Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because they were JOURNALISTS maybe.......if they were in fact "embedded" with terrorists. Are journalist supposed to tell the story from ONLY ONE PERSPECTIVE, that of the U.S., rather than exploring all sides? I believe the term "embedded" is a term created by the U.S. military for journalists traveling with U.S. troops.........now why would such a term apply to journalists who were not traveling with U.S. troops? Do you suppose that the people fighting with the U.S. in Iraq are going to adopt our methods and procedures? Is it possible that journalists in Iraq have actually traveled around the country reporting WITHOUT being "embedded" with anyone at all? Is it possible that journalists have done stories in various places when they were NOT "embedded" with U.S. troops? The implication that those two journalists deserved to die and got what they DESERVED because they were where they were is disgusting.
Stupid question.
I didn't say they deserved to die, I said they were stupid for going out in a war zone "unmarked", hanging around men with AKs and RPGs. Sorry, but that IS stupid.
Hey hummer, what do you guys want? Refs on the battlefield? Did you want the helicopter to land and check with the guys to see if they were the enemy or not? I mean come on, you people are ridiculous here. Since you seem to have all the answers, why don't you send your resume to the DoD and get a job.
I didn't say they deserved to die, I said they were stupid for going out in a war zone "unmarked", hanging around men with AKs and RPGs. Sorry, but that IS stupid.
Hey hummer, what do you guys want? Refs on the battlefield? Did you want the helicopter to land and check with the guys to see if they were the enemy or not? I mean come on, you people are ridiculous here. Since you seem to have all the answers, why don't you send your resume to the DoD and get a job.
I'm asking questions. WHY did our military attempt to hide what really happened in this incident?
This is a snuff video that chickenhawks, I'm sure, like to watch. People such as Bush, Cheney, and Sanrene who've never actually served in combat get a hard on watching civilians being mowed down by our Apache helicopters in a blatant case of overkill. It's more titillating than watching a partial birth abortion.
From Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh (http://www.thebaron.info/namirnooreldeenandsaeedchmagh.html - broken link)
The ground troops were taking fire. The apache is up looking for the source. The journalist actually takes a picture of the humvee column, meaning he pointed it at them. Looking at the .gif, it looks like weapons to me. Those pilots found this group, no other people, with items that look like weapons, their guys taking fire, they pointed the devices towards the troops, the pilots need to make a decision or risk their guys getting hit by an rpg...hmm it's very easy to see what the outcome would be. Journalists who embed themselves with troops assume the same risks the troops do. I cannot fault them for taking out the journalists and the group with them.
Once again though, the van being destroyed is indefensible.
Last edited by 11thHour; 04-07-2010 at 02:54 PM..
Reason: add link
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
