And the award goes to....

[jackjones]

Congratulations Mr tank commander you have been awarded the award for most stupid shot in the history of Operation Iraqi Freedom( you just have to love that name). Why don’t you just put another round in the only building in Baghdad where the foreign press lives. “But I was taking fire from the building”. Sure you were and I’m Santa.

[avx]

Were you there? Did you see video of him NOT recieving fire from that building? Have you ever been in a tank? Have you ever had to make a decision while you were under live fire from an enemy on a battle field?

That *SOLDIER* if over their putting his life on the line fighting for his country...Nobody is perfect and everyone is entitled to make mistakes. So how about you give the guy a break...?

[jackjones]

If you make a mistake you should admit it. Not make up some lame excuse which 50 reporters in the building and 2 video recordings of the incident clearly show and report as being false.


"That *SOLDIER* if over their putting his life on the line fighting for his country"

I must have misunderstood something. I thought he was fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people.

[avx]

I believe he did admit it, and he might end up paying for it with his career in the military, but you lable him the stupidest man in the war because he made a bad call...

I think that stupidest man in the war title should go to Saddam...He would rather have his country torn to shreds and put his people through an unnecessarily prolonged war, just so he can hold on to his little throne of power...

[jackjones]

"I think that stupidest man in the war title should go to Saddam...He would rather have his country torn to shreds and put his people through an unnecessarily prolonged war, just so he can hold on to his little throne of power..."

I can only agree that he isn't to bright and neither does he care about the iraqi people.

[Byte 2.0]

Most of the World New Organizations forget they are not immune to Friendy or Enemy fire. They pretend to be all netural and run all over the country, staying in building near military targets.

Well I have news for them, when you are on the Battlefield, anything and everything can happen. If yo upostion yourself in any area where there is heavy intense fighting, don't expect to never be in the cross fire.

[jackjones]

Yes, there will always be collateral damage but stating the tank was taking fire from the building is just to much.

[avx]

Might want to read this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/08/otsc.irq.brahimi/index.html

I dont know about you, but from reading it...It doesnt exactly sound like 50 journalist saw this specific tank hit the building, from what I can tell everyone is still unclear. Also there is a possibility that there were photographers on the roof...I dont know about you, but from a couple of hundred yards away...what do photographers look like staying low and taking pictures with thier cameras?? He was under fire, probably saw the cameramen and thought they were snipers, and did what he thought was right...whos to say there wernt any snipers??? Saddams army has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will go to any lengths to kill a few american soldiers...even if it means hiding amoungst innocent civilians...

[avx]

Originally posted by jackjones
Yes, there will always be collateral damage but stating the tank was taking fire from the building is just to much.
Its too much to believe that someone with a gun can check into a hotel???

[Nuclear Krusader]

The way I see it: the soldier made a mistake. Yet it's better to be safe than sorry. When under fire you ain't gonna tell the enemy: "hey, can you use tracer bullets to help me see where the fire is exactly coming from so I can aim properly?"

And for his excuse: he may well be afraid of all the world bashing him for his mistake so he tried to justify himself. Of course when you are nervous you come up with not so good excuses. Been there, done dat.

I agree with avx, the soldier deserves no bashing.

[jackjones]

CNN, isn't that the news channel that fired a reporter for saying negative things about the involvement of America in Operation Iraqi Freedom? Way to go free press.

There were no shots fired from the building and you don't open fire on a target you know is full of foreign reporters.

[ZANEY123]

unfortunaly nobody here is over there, and like avx said where you there? and like byte said when it is war anything goes if. he thought he was being fired on and if his orders state he can fire at will on targets that fire at him,, BOOM that is all that is needed to be said.

no one will ever know the real story behind this or any part of the war for that matter.

i feel for the reporters but they know what they are getting into

[jackjones]

"Its too much to believe that someone with a gun can check into a hotel???"

Plz, 50 reporters and no one hears anything? That's a new thing.

[ZANEY123]

Originally posted by jackjones

There were no shots fired from the building




give it up.. we dont know that only the soldier knows that..

[jackjones]

What about listening to a couple of non American media stations.

[ZANEY123]

will do. but whatever media source every report is different. so we could go back and forth all day.

well leave it at that,

if he did not get fired on shame on him for firing on that building
if he did get fired then good for him.

zaney123

[Nuclear Krusader]

He's alive now that is all that matters.

[avx]

Originally posted by jackjones
Plz, 50 reporters and no one hears anything? That's a new thing.

Its called a 'Silencer' - I agree with zaney...We could argue all day, lets just agree that you have your opinion, and I have mine, and I respect your opinion, and would hope that you respect mine. But please, dont bash a soldier who is just doing his job.

[jackjones]

How much damage does a silenced weapon do at at long range? Not much. And how would he know where it was comming from if it was silenced. Nevertheless, I ofcourse respect your opinion.

[jackjones]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-638940,00.html

[drisley]

I wonder how long the leftists are going to bash this one around with their noses.

Come on, man. It is a war zone. Mistakes happen in the midst of such confusion. Besides, if we're to believe the Iraqi mis-information minister, there are no US forces in Baghdad.

Heheh....that one cracks me up. You can hear gunfire in the streets when he said it, too.

[aym]

I've heard a BBC reporter who lives in the same hotel today, he said that the tank stopped on the bridge, and there was no fire heard for 20 minutes or so, then the tank aimed at the building and fired.
I agree with jackjones, I doubt that a silenced weapon can do any damage to a tank from that range.

