Everybody saw waht happened in Palestine Hotel. A tank fired at it and at Al-Jazzera office nearby. What was the reason behind that attack. I dont believe the army spokesman who said the tank was returning fire. All the journalists( And they are a lot and from many countries,including USA) said that they didnt see and heard any fire from the hotel. Even in the live video that shows the attack no fire is shown or heard coming from the building. Furthermore is a hotel a legitimate target?? Mayby USA is seeing the bad publicity it has from the journalists working inside Baghdad and tried to scare them off. And WHY both on this war and on Afganistan ,Al-jazzera offices were hit. Do this people carry weapons instead of cameras or something. Why always them? There are so many channels in baghdad. Why especially them? Mayby because they transmit what BOTH sides on this war have to say?
I consider those journalists as the most precious asset the world has inside Baghdad because they bring out the truth of what is happening there. As long as they are there we will learn the truth.....
LOFT
The story is that the tank was returning fire. At first I heard it was a sniper, and next I heard it was an RPG, but all the reporters in the building claim they heard no such thing, and something as loud as that definately would've been heard.
I personally put it down to mistakes made in the heat of battle. I doubt that the troops that shot at that building realised what they were shooting at, and I very much doubt they recieved orders to do so. I'd imagine there will be an inquiry into this situation and others like it after this conflict is over.
As for the percieved targeting of middle-eastern reporters, well all I can say is that if that is what is occuring, it would be without a doubt, the absolute dumbest and most futile thing they could possibly do. These media networks have great influence over how the US will be percieved by millions of people all over the middle east. Blowing up one of thier buildings or killing one of thier reporters would only serve to damage the reputation the US has tried so hard to create throughout this campaign. If anything, I'd say they would be desperate to give these reporters as little neagtive to say about them as possible. For this very reason, I doubt these attacks are intended, as the US has nothing to gain, and a lot to loose from them.
This is a rough mistake, I am sure there will be several investigations into both of these incidents as to why those reporters were killed.
The arab news one had some strange circumstances with iraqi soldiers around the building and the building being nno where near other reporters, perhaps the tank guys just didn't know.
BUT, the palastine hotel? come on! it is a big tall hotel, where every single foreign journalist in the world is staying... seems like someone seriously screwed up there. We won't know until an investigation is done, but the 2nd case I am very much in doubt of the ligitamacy of the fire.
They were trying to "collateraly damage" them. Its the new fighting methode. Dont shoot straight to the enemy but high above him hoping that something will fall on his head and kill him. I cant find any other reason why they fired on 6th floor and not straight at the entrance hall.
You can tell me, god forbid you or anyone else is ever in that situation, when you sit in a battlezone...with gunfire, rocketfire, motarfire, tank tracks rumbling, etc. (I can go on with all the different noises)...then you add ontop of that, computers, conversations, yelling and screaming (yes...my father was a journalist...they yell and scream alot) to their main offices over crude communication methods, along with all the other devices that come with journalists....
Tell me loft....can you be so absolutely sure of where gunfire is originating from?
Compound the facts that, well documented even by the reporters who resided there, they were being "protected" by the Iraqi Military in the area...how can you say that these reporters can truly hear or decipher where gunfire was coming from?
To be honest, with your question of why they didn't fire on the entrance hall vs the 6th floor....it actually worked towards the benefit of those reporters they fired at the 6th floor (if that is where they fired at). A single or several rounds from a tank or a heavy caliber weapon could have brought down that hotel if fired at the base of it.
........You can tell me, god forbid you or anyone else is ever in that situation, when you sit in a battlezone...with gunfire, rocketfire, motarfire, tank tracks rumbling, etc. (I can go on with all the different noises)...then you add ontop of that, computers, it.
(Sorry for cutting your message but it was a bit long)
Actually I have done a bit of army duty (18 months) as a APC driver so I know a bit of soldier stuff.
