|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 09:19:04
In the ongoing war in Iraq, i saw something which surprised me, the US army attacked Al-Dubai TV, Al-Jazeera news with missiles, while the Palestine Hotel - which houses several journalists - was bombed by a tank, all in the same few hours...
I saw the footage of the tank firing at the hotel, and i must say I'm pretty certain it was deliberate... and there was no one attacking the tank... All journalists say so.
I think all these incidents should be investigated seriously... I'm pretty sure those acts were deliberate, the question is - was it the general's who ordered these attacks, or where these the sole responsibility of some trigger happy soldiers and aircraft pilots... What puts me in doubt is that all three attacks were on the same day...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 13:03:57
So i guess directly attacking a hospital voluntarily is also ok.... Its a war zone after all.
If it was an accident i would understand, but when its deliberate, then its wrong...
You didn't see the video footage... By the tone of your answer its quite evident.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-09 13:49:05
It is a war zone; you will never understand that unless you have seen it.
Personally, I hope you never do. Secondly, be thankful you never have.
Please don't take offence to my comments.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-09 13:58:18
Gilligan casts doubt on source of hotel attack
Ciar Byrne
Tuesday April 8, 2003
The BBC's defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan has cast doubt on whether the missile that killed two journalists in Baghdad today was fired by a US tank, speculating that Iraqi soldiers may have launched the lethal attack.
The US military has admitted one of its tanks fired on the Palestine Hotel, the centre for most of the foreign media in the Iraqi capital.
However, Gilligan said reports from central command in Qatar were starting to suggest US tank fire was not responsible for the deaths of Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso, a cameraman with the Spanish TV network Telecinco.
Three other Reuters journalists and an Abu Dhabi TV staff member were injured when an explosion hit their room on the 15th floor of the hotel.
"I may be right in saying we're hearing from central command that they're starting to retract their apology for this incident," Gilligan told Radio 5 Live's drivetime show.
He added that after examining the scene he concluded it was virtually impossible for the US tank to have fired on the 15th floor room.
"I have to say I rather doubt it and, having been underneath it and looking up now just before it got dark at the hole again in the side of the hotel, I still doubt it.
"For a start the damage to the hotel is superficial, it's only the masonry that's been torn off in a very small area, a tank shell would have done more damage I feel.
"Secondly the angle that the tank would have to have reached to hit that roof, it would more or less have had to have shot just round the corner and I don't think even the Americans have got those kinds of weapons."
Gilligan said although American tank fire hit other parts of the hotel, it was possible an Iraqi attack was responsible for the journalists' deaths.
"Now the Americans have admitted they fired at the hotel. There was damage to other parts of the hotel.
"This was the main one the 15th floor room, where the two people were killed and three injured, but there was also damage to rooms on the 14th and 17th floors.
"Now that might have been the responsibility of the Americans.
"This might have been the responsibility of someone else, maybe some Saddam Fedayeen with a rocket-propelled grenade, who did not like the fact the Reuters guy was shooting footage from his balcony at the time of the attack.
"That is pure speculation. I just think there must still be some doubt over this area."
Earlier today the US army said it had fired at the hotel after coming under sniper attack.
It said the deaths were "unfortunate". General Buford Blount, the commander of the 3rd Infantry division, which is at the vanguard of the advance on Baghdad, said a tank was "receiving small arms fire and RPG fire from the hotel".
Later the US army said although journalists were on a "protected list" the military was "correct in returning fire" because of the real threat to their troops.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 15:39:40
You maybe right, but the US did fire on the hotel, i saw it with my own eyes...
Of course, if it os true that it was because they were responding to fire, then i would understand... But it seems strange, that all journalists did not hear any shots fired before the tank fired... Unless the Iraqi fired exactly at the same time on the hotel...
Hmmm.. was this BBC Defence correspondent on the scene? Does not seem so, so i do believe more credible what the journalists on location said... But only a full investigation will give out the truth.
p.s : No offence taken...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-09 16:42:49
Its true, its impossible to believe that a hotel in which the Ministry of Information has set up temporarily (renovations on their building) could have had a couple of snipers hoping to draw the US military into a fight.
Afterall, Saddam's regime is all about keeping civilians out of harm's way. That's been there clarion call for 30 years now.