Originally posted by Nuclear Krusader
He's alive now that is all that matters.
And a reuters reporter was killed, several were injured.

[jackjones]

Originally posted by drisley
I wonder how long the leftists are going to bash this one around with their noses.

Come on, man. It is a war zone. Mistakes happen in the midst of such confusion. Besides, if we're to believe the Iraqi mis-information minister, there are no US forces in Baghdad.

Heheh....that one cracks me up. You can hear gunfire in the streets when he said it, too.

Firstly, I'm neither a leftist nor am I a rightist. Secondly, yes mistakes happen. So why make up stories about it? Moreover, what does this have to do with the Iraqi information minister?
Nothing what so ever.

[Tiretool]

How can you assume that there wasn't sniper fire coming from a hotel window or rooftop? Maybe there was a nook or cranny somewhere on that building which housed an Iraqi soldier shooting at that tank... I'll tell you one thing. If I'm that tank driver, gunner, passenger on said tank, whatever... I'm shooting back and asking questions later. War is hell, but I'm not losing my life over it if I can help it at all. If I think my life's in danger from a sniper that I believe is firing at me from a hotel, I don't care who else is in it, I'm shooting back. If you wouldn't do the same, you don't value your life very much.

[avx]

Jackjones are you a ballistics expert? Do you know what weapon the enemy was using?

This is your argument: Even if he was being fired upon, the gun couldnt have been that strong, so he had no right to shoot.

Im 6'2, 250lbs...if a 5'2 120lb guy comes up to me and hits me in the face...because he is smaller, and couldnt have hurt me that bad, if I hit him...I am the bad guy??

These reporters have chosen to plant themselves in the middle of a warzone...Sure its horrible that a reporter died and some others were injured...but I think the death toll for soldiers that come under unknown fire is climbing towards the high 50's. I dont understand why you think you can already say that the soldiers reason for firing is a "story", there is no proof that there wasnt a shooter, and there is no proof that there was...but already you say hes making up stories and hes lieing to save his butt...But let me ask you this then...if no one was firing on him...why did he shoot the building?

[jackjones]

Firstly, there was no fire coming from the building. You can not fire a rifle without anyone hearing it and no one fired an anti tank weapon without anyone hearing it. Secondly, No I would not shot at a building that I know is filled with innocent people to kill a sniper that can not hurt me when I’m inside my tank. I would have to be pretty unintelligent to intentionally do so.

[avx]

Assuming he knew that there was inncent people in that building...Soldiers dont care about the building, they want to kill the enemy. There you go again with the "you cant fire a rifle without anyone hearing it". Do you know what snipers are and what they do? They use high power rifles to kill enemys at VERY GREAT distances, and not to give their position away, they use silencers, and these rifles are no joke...they are HIGH POWERED and you CAN put a silencer on them. AND THERE ARE ANTI TANK RIFLES!!! They have specifilically designed bullets that pierce the armor and explode in the tanks hull...They are the equivalent of a bunker bomb, they drill in, and then explode...

And you didnt answer my question either...why would he fire? He just wanted to blow something up??? Please...

[jackjones]

"Jackjones are you a ballistics expert? Do you know what weapon the enemy was using?"

No, and neither do I need to be one to know that you do not use silenced rifles to engage targets with at long range. Furthermore, not being a ballistics expert does not mean that I don’t know that there currently are no silenced anti tank weapon ( and if one should exist the Iraqis surely do not have it). I can tell you from personal experience that these types of weapons make a fair amount of noise.

“This is your argument: Even if he was being fired upon, the gun couldnt have been that strong, so he had no right to shoot.
Im 6'2, 250lbs...if a 5'2 120lb guy comes up to me and hits me in the face...because he is smaller, and couldnt have hurt me that bad, if I hit him...I am the bad guy??”

Firstly, I would like to point out that I find your analogy very far fetched and lacking in logic. We are not talking about hitting someone we are discussion an action that killed people.

Secondly, no that’s not my argument but you surely do not engage a suspected enemy target if the target is not capable of hurting you and you in doing so run a very high risk of inflicting a lot of collateral damage( which is a nice marketing expression for killing innocent civilians). It’s the simple principle of applying due force. You wouldn’t carpet bomb the whole city of Baghdad just to kill Saddam Hussein would you? I think the tank commander made a mistake and targeted the wrong building and the general made an even greater mistake by telling the press that the tank was under fire for the hotel building.

“These reporters have chosen to plant themselves in the middle of a warzone...Sure its horrible that a reporter died and some others were injured...but I think the death toll for soldiers that come under unknown fire is climbing towards the high 50's. I dont understand why you think you can already say that the soldiers reason for firing is a "story", there is no proof that there wasnt a shooter, and there is no proof that there was...but already you say hes making up stories and hes lieing to save his butt...But let me ask you this then...if no one was firing on him...why did he shoot the building?”

Firstly, If one source who is involved in an incident tells a totally different story that a lot of sources who have nothing to gain by not telling the truth. What does that tell you?

[glc]

Good grief - it's a WAR, dammit - get OVER it!

You are whining about 3 reporters when there have been over 1000 "innocent" Iraqi civilians killed? What makes these reporters any different than those folks? How many reporters have been killed by Iraqi fire?

If I were living in a hotel in Baghdad right now, I'd make sure my life insurance policy was paid up.