First you have to recognize where the fire is coming and how close to you the bullets fall. Then you evaluate the possibilities of killing him vs civilians near him.(At least when you are in a liberation army that cares for civilians). Second of all when you go to a battle zone you get a PLAN a MAP and BRIEFING. They tell you what to do wher to go where to shoot or where you shouldnt. So I suppose that every soldier in Baghdad can recognize some key Buildings.(They also serve as waypoints for navigation). This I hope happened in the US soldiers before entering the city.
One of things you said that journalists make a lot of noise and carry lots of equipment. Even a small child can recognize a soldier with a gun from a guy caring a camera. And imagine how easy it is when you are in a tank that can read your car lisence plates from 1KM away. As for being glad they didint shoot at the lobby I am glad and sucpicious. The soldiers always return fire the direction they came from. Why this time they fire 30 metres higher. It wasnt for warning because they aimed at the building. I really can come with a logical reason.
Last of all the above I said serve no purpose in this situation because there was no fire coming from the hotel. They tank crew fired either blindly or on order in a civilian place that even we ,thousand miles away, can recognize. All this incident must be investigated.
You guys are way to sensitive. Baghdad is a freakin' warzone. Of course people are going to get killed. These journalists knew the risk they were taking staying in Baghdad and now they complain that some of their friends were killed? You know what, f*ck them.
There are more important things to worry about then the death of some Western journalists who chose to be there, like getting water, food, and medical supplies to starving Iraqi citizens who had no choice.
Originally posted by MikeXXL You guys are way to sensitive. Baghdad is a freakin' warzone. Of course people are going to get killed. These journalists knew the risk they were taking staying in Baghdad and now they complain that some of their friends were killed? You know what, f*ck them.
There are more important things to worry about then the death of some Western journalists who chose to be there, like getting water, food, and medical supplies to starving Iraqi citizens who had no choice.
Ofcourse there are more important things. You mention all of them. We also care about the journalists. Not only for their lives but for what they are doing. Without them we wouldnt know anything about whats happening in Baghdad. There is always the risk to get hit by a bullet in the middle of a battle but as everybody has seen there was NO battle there. Just a tank turned the turret against the hotel and fired and then fired to Al-Jazeera offices. There were a dozen houses nearby why especially this two. Was it pure luck they hit them. Or was an act of intimidation against the journalists.
But that's the part that doesn't make sence from that theory. You can't intimidate the media like that. If anything, all that you'll do is make them say it more, and claim that the US is trying to stop them getting the word out to the people of the world.
Originally posted by Enigma But that's the part that doesn't make sence from that theory. You can't intimidate the media like that. If anything, all that you'll do is make them say it more, and claim that the US is trying to stop them getting the word out to the people of the world.
The strategy is actually simple. Hit the media and say it was a very terrible mistake. The journalists frightened leave Baghdad. Nobody is in the city to monitor the US troops who now can destroy the remaining Iraqi soldiers without having to worry for collateral damage(Civilian casualties). What do you thing would look worse. A "mistake" or a "massacre"?
The journalists knew that they would be going into a war zone when they entered Iraq. They knew what they were getting themselves in for. If they believed such incidents were accidents, they would not leave Iraq out of fear, and if they did not believe they were accidents, they would **** well let everyone know as much. Also, if the journalists were to leave Baghdad out of fear, would they not go on about "the danger to innocent bystanders is too great, so we have withdrawn", and thus destroy the imahe of a "clean" war that the US has been pushing.
Also, even if they did leave Baghdad, and none of the things I have pointed out came to pass, what about the stories the Iraqi people would tell after the journalists returned? What about the embedded reporters? I suppose now you're going to tell me that they will subdue all the Iraqi people through fear, and that all the embedded reporters and everyone else with access to this information is biast toward the US, and would not report on such instances.
The very fact that you are posting right now talking about some kind of conspiracy to kill these reporters tells me that one of the things I have laready mentioned has come to pass, and the US are already feeling the negative affects of it. Therefore, your argument annlus itself, and all we aer left with is "Does the US want to generate negative publicity for itself, instead of letting others do it for them?".