The journalists didn't hear shots? Well, I'm sure the CBC journalists didn't hear anything. They see no evil, hear no evil and say no evil unless the US has done it.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-10 10:00:55
That's right:
the Canadian Integrity Agency. I'm just trying to keep Canada honest!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: 1254
Date: 2003-04-09 20:23:05
Saw it with your own eyes? No. You saw what the media wanted you to see. I noted some machine gun fire coming in on a TV Camera (the "crack crack crack"). Very easy for you to sit in your comfy chair, weathering the Spanish Inquisition, and judge the action. I can't judge it (cause I wasn't there) and neither can you. I highly doubt, however, that US forces would shoot at ANY media! That being said, they probably got shot at from that general direction, noted the tall building as a possible roost for snipers, and let loose with their coaxial machine gun and NOT the main armament. We all saw what that 120mm gun can go (when that tank on the bridge shot that building). It doesn't matter that the tank was close: it's a chemical energy shell, exploding on contact, causing the same damage whether its fired from 200 metres or 2000 metres.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-10 05:07:28
"...I highly doubt, however, that US forces would shoot at ANY media"
Why, because its the US??
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-10 22:46:05
You doubt the US would shoot at any media; 3 separate incidents in a short period of time on well known journalist housing.
I even heard the excuse that it wasn't the USA; that their shots were lower; Iraq dissidents probably shot the hotel at the same time. Yes sure.
Perhaps they only used their coaxial guns because they were sending a message; not a full out massacre. hmmm
Wouldn't want an outright blatant attack.
More like a warning shot with acceptable collateral damage.
Just a possible theory but very suspicious when 3 separate attacks in such a short period.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-11 06:48:03
The journalists did not hear one shoot 15 minutes preceeding the incident.
The explanations by the Pentagon:
First reason given : There shots being fired from the hotel.
Later in the day 2nd reason : Some people of the regime are residing in the hotel.
Finally, at the end of the day : The regime's people have armed bodyguards.
Frankly, if they were fired at, why did they change their reasons after?? Will there be a full investigation?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-12 13:07:13
Yu agree with me there should an investigation, no? I understand Fog of War, not Fog of Justice.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-12 15:36:22
Yes, I agree with your concern. I don't think the soldiers should be put on the burner here.
I think the investigation should look at the dangers of reporters in combat zones and then impart ways to make it less deadly to them.
Just keep in mind the nature of combat is that bad things always happen.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-13 14:28:18
Yes, i fully understand this, the only thing i want is an investigation, and i will accept their conclusions....
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-10 23:13:09
If indeed the journalists were deliberately targetted, it would only have been because it was in the US national interest to do so. Media became fair game when it started influencing public opinion against any action of the US game plan. Iraqi TV, Al Jazeera, BBC, anyone not siding with the US was the enemy because they were not serving US interests.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-21 05:56:34
There is still no sign of having an inquiry, but the Guardian give out new information which i think is probably be true:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940465,00.html
In short: The Captain of the soldiers admitted a tank fired, because they saw a glint of light - they thought binoculars - which makes sense if the glint of light was probably from the camera which was filming. They were never told that journalists were in that Hotel... So there's a problem somewhere higher up in the chain of command.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-21 13:48:53
Well a few things you are over looking here.
A. If you have mortar fire coming in from across the river, then you will probably have a forward observer. (Someone with a good view directing the incoming shells) That observer could very well be from the hotel calling in coordinates. The tanks were clearly under attack as 4 troops where wounded and the tanks hit.
B. The glint was caught by all the tanks, this is the tricky one. If the camera man was filming each tank and you get hit with glint on say five different points. It is a bit like someone shining a mirror in your eyes, then that would appear that someone is tagging your positions. If rounds are incoming and getting closer then someone is certainly tagging your positions. It may be that the Camera man didn't realize this effect. I think this is why Camera people really need to be trained before entering combat zones in the first place because simple things can get you killed.
C. There was an investigation of the building and some 'suspects' were taken into questioning. Although, I doubt you would be able to convict them on something like being forward observers as it is so difficult to prove.
D. As for a problem in the chain of command, I very seriously doubt that. You have 1/4 million troops in action, it is not possible to think of every possible scenario and label every possible building. Personally I think that journalists have to take responsibility for their lives. If you go into harms way you have to be prepared for the consequences. Eventually Murphy’s Law is going to catch up with you and give you a bad day.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-21 14:39:35
Maybe i was not clear enough in my message, what you are saying is exactly what i was trying to say...
Except for point D) even though i completely agree with you, i think its kind of strange that the soldiers were not warned of the significance of the hotel... I'm very sceptical regarding this.
p.s : Sorry for my spelling mistakes.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-21 21:31:06
i think its kind of strange that the soldiers were not warned of the significance of the hotel... I'm very sceptical regarding this.
I think part of the surprise was how quick Baghdad fell; also I think these guys were all in Chemical defense suits in 100 degree weather. Yes that sound trite, but it’s a series of little things going wrong that lead to big problems. I also recall two troops dieing around that time due to heat exhaustion, but I could be wrong.
I think you can imagine the state of mind of guys who are nearly passing out because of heat stroke; they are not going to be very adept on the battle field. Add some combat to that mix and it is amazing more people didn't get killed or that the building wasn't leveled.