[avx]

The soldier did as he was instructed to do. He could have seen 10 camera men up on the roof pointing their cameras at his tank, he mistook them for enemy soldiers shooting at the tank, he thought the building was over run by Republican Guards so he figures he will take it out...Because while that gun fire may not even pose a single threat too his tank, not all soldiers have the benefit of having 3ft of solid steel surrounding them while they go into battle...So, does he leave the building there because they really cant hurt him, or does he hit the building to destroy any other threat to ground forces. The answer is simple.

There is no point in arguing. The soldier was only doing his job, and from what I can tell so far, should not get into any trouble, cause apparently the military seems to agree that if the reports are dumb enough to be in the middle of a warzone carrying those big zoom in camers that, in the eyes of a soldier looks like a gun, and is held like a gun...They should take further precautions to avoid both Iraqi and American troops, soldiers know all to well that there is no time to investigate whether that is a camera or gun, or if it a soldier or a reporter...

I just dont think someone who is doing nothing to help in the war, can sit there and criticize a mistake made by someone who is putting his life on the line to defend his country and end the war. Just my opinion...Maybe if you didnt start off by labeling this soldier as a complete and total moron...

[jackjones]

Originally posted by glc
Good grief - it's a WAR, dammit - get OVER it!

You are whining about 3 reporters when there have been over 1000 "innocent" Iraqi civilians killed? What makes these reporters any different than those folks? How many reporters have been killed by Iraqi fire?

If I were living in a hotel in Baghdad right now, I'd make sure my life insurance policy was paid up.

Firstly, I'm not whining. What has made you come to that conclusion? The fact that you are of a different opinion then me?

Secondly, what makes this case different is the fact they were killed by an American tank and that the action was deemed justifiable by the U.S army. They were not killed by some selfish dictator but by the force which is supposedly freeing the Iraqi people. The sad truth is that no one had the balls to admit that it was a mistake.

My point: If you make a mistake do not excuse it with a lie.

[jackjones]

"I just dont think someone who is doing nothing to help in the war, can sit there and criticize a mistake made by someone who is putting his life on the line to defend his country and end the war. Just my opinion...Maybe if you didnt start off by labeling this soldier as a complete and total moron..."

Why do you keep saying that american soldiers are defending the U.S.A.? They are not. Iraq did not attack the U.S.A last time i checked the papers.

[avx]

and we are not attacking Iraq, we are attacking Saddam and his little punk army...Can we help it if Saddam wont send his troops to fight us out in the desert, keeping his people out of harms way, no...he barricades his men in city, and lets them use civilians as meat shields....We just dont want another Sept 11th...any other country can allow them selves to get bombed all they want...the US aint gonna take that BS form no little piss ant country like IRAQ and their little 2 bullet 3 camle army...

[jackjones]

"and we are not attacking Iraq, we are attacking Saddam and his little punk army...Can we help it if Saddam wont send his troops to fight us out in the desert, keeping his people out of harms way, no...he barricades his men in city, and lets them use civilians as meat shields....We just dont want another Sept 11th...any other country can allow them selves to get bombed all they want...the US aint gonna take that BS form no little piss ant country like IRAQ and their little 2 bullet 3 camle army..."



I'm quite speechless. You seem to be beyond any logic. What does Iraq have to do with September 11th?

[drisley]

jackjones, you said it. The reason you're in a hissy is because it was an American tank that did it. If it were Iraqi, I've venture to say this thread would not exist. Never mind all the atrocities the Iraqi regime has committed, just since the start of this war. No, let's talk about 3 guys getting killed in a hotel by those evil Americans.

We're arguing over speculation and innuendo. Nobody here was there, and nobody can say journalists are always impartial, especially those journalists that don't particularly like the US anyway. People should wait for the after-action report on this, not get into a tizzy over something which nobody knows a thing about.

[drisley]

FWIW, I just heard that the press that were reporting on this incident were accompanies by Iraqi minders. Doh! Yeah, I'm gonna go with our military's story.

[jackjones]

“jackjones, you said it. The reason you're in a hissy is because it was an American tank that did it. If it were Iraqi, I've venture to say this thread would not exist. Never mind all the atrocities the Iraqi regime has committed, just since the start of this war. No, let's talk about 3 guys getting killed in a hotel by those evil Americans.

We're arguing over speculation and innuendo. Nobody here was there, and nobody can say journalists are always impartial, especially those journalists that don't particularly like the US anyway. People should wait for the after-action report on this, not get into a tizzy over something which nobody knows a thing about.”

I’m not at all in a hissy. I am simply stating my opinion on a matter which I find deeply concerning. As I have stated twice, I think that everything points to the fact that the tank commander made a grave mistake and the general an even greater by excusing it.

As for journalist not being impartial. Why should I doubt the word of at least three reporters, which do not harbour any animosity towards the U.S.A, all of different nationality and working for different news agencies?

[jackjones]

"FWIW, I just heard that the press that were reporting on this incident were accompanies by Iraqi minders. Doh! Yeah, I'm gonna go with our military's story."

Ï don’t think you quite understand how it works. All foreign press working inside Baghdad are always accompanied by a person from the information ministry. This does however not make what the report less true it only restricts what they can show and how people that they talk to react.

[drisley]

Your opinion is duly noted. :)

As for the truthfulness of the reporters, it depends on which news agencies they come from and what nationalities. Obviously, a middle eastern reporter is probably going to report the Iraqi side without question. Left-wing outlets like many in Europe and the BBC love to hammer the US at any opportunity. But, the biggest problem is that these journalists were being minded by the Iraqis at the time, so that introduces more than a little pressure to tow the line, wouldn't you say?