Originally posted by Enigma The journalists knew that they would be going into a war zone when they entered Iraq. They knew what they were getting with is................. "Does the US want to generate negative publicity for itself, instead of letting others do it for them?".
The fact is that Id dont consider US troops tried to kill. Intimidatiom is more of what I am thinking. As another guy earlier in this thread said, and I agree if they fired on the basement(Where the "fire" was coming from) the would have not just killed many people but even making the building to collapse. That means that they didnt have intentions to kill....
Lets take the posible scenarios. I can come with three. The first I mention it. Here are the other two:
2. The tank crew received fire from the hotel direction and shot a warning shot.The same thing happened on Al-jazzera office. So we have a RAMBO type of crew that with no reason fires on everything in front of the tanks scope. (There was no fire coming from the Hotel)
3.The tank received orders to fire on the building that has been mistaken as an Iraqi soldier hideout. How can somebody mistake a 8-storey building in a town that the most buildings are no more that 2storeys. That shows lack of professionalism and lack of proper pre-battle briefing and planning.
I have met US soldiers during my army duty and one thing I cant say about them is that they lack training and experience. And they are not RAMBOS that kill people in cold blood. So the possibilties 2 and 3 are higly unlikly to have happened. As I said before I cant come with another reason???
Well not to state the obvious, but at this point there are two possibilities.
1. It was an accident.
2. It was intentional.
So far I see no plauseable motivation for it being intentional. That does not mean it wasn't, I just have yet to hear anything that convinces me of it.
As for it being an accident, it is one major ****up if it is. How do you accidentally aim and shoot at what is probably one of the major targets they were warned against hitting in any pre-offensive briefing.
Whatever we may think was the cause, the fact is we simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusions. We can speculate, but that's about it. I'm pretty sure that many people will not be so quick to drop this issue though, so I'm sure it will be looked into further once this war is over. I imagine we'll all be hearing about this one on the news quite a bit more in the future.
In here there have also expressed some theories about that incident. Most popular one is that the crew of that tank thought it was Iraqi army´s fire-control post, because flashes of those cameralenses.
Originally posted by Vepsu/FIN In here there have also expressed some theories about that incident. Most popular one is that the crew of that tank thought it was Iraqi army´s fire-control post, because flashes of those cameralenses.
If a soldier shot in everything that shines or makes loud noise he would need thousands of bullets and grenades. And military equipment( including lenses on gogles) is camouflaged to shine as litlle as possible. As "Enigma" said we have too little information except that there was no fire coming from the hotel so we cant say much why it was done. But still the fact that it was an unprovoked outregeous attack remains.
Hmmm, I hadn't thought down those lines. What if for example you were standing up with a shoulder mounted camera on your, well, your shoulder. From a distance, through the lens of a tank in the heat of battle, how easy would that be to mistake as a shoulder mounted missile launcher, such as an RPG. I remember one report said they were responding to what they thought was RPG fire. What if this tank had an RPG fired at it, and when they were quickly trying to figure out where it came from before they were fired at again, they came across this reporter in the hotel, with his camera aimed right at them capturing the images of the battle.
Originally posted by Enigma Hmmm, I hadn't thought down those lines. What if for example you were standing up with a shoulder mounted camera on your, well, your shoulder. From a distance, through the lens of a tank in the heat of battle, how easy would that be to mistake as a shoulder mounted missile launcher, such as an RPG. I remember one report said they were responding to what they thought was RPG fire. What if this tank had an RPG fired at it, and when they were quickly trying to figure out where it came from before they were fired at again, they came across this reporter in the hotel, with his camera aimed right at them capturing the images of the battle.
It's possible.
In the middle of a fight you can say that everything is possible but there are some things in this particular case that mixe it up.
The tank was an Abraams M-1 the most shophisticated tank in world.There were so many soldiers in that bridge so someone should have spotted the "RPG" coming.So he could tell where it came from.
Last there was no fire. A french TV station had live coverage and there was no battle. Even the weather was perfect to say it was a thunder or something....