I really can't see a public inquiry to this one. Although there would be a debriefing and a military analysis.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-21 19:20:58
The Americans should have you on staff. You make up more elaborate excuses for their mistakes than they do.
What excuse did you give for them bombing our Canadians?
These Americans all appear to be very young with not much real experience; where are their commanding officers.
Anyone who has followed the war knew that the Palestinian hotel was full of journalists and should know they would be using binoculars.
They are living by the shoot first; ask questions later.
Again, I will note that the British Troops do not seem to makes as many mistakes. The Troops need better leadership and communication. How are these soldiers who have mistakenly killed their own soldiers or other innocents deal with this. The guilt could really damage them.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-21 21:17:37
..."What excuse did you give for them bombing our Canadians? "...
That was un-called for; the pilots are hotdogs and have been found guilty. There is a big difference between air threats and being actually hit by mortar fire on the ground, therefore no comparison can be made here.
..."Anyone who has followed the war knew that the Palestinian hotel was full of journalists and should know they would be using binoculars."...
I hate to break it to you, but M1A1 tanks and Bradley vehicles don't come standard with televisions tuned to the CBC... ;)
..."Again, I will note that the British Troops do not seem to makes as many mistakes."...
Three notes there;
First, the U.S. has a multiple of the British troops.
Second Basra is considerably smaller then Baghdad, thus less difficult to handle.
Third, the republican guards and Saddam's dressed in black crack troops were stationed in Baghdad.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-21 21:38:34
..."How are these soldiers who have mistakenly killed their own soldiers or other innocents deal with this. The guilt could really damage them."...
Yes, you are right here. I have had long arguments with some U.S. people on that point and friendly fire problems.
If you ever thought that I'm difficult with you, you really haven't seen nothing compared to 'discussions' I had with them. :)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-22 08:39:35
Barrett; I keep remembering the Oklahama bombing was carried out by a veteran of the first gulf war; Do we really know what set him off. Is this war going to send home more like him.
(sorry, having a senior moment- his name just won't come through till I have posted this).
I don't believe the bombing of the Canadians was only the pilots fault; yes I do think there was some hotdogging by them but I am aware that they were not briefed on the Canadians being there. The Canadians were not informed to be using special beacons.
During the heat of battle; I realize there is no time to insure civillian or friendly troops are not hit but many of these incidents did NOT happen during the heat of battle. I question why the
American personnel who were taken prisoners by the Iraqis could happen to take a wrong turn; why would they not be travelling in a convoy. They were mechanics and cooks; they would not be front leaders?? Did they not have communication equipment to alert others in their command when they were being attacked.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-23 13:50:02
..."Barrett; I keep remembering the Oklahama bombing was carried out by a veteran of the first gulf war; Do we really know what set him off. Is this war going to send home more like him."...
Heck I hope not.
This gets back to my point that a certain percentage of the world's populations are sociopaths, and as long as these types exist we will never have worldwide peace.
If at the stroke of midnight everyone in the world became conscientious and truly empathetic with others then dreadful things like that would never happen again.
Unfortunately there are millions in this world who simply have no emotion and empathy for others, anyone of these people like Saddam or his thousands of cohorts could put a weapon to our heads, wipe off the blood and then have lunch without a second thought if there were no consequences of law, or if they misjudged others intent to hold them to account.
This gets to my point about law, “laws against murder for say, can only be effective in a setting were those breaking the laws are not the ones making the laws”. This is why I think many people see the U.N. as an answer, and it would be, if it wasn’t made up of people like Saddam and the U.N. actually enforced its own sanctions (Laws). You can’t have 12 years of sanctions and broken laws with no actions, eventually the police have to show up at the door and physically deal with the matter. (But I digress…)
As for the pilots,
I agree with you, some good points. I'll list what a few things that trouble me.
a. The Pilot reduced speed
b. reduced altitude
c. Didn't identify the target.
d. Based on the above three should have left the area; also no surface to air missiles threats.
e. Indication that the pilots had previously missed opportunities to 'hit' targets and may have been predisposed to getting a 'hit' that day.
f. Also questions of using drugs (speed) for extended missions.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-22 08:42:59
I'm just pointing out the facts, and what the soldiers said is quite possible. Of course, I'm quite skeptical also, as i simply can't comprehend that they did not at least have a hint that there were journalists in the vicinity.
It also does not explain why the offices of Al-Jazeera and Abu-Dubai were bombed.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-24 15:59:40
A small update : The US Army is currently conducting an investigation on the attack of the Hotel where the journalists resided...
Thats good news (They are not talking about investigating Abu Dubai TV or Al-Jazeera office bombings though...).
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