[drisley]

> "This does however not make what the report less true it only restricts what they can show and how people that they talk to react."

That's a real oxymoran, jack. I'd say if they manage what they can show and report, then that affects the truth. Those who haven't towed the line have been kicked out. The fact that these folks are still in Baghdad says something.

[Mac Medic]

I vote for the Minister of Information as the Stupidest man in the war. I just love to hear him speak. And when he's escorted away by Marines I'm sure he'll say it's all an illusion.

[WJWheels]

I wouldn't give a nickel for the total observations of those reporters as to an American doing right or wrong. Every reporter who did NOT have a very definite Saddam leaning has been thrown out - INCLUDING Al-JAZEERA (only recently let back in - I'd assume with promises to show ONLY the regime POV).

I'd absolutely take the word of any American soldier over any foreign reporter with a Fedayeen gun in his back. They could have a machine gunneer beside them and would disavow it at the risk of their life.

Think about it!

[jackjones]

“That's a real oxymoran, jack. I'd say if they manage what they can show and report, then that affects the truth. Those who haven't towed the line have been kicked out. The fact that these folks are still in Baghdad says something.”

It most certainly is not. It’s absurd to imply that the Iraqi government are able to dictate the stories of the foreign press. I most certainly do not think that anyone gets to dictate what the battle hardened reporters remaining in Baghdad report. The only thing the Iraqi government can do is physically restrict their movement and access to the Iraqi people. Two factors which have no bearing on this case whatsoever. I can assure you that the mentioned reports are neither biased nor is there any love lost between them an the Iraqi government. No, the reporters left in Baghdad are not the ones that speak kindly about the regime.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by jackjones
It’s absurd to imply that the Iraqi government are able to dictate the stories of the foreign press. I most certainly do not think that anyone gets to dictate what the battle hardened reporters remaining in Baghdad report. The only thing the Iraqi government can do is physically restrict their movement and access to the Iraqi people. Two factors which have no bearing on this case whatsoever. I can assure you that the mentioned reports are neither biased nor is there any love lost between them an the Iraqi government. No, the reporters left in Baghdad are not the ones that speak kindly about the regime. Jack, might I respectfully suggest you are in some kind of fantasy land. From the beginning, any reporter NOT reporting the regime line has been tossed from Baghdad, if not Iraq. I challenge you to find a published story of ANY of the resident reporters that speaks unfavorably of the Saddam regime.

[jackjones]

"I wouldn't give a nickel for the total observations of those reporters as to an American doing right or wrong. Every reporter who did NOT have a very definite Saddam leaning has been thrown out - INCLUDING Al-JAZEERA (only recently let back in - I'd assume with promises to show ONLY the regime POV).

I'd absolutely take the word of any American soldier over any foreign reporter with a Fedayeen gun in his back. They could have a machine gunneer beside them and would disavow it at the risk of their life.

Think about it!"

Dear Sir

You can rest assured that I have given it the gravest of consideration. I’m am saddened by the fact that you seem to be so paranoid that you have blind faith in the U.S army. If you had researched the situation you would know that what you are starting is simply not true. NO. the foreign press remaining in Baghdad are not puppets of the regime nor are they forced to report false stories at gun point. Please good sir, do try to restrain you imagination.

[WJWheels]

As I wrote (in edit). Kindly furnish a link to a story by one of the hotel resident reporters that criticizes the atrocities of the Saddam regime.

[jackjones]

Do you know the news agency Reuters?

[WJWheels]

I read Reuters online several times a day. Which of their reporters are checked into the Palestine? I'll look for their stories.

[Paul Victorey]

Actually, the reporters inside also have video showing the incident, with no hints of enemy fire; the articles I've read make it sound like there's video confirming that there hasn't been outbound fire from the hotel not explosions heard on tapes. At least one source has mentioned there ahad been video recordings of the 20 minutes preceeding the attack. Even if all the players aren't visible, explosions should be very audible to anyone in the area.

Plus, the fire the tank operator reported was RPG fire -- rocket propelled grenades. Rest assured, you can't exactly not notice that kind of weapon, it's not exactly subtle. The fact the operator reported RPGs, plural, would indicate there to be at least two of them, and to think all those people wouldn't hear explosions is unrealistic. And explosions like that would certainly be audible on the videos.

[WJWheels]

I'm arguing ONLY the allegiance of and the freedom to report of the resident reporters. There is no one there completely free to report all they see. I've listened to quite a few blurbs from a German reporter in residence there and it's obvious he's not free to give his "real" answer to a number of questions.

That being said, from all I read, I too think it was a mistake. A mistake by a 20-something responsible for 360 degrees of attack. I don't think mistaking a 2' long camera lens on a tripod for a large caliber machine gun makes one stupid. Add to this the fact he's picking it up from a rotating turret at a few hundred yards in the middle of heavy enemy fire. No, the only stupid one in this scenerio is the person behind that camera. God rest his soul.

[Paul Victorey]

Wheels, the reporters say that there was no enemy fire period, and the street had been quiet for the last 20 minutes preceeding the attack, and they claim they have the video evidence to prove it.

Further, soldiers have an obligation, even when they feel their own lives are in danger, to minimize civilian casualties, and take steps to be sure they're firing on the right people.

[Mac Medic]

They have that obligation huh?, shame the iraqi goons you support don't have to follow those rules isnt it?

