe because there were other things happening, or, all of the troops in WWII were better shots....
There are a couple of members of my lodge who served during WWII. So I asked one of them, who'd fought in Europe in the Battle of the Bulge, what kind of friendly fire-casualty rate they had. And his response was...
"a shitload."
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Or maybe because we lacked a global news service, information superhighway, satellite communications, and maybe, just maybe, because we weren't alive then.
You forgot cable news channels with 24-hour repetitive coverage, super-sensationalistic media, "embedded" reporters, and Vietnam-protest-era leftovers trying to run things.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
What, is it left-wing media conspiracy time again?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
If it's Monday, Bob, then, hell, yes it is! 8)
(Damn, I need to get my proper PC unpacked - this laptop can't handle Paint Shop Pro, and what we need right now is a CNN-style letters-of-fire graphic saying It's Left-Wing Media Conspiracy Time!)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Did I say anything about the Left? (Well, okay, the Vietnam-era protesters thing, MAYBE) Or anything about the media that isn't thoroughly well-known?
You know as well as I do that every news channel, CNN to FOX, kept reporting the same stuff over and over and over again, with those scrolling message bars and all that crap.
Your example of fire graphics helps prove my point about it being sensationalist.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: You know as well as I do that every news channel, CNN to FOX, kept reporting the same stuff over and over and over again, with those scrolling message bars and all that crap.
And hasn't it been along the lines of "yee haw, we're doing great!" rather than "US troops accidently mistook John Simpson for a WMD and tried to blow him up"?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Actually, it's been about 10% "yee-haw," about 30% "we're doing okay, but there's still a lot of pockets of resistance" and about 60% "it's all chaos and riots and looting" lately.
Aside from the occasional Peter Arnett discussion (failed plan? what a dolt!) or that CNN guy's confession about keeping Iraq's more egregious abuses secret.
Oh, and the little bits about the Axis of Weasel nations saying "Okay, we admit we're happy he's gone, now that you've done all the hard work, let the UN take over and give us oil. And you're not allowed to be mad at us anymore."
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I know, that made me laugh. Russia, Germany, and France had a meeting about it. Too bad they missed the important ones.
The US and UK should play off the UN for awhile, just to see if the other nations can find their scrotums...
On FOX News, Ed Asner really took a reaming, slammed him hard for his point of view. Not that I agreed with it, but I didn't agree with the woman blasting him either.
Although, with Russia, maybe not the government, supplying Iraq with stuff I can see why they would want to keep everyone out of there. This either tells us the Russian Government did it, or can't keep the people from breaking international law, so it looks bad either way.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Actually, it's been about 10% "yee-haw," about 30% "we're doing okay, but there's still a lot of pockets of resistance" and about 60% "it's all chaos and riots and looting" lately.
Bullshit.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Of course they'll try to underplay the effects of friendly fire.
It wouldn't look too good on Rummies CV.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
. . . which he'll be needing soon.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Hope springs eternal.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom:
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Actually, it's been about 10% "yee-haw," about 30% "we're doing okay, but there's still a lot of pockets of resistance" and about 60% "it's all chaos and riots and looting" lately.
Bullshit.
Well, I watch more than one news station, not whatever tripe you're listening to.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The aggressively pro-war CBC, no doubt.
I don't actually watch the news, because I am lazy, and because FX has two hours of Buffy on a day, so my viewing time (via video cassette) is all spoken for, but, going from newspaper webpages, I'd say I have seen very few mentions of "chaos in Iraq" that didn't also include "they're just blowing off steam" descriptions from the DoD.
Fortunately, it seems that some of the most impulsive post-Hussein snatch and grabs are over, but one worries about the future. And the past. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
We need to take the Arab TVs 'the US has invaded Iraq, they are there to steal the oil', and the US TVs 'we are on plan and everything is great, other than they are blowing off steam', divide them evenly, and come up with 'we are on plan to steal their oil, but we do not want to rule your country'.
It all evens out in the end.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
And in a few months from now the chase for Saddam will be as completely forgotten like the chase for Bin Laden is today.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Afghanistan yesterday, Iraq today, Syria tomorrow, Iran on Monday, scold Saudi Arabi on Tuesday, then take a few days off to relax and let the supply lines catch up.... Each helping us forget the last....
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: The aggressively pro-war CBC, no doubt.
It's proof that Saddam shelters terrorists (like Abu Nidal, now deceased). But many countries do.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
But perhaps a few more will start rethinking that policy.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Perhaps not.
Unless, of course, you're implying those countries can expect to be invaded shortly, which would REALLY undermine your Resolution 1441 stance.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, 1441 was for Iraq, the others will have something we can think of, or create, either way. Heck, if we start thinking like they do we can even hold breathing against them, or the holding of different religious values, points of view, whatever works really.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
forming your foreign policy. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)