[CasX]

Journalists from all over the world were outraged at an attack by a US tank on the Palestine Hotel where many journalists were staying. 2 were killed and more were injured. The tank was apparently acting because of sustained gunfire coming from the building. This is almost definitely mythical. Reporter Tareq Ayyoub, a correspondent for Al Jazeera satellite channel, was killed on Tuesday in a US air strike on its office. Another explosion damaged the nearby office of Abu Dhabi TV.

Journalist body says US breaks Geneva Conventions:
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=17426

Journalists Die, the Networks Lie, Iraqis Ask "Why?":
http://www.counterpunch.org/heard04082003.html

[Boondock Saint]

The only other options are ...

- accidental.

- Intentional targeting of reporters.

- something else ...

Honestly I cant see the reason to target reporters intentionally when so many reporters are around ... it wouldnt make sense ...

I will chalk this one up to propaganda on the arab reporters side.

[ahab]

#$%^ing journalists!

I watched the press confrences that the US military had after this, for two days every other question was about this, including a couple that asked if the US military would grant special status to journalists and the palestine hotel similar to what religious places are granted. Yeah I know it is unfortunate that people died, but plenty of other people are dieing also, not just journalists.

I could imagine that the tank crew may have been under fire, saw the cameras, mistook them for snipers or anti-tank weapons and fired.

and...
U.S. role in journalists' deaths doubted
Fire from Iraqis, not U.S., may have killed reporters
A BBC reporter has his doubts that it was an American tank that did the damage. Inconclusive and not very well backed, but doubts are there.

[Boondock Saint]

Does it really matter?

If I go to a nation in the middle of a war there are certain risks I must assume ... if I am not willing to assume those risks thats fine ... but I sure as hell shouldnt think I am bullet proof just cause I refuse to assume the risks ...

Its like people going outside in the middle of a rainstorm and being angry they got wet.

[ahab]

If the US kills journalists it is censorship and the US is trying to hide something and is portrayed as evil all over the world. If Iraq kills journalists their image doesn't get much worse than it already is.

[CasX]

Yes, and the video of the american tank firing on the hotel is as mythical as the gunfire coming from the hotel is it?

Trying to defend or play down these actions is nuts, especially with stupid arguments like "does it really matter?" or "doubts are there" which don't address the facts of the situation.

I didn't ever mention anything along the lines of journalists' lives being worth more than anyone elses either, that conclusion is flawed, and is again irrelevant to the events of the US attacks of three seperate media buildings.

I will chalk this one up to propaganda on the arab reporters side.

uh...

[ahab]

Trying to defend or play down these actions is nuts, especially with stupid arguments like "does it really matter?" or "doubts are there" which don't address the facts of the situation.

I'll believe the American tank did it, but I'd like more evidence

Yes, and the video of the american tank firing on the hotel is as mythical as the gunfire coming from the hotel is it?

There is actually video of this! I want to see it...

I don't mean that it doesn't matter or anything, it's just that the press threw a hissyfit over it, and I was getting sick of it.

[CasX]

Oh yeah, I get your point now.

I believe there was video footage of the tank firing directly at the Palestine Hotel, it was filmed by journalists very near where the the shell hit the building.

At least, I think that's right.

Anywho, I was reacting more to Boondock Saint's post:

"Its like people going outside in the middle of a rainstorm and being angry they got wet."

What a load of crap. It's like going out into the rainstorm with a coat and umbrella and then having a US tank blow you up.

'Errors' like this can't be ignored, especially when TWO other independent media organisations were directly attacked.

The only other options are ...

- accidental.

- Intentional targeting of reporters.

- something else ...

Seeing as how there were three seperate attacks on the media by US forces we can assume that accidents were not to blame. That leaves your other two options.

[CasX]

This is also relevant to this thread, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Peter Arnett was fired in more than dubious circumstances:
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=531

[Boondock Saint]

Cas ...

With the power of the US why would the US intentionally target journalists ... oh and in war there is no umbrella.

Rain drops stop because of an umbrella ... bullets dont stop because you have 'press' written on your shirt ...

Furthermore if the US tank team says they were being fired upon then I believe them ... as it just makes more sense then the tank team intentionally targeting reporters ... afterall I am sure there were reporters all over the place ... if the US was into killing reporters why would there be any reporters there? They would all be dead or kicked out ...

I mean really ... the idea that they are targeting Abu Dhabi (sp?) intentionally is silly ... but ... if you want to believe it go right ahead, I cant stop you ... but I toss it right into arab propaganda that the US was intentionally targeting civilians ... hell I heard one report saying the US was engaged in genocide and trying to wipe arabs out.

I put all three reports together because until I am given a motive then I cant see why the crime was commited.

[John Doe]

I saw the video and the tank fired at the Hotel. The tanks fired at a lot of buildings as a matter of fact. I believe it is called being in a battle.

BTW, early in the war a reporter was killed by a suicide bomber and I don't remember any outcry over targeting journalists at that time. Also, yesterday seven Portugese journalists where beaten and robbed by Ba'athist forces and were about to be lynched before the Ba'athist officer intervened. I don't recall any calls for war crime trials for that.

Somebody above mentioned the reporter who requested they be given the same status as religious shrines and heritage sites. I saw that question too... I about spit coffee out of my nose laughing at the sheer audacity of it all.

[CasX]

BTW