[WJWheels]

Yep, as I said, that's what makes it a mistake. I wonder why we haven't seen that video!! How long will it take those biased, lying, foreign reporters to edit it? A whole ton of crap has been "claimed" in this war.

Good Point OEM...

Do you think Paul, that there are no armed Iraqi military or paramilitary in and around that hotel?

Further, soldiers have an obligation, even when they feel their own lives are in danger, to minimize civilian casualties, and take steps to be sure they're firing on the right people.Hey, if they're firing at me, believe it, they're the "right" people.

[jackjones]

Thank you for bringing some sanity to this thread Paul Victorey. It was most refreshing.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by oem_guy_2002
They have that obligation huh?, shame the iraqi goons you support don't have to follow those rules isnt it?

OK, when have I EVER said I actually supported Saddam or anything he's done in Iraq?

And yes, they DO have to follow those rules, and I agree with you when you are outraged when they break them. The difference is, I'm against killing civilians no matter who is doing the killing, or what pretext they use to justify it.

Further, if you can't take out a hostile without also firing into a building full of civilians, you shouldn't take the shot. We have more weapons than one tank, and it is better to withdraw and bring in forces that are more equipped to deal with the threat than to fire knowing you're hitting a building full of civilians.

[Mac Medic]

JackJones and Paul, would you please Post links to the threads you have started condemning the torture and murder of citizens by the Iraqi military, as I'm very interested in hearing your opinions on this matter. I am assuming you have started these threads as it's obviously very important to you both that civilians do not get killed.

[avx]

Casulty update:
90 US Marines are dead.
8 Missing
7 POW's

British Casulties:
30 British Marines are dead.

The war has been underway for 20 days now. From those fresh from the front lines updates, it can be calculated that 4.5 marines die every day. 0.4 turn up missing everday, and 0.35 are taken captive everyday...I dont think I even need to mention Jessica Lynch and the terrible experience she suffered as a POW, and she is only a young woman, imagine what they are doing to our boys?

Every American soldier in Iraq knows those statistics, and for damn sure they are scared, and they dont want to have that letter sent home to their family...Nor would I. So the fact this soldier made a mistake, no one can blame him for...you seem so upset about that though Jack? What do you want? You want him immidiatly dishonorably discharged from the military?? The boy made a mistake, and I bet he feels terrible about it, and I applaud his commander for sticking his ass out on the line and covering the boy until the final report comes in. That is loyalty, and that is looking out for your own...

I would ask you this one favor...would you please edit your first post, the one where you insulted that soldier...I have read it about 50 times now, and it just pisses me off more and more every time I read it. Because I dont believe he deserves to be insulted by someone who has proven in no way that they could have done a better job, or made a better call. You *said* you could, but I guess we will never know...but I still dont think you deserve the right to insult a soldier for doing what he thought was right...all I ask is that you edit the post to where you are not insulting him, I understand if you want to keep in what happned, and that you feel that was a VERY bad call on his part...but I still think he does not deserve to be insulted by you...I would really appreciate it.

[WJWheels]

Get it line oem-guy.... JockJones is still busy looking for Palestine Hotel resident reporters denigrating the Saddam regime to show me!

[Paul Victorey]

Being as I've made all of one thread about Iraq (in fact, I think I've only started maybe 5 threads a year on PCMech) it's unlikely you'll find any.

Further, why debate an issue whose conclusion is accepted by all? Nobody is seriously going to support Saddam's actions, and none of us have any political power in Iraq, so why comment on their actions? Nobody has also commented on the recent slaughter in the Congo, but it doesn't mean we support it.

I understand the US tries to take care when entering civilian areas, but the incidents like these only underscore the need to constantly improve the calibre of our troops. Civilian casualties may be unavoidable, but there are things that can be done to minimize them. Just because we can't ever stop civilian casualties doesn't mean we shouldn't strive constantly to have a zero civilian casualty count, and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't see every civilian wounded by us as a failure.

Of course I think that killing civilians, by any party at any time, is reprehensible. But the fact that Sadaam kills civilians doesn't somehow make it permissible for our soldiers to act irresponsibly as well.

[Mac Medic]

Collateral damage is excepted during any armed engagement. There are laws in place to protect our soldiers from criminal charges in case of collateral damage. To assume that civilians will go unharmed during the war is naive at best, to single out American soldiers while ignoring the atrocities of the enemy soldiers sends a very strong message of who you really support in this war. To say this soldier made a mistake is inaccurate, he made a decision based upon the events unfolding before him, he did what he was trained to do, what any soldier would do. He will not be tried as war criminal, the chances of a dishonorable discharge are very slim, as they should be. We are not in the business of trying soldiers for killing people, it's their job, if they honestly thought they were going to be held liable for doing it we would have no volunteers. Just think about it logically, and you'll come to the same conclusion.

[avx]

The way I see it, our soldiers are doing a pretty darn good job. They have the responsibility of limiting civilian casulties, limiting dmg done to Iraq itself, protect themselves and the lives of their fellow soldiers, and to uphold the honor and dignity at which the USA has earned over many years, and many wars, and I for one think they are doing very good...I didnt see the thread where Jack praises US soldiers for them bringing food and fresh water to the people of Iraq, or playing Soccer and football, hell, I even saw a video of 2 marines and 2 Iraqi's playing poker eating some chips...I want to find that video and capture that one image...set it as my desktop...LoL, WHAT A GREAT PICTURE IT WOULD MAKE

[drisley]

In a war where the Iraqi regime is forcing young boys to fight the US marines under threat of killing their families, where we are freeing kids from Iraqi jail, where we have "soldiers" firing at us from the very mosques they claim we want to destroy, I find it a bit difficult to get charged up over this issue. Anybody who thinks this was anything but an unfortunate mistake is simply misguided. At the very least, I think our guys are owed the benefit of the doubt. I mean, it seems very clear only one side of this fight has any sense of honor and respect for civilian lives.

[Mac Medic]

Hear Hear.

[Paul Victorey]

Just because we can't prevent civilian casualties doesn't mean we shouldn't try our hardest, and if firing into a crowd of civilians to get an enemy is really how we train our military, maybe we need to rethink that.

And if there was no enemy fire, then a dishonorable discharge would be far too lenient.

Further, as mentioned, why comment on a situation we can't change? I don't think anyone here is Iraqi, and many of us are American. I can work to change the policies of my government, I have no say at all on the policies of Iraq. Posting about Iraq's atrocities would be pointless. Posting about our army's shortcomings can put pressure on the military to improve our strategies, tactics, training, and recon to prevent casualties.

I think the problem is that all too often, people seem to think like children -- everything becomes good vs. evil, black and white, the knight in shining armor vs. the evil dragon. People think our enemies can do no good and we can do no ill, and anything that doesn't fit in with this childish idea is rationalized until it fits perfectly. Such a naive way of thinking benefits nobody. Talking about our enemy's bad points doesn't help us; talking about our own bad points gives us the ability to correct them.

[avx]

And if there was no enemy fire, then a dishonorable discharge would be far too lenient.
Paul, he was a marine tanker...There is nothing more shameful to a marine than a dishonorable discharge...

Without a doubt this soldier will recieve some waves for this and will recieve a rehash course in BASIC tank training... but to go as far as to say that a dishonorable discharge is too leniant, is a little much in my opinion. Thats like someone going to church their whole life, and saying "God damn" 1 time and being sent to hell...(sorry if its a bad analogy, but Im not good at talking...)

He was just doing his job and made a bad call...There is nothing criticizing our military for a bad call is gonna do to help or make it better...

[Mac Medic]

Personally I think the conflict is gone extremely well, I don't believe our military needs to rethink their training regimen, or battle plans as they have proven over the last two weeks that their training works, and our soldiers are quite obviously the best there are. As for changing our nation's policies, we live in a republic, you elect officials to make those decisions for you, if it your intention to change our national policy I would suggest you run for public office, although I would wait a number of years as your views on the current situation would mean an almost certain defeat. So I suppose you are right, why comment on a situation that you can't change. But God forbid a U.S. soldier kills a citizen during a time of war, even though there's nothing you can do to change the situation, even though collateral damage is unavoidable during a war, even though there's nothing you can do to change the situation, naturally it's up to us to set a higher standard in armed conflict, so I guess people like you are just championing the cause towards a more civilized and peaceful world. The irony is there is only one side of this war that is truly concerned about minimizing civilian casualties and just happens to be the side you are now condemning for one unfortunate incident. Although I'm not sure why, has there's nothing you can do to change the situation so why bother talking about it !!!

[mr krinkle]

Even when we "win" the war in Iraq, we have paid too much. I am not speaking about the billions of dollars. At this stage who cares about the billions of dollars? We have lost our status as decent, law-abiding members of the family of nations.

[avx]

Funny...I never knew any nation looked at us as anything more than a money bank....

another thing...what law did we break?

[drisley]

The US is the big daddy figure of this "family of nations". As much as some would like to see us down-size and be equal to every other nation on this planet - sorry, that just isn't the case.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by avx487
Paul, he was a marine tanker...There is nothing more shameful to a marine than a dishonorable discharge...

Without a doubt this soldier will recieve some waves for this and will recieve a rehash course in BASIC tank training... but to go as far as to say that a dishonorable discharge is too leniant, is a little much in my opinion. Thats like someone going to church their whole life, and saying "God damn" 1 time and being sent to hell...(sorry if its a bad analogy, but Im not good at talking...)

He was just doing his job and made a bad call...There is nothing criticizing our military for a bad call is gonna do to help or make it better...

Of course it can make it better, we can adjust how we train people.

And if he did fire on civilians without cause, what should the punishment be? "Oh, too bad, better luck next time"?. Even if it was an honest mistake, people died because of his mistake. Personally, if he didn't know the building was full of civilians, there's something seriously wrong with the briefings, and if he did know, there's something wrong with the gunner himself or the training he received. Even if there were confirmed hostiles in the area, he should have known firing a tank at a building housing civilians was unacceptable, and alternate tactics should have been used to secure the area without unnecessary civilian risk.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by jackjones
Yes, there will always be collateral damage but stating the tank was taking fire from the building is just to much. If I were an Iraqi soldier who wanted to create an international incident I would most certainly go into a building where journalists hang out and fire at Americans to draw their return fire.
If a reporter is standing near an Iraqi soldier with a rocket propelled grenade, do you think the tank commander is going to hesitate one second before firing? War is hell.
The stupid reporters should get the h*ll out of there.

[Byte 2.0]

When reporters run into a warzone they know they are taking a chance with their life.

How many reporters where in Germany during WW2? certainly none openly reporting back to the UK or USA.

Reporters now days walk accross the battle lines from side to side reporting, then they wonder why a few of them get killed.

So be it, if they are going to be in the middle of the War Zone then they can take their chances with everyone else.

And for some saying there was no shots being fired, I find that hard to believe, even Bagdad Bob(information minister) can not find a quiet place to report on how badly America is losing the war, as he reports gun fire and explosions can be heard in the background.

I can't believe how that dude and say that with our Tanks driving though the middle of the City.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by byte
I can't believe how that dude can say that with our Tanks driving though the middle of the City. Did you see the Saturday Night Live skit where he is shown to be denying the presence of American troops and a tank goes driving behind him in the background? :D :p :D

[jackjones]

"Paul, he was a marine tanker...There is nothing more shameful to a marine than a dishonorable discharge...

Without a doubt this soldier will recieve some waves for this and will recieve a rehash course in BASIC tank training... but to go as far as to say that a dishonorable discharge is too leniant, is a little much in my opinion. Thats like someone going to church their whole life, and saying "God damn" 1 time and being sent to hell...(sorry if its a bad analogy, but Im not good at talking...)

He was just doing his job and made a bad call...There is nothing criticizing our military for a bad call is gonna do to help or make it better..."

Sadly, It seems to me that you are of the opinion the a member of the U.S armed forces can do no wrong and commit no action which requires a dishonourable discharge or more. I would have to agree that a dishonourable discharge is too lenient.

Furthermore, I am afraid that I will have to stand my ground and not edit my first post. If you have a problem with it for reasons of nationality or patriotic views, I am truly sorry sir but that does not change my opinion.

[jackjones]

“Get it line oem-guy.... JockJones is still busy looking for Palestine Hotel resident reporters denigrating the Saddam regime to show me!”

No, I most certainly am not. I’m neither your secretary nor your private search engine, good sir. The reason why I was kind enough to point you in the direction of Reuters is that they are a news agency which sells information to newspapers of the entire political spectrum in the whole world. It would be quite ludicrous to postulate that they are biased in any way and that they only sell information which displays the Iraqi regime in a kind light.

PS: Please, try to spell my name correctly.

[Tiretool]

Sadly, It seems to me that you are of the opinion the a member of the U.S armed forces can do no wrong and commit no action which requires a dishonourable discharge or more. I would have to agree that a dishonourable discharge is too lenient.

I don't think that is their opinion at all.. Merely that during times of war, determining targets accurately gets very difficult. It gets even more difficult when a person is genuinely scared. Our media is making our military out to be a big proud bulletproof hero, but it just isn't so. Our guys are heros, don't get me wrong, but I bet there isn't one of them that isn't genuinely scared. When people get scared and panic, they tend to rush to judgement. Sometimes their judgements are wrong. If that is the case with the tank commander, we can't throw the book at him for doing his job to the best of his ability if he honestly thought he was taking fire. He's merely doing what his commander told him to.

Even an article 15 would be too strict in this case in my opinion.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by jackjones
The reason why I was kind enough to point you in the direction of Reuters is that they are a news agency which sells information to newspapers of the entire political spectrum in the whole world. It would be quite ludicrous to postulate that they are biased in any way and that they only sell information which displays the Iraqi regime in a kind light.

PS: Please, try to spell my name correctly. I've always been impressed with Reuters and as noted, I visit their site daily. My comments were as to what they're "allowed" to report from the Palestine hotel.

I just listened to an interview of the German reporter I referenced earlier. As you're probably aware, the "minders" did not show up today. I'll quote the reporter, "Finally we can report!" He went on to say that 40% plus of what he would've reported could not be because of the Baath party "minder". Do you have a reason to believe Reuters reporters are treated differently?

BTW: your name was not intentionally mispelled. It was an honest mistake. If I had meant it, I assure you "Jock" would be at the opposite of the spectrum of names that come to mind.

[jackjones]

"I just listened to an interview of the German reporter I referrenced earlier. As you're probably aware, the "minders" did not show up today. I'll quote the reporter, "Finally we can report!" He went on to say that 40% plus of what he would've reported could not be because of the Baath party "minder". Do you have a reason to believe Reuters reporters are treated differently?"

With all due respect, I fear that you have misinterpreted what the reporter is saying. He stated that he had not been able to report everything he would have liked to due to the restriction placed upon him for the government. Something, I have mentioned. This however doesn’t mean that the reports of the incident about the episode in question are untrue. Have any of the reporters retracted their statements about the incident? No, they have not. Why is it that now that they are free to go everywhere and are no longer under “the control” of the Iraqi government? If they had been forced to tell lies at gun point don’t you think they would be the first to report about it now that no one is “holding a gun to their head making them tell horrible lies”? Let me tell you why. Because they told the truth.

[WJWheels]

Hehe.. I'll go with what Brig. Gen. V. Brooks reiterated this morning, "the tank gunner was fired on and returned fire." Case closed!

[jackjones]

I can only say that I will not but you are free to believe whatever you wish, good sir. I for one will take the word of the free press before that of any U.S army spokespersons any day of the week.

[TimPoet]

Palestine hotel is not in a free press zone, it's in a war zone and in a war zone people are intentionally killed, so if they don't want to be accidently killed then the free press better get out of there and quit whining about a war zone where war happens. If they stay, then they die due to their own fault.

[jackjones]

"Palestine hotel is not in a free press zone, it's in a war zone and in a war zone people are intentionally killed, so if they don't want to be accidently killed then the free press better get out of there and quit whining about a war zone where war happens. If they stay, then they die due to their own fault."

Don't you find that line of thought just a tad to black and white?

[TimPoet]

No, I find it to be true.
Death is long and life is short and if those idiot reporters want to enjoy what's left of their short lives they better exit the hottest part of the war zone fast.

Btw, Jack, if you hit the "quote" button on the person's post you want to quote, it will set up a reply box so that your post will be easier to read.

[jackjones]

"No, I find it to be true.
Death is long and life is short and if those idiot reporters want to enjoy what's left of their short lives they better exit the hottest part of the war zone fast."

It must be nice to be able to define the world in such simplistic terms and with such an utter lack of interest for details. I however know that there is an almost infinite amount of space between black and white.

[WJWheels]

And if one chooses to hang out on the upper floors of a hotel in the middle of a war zone, his mentality is pretty close to the "idiot" end of that spectrum.

[jackjones]

"And if one chooses to hang out on the upper floors of a hotel in the middle of a war zone, his mentality is pretty close to the "idiot" end of that spectrum."

That’s nice. So the reporter was killed because he was a moron and the guy how made the mistake is an unlucky hero? That’s what I call twisted logic.

[Tiretool]

That’s nice. So the reporter was killed because he was a moron and the guy how made the mistake is an unlucky hero? That’s what I call twisted logic.

The journalist who was killed was taking a gamble. That's all that boils down to. I've seen movies about journalists and how they would kill for the story that might make them a superstar in the news industry. They all want to report the news and become a household name. That's all fine and dandy. It shows that they are dedicated to their line of work and I respect them for that.

But... they need to realize that just because they wear their little blue vests that have the words "Press" on the front and back doesn't make them invincible. I'm sure that if our military tank commander had known that he was about to fire upon a member of the press, he wouldn't have squeezed off that round. All he knew was that someone from the vicinity he had in his sights had fired upon him and he was about to return fire. He did this and was perfectly within his rights to do so.

It's tragic that a member of the press was killed, but it's also tragic that 90-something of our military members have been reported dead. This world isn't perfect and no one who lives in it is either, but to even think of punishing this member of our armed forces for trying to defend himself and his brothers-in-arms is ludicrous.

Should the gentleman who squeezed off a tank round at the hotel be considered a hero for this act? No... he should be considered one for participating in the war that his country sent him to, which he most likely didn't ask to be sent to, and for sacrificing his normal everyday life for that of a wartime veteran for our country.

Hopefully that straightens out some of the "twisted logic" that you're perceiving JackJones.

[avx]

I would just like to know jackjones...What do you find most upsetting about this incident? The fact that he throught he was firing an enemy building? The fact that he didnt hop out of the tank, run over to the hotel and ask the door for the guest book to make sure that "The Elite Guard - Room 1 - 500" wasnt written down somewhere? That a couple of reporters died? Or that the the marine is not having the book thrown at him?? If its a mixture of all of them, please mention which one upsets you MOST.

[jackjones]

“I would just like to know jackjones...What do you find most upsetting about this incident? The fact that he throught he was firing an enemy building? The fact that he didnt hop out of the tank, run over to the hotel and ask the door for the guest book to make sure that "The Elite Guard - Room 1 - 500" wasnt written down somewhere? That a couple of reporters died? Or that the the marine is not having the book thrown at him?? If its a mixture of all of them, please mention which one upsets you MOST.”

What upset me the most is that the U.S army does not have the balls to admit to the mistake and instead just makes up a lie. No one fired from that building it was simply a case of very bad judgment.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by jackjones
What upset me the most is that the U.S army does not have the balls to admit to the mistake and instead just makes up a lie. No one fired from that building it was simply a case of very bad judgment. Wow! Are you still hanging on to that story jj? I've heard a few more "minded" reporters telling how bad hey were suppressed. I don't see how you believe the fedayeen wouldn't hide behind the press, when they'll hide behind children and pregnant women. Though believing an American soldier would shoot into an occupied building with no provocation is even more astounding.

[avx]

And by the way...it wasnt an "Army" tanker, its was a "Marine" tanker!

Either way...once again...You have just gone to far in my eyes...

What upset me the most is that the U.S army does not have the balls to admit to the mistake and instead just makes up a lie.

The US military doesnt have balls!?!? How many wars have we won? How many lives have been lost to protect this nation? The military has seen more horrible sights then you can ever hope to never know, so if you think for 1 minute that the US military doesnt have the honor, the respect, the courage and BALLS to admit when they are wrong...you are sadly mistaken...If that soldier says he was being fired...he will damn sure get the benefit of the doubt, because he has earned it.

Try and remember this for me please..
It is the soldier, not the reporter who gives you freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet who gives you the freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer who allows you to demonstrate.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves the flag,
and whose coffin is draped with the flag that allows protesters to burn the flag!!!
- Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC

[drisley]

I think this is more than relevant. Jack, as you said previously, not everything is black and white.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,932481,00.html

[jackjones]

Nice, find drisley. That make one analyst against three eyewitnesses.

[jackjones]

"Try and remember this for me please..
It is the soldier, not the reporter who gives you freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet who gives you the freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer who allows you to demonstrate.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves the flag,
and whose coffin is draped with the flag that allows protesters to burn the flag!!!
- Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC"

Good Sir, please spare me your patriotism

[drisley]

Jack, I'm really having to hold back on that one, man. You should respect others for their patriotism for their own country, not throw up your hand at it as if its an annoyance. That's insulting.

I'm closing this thread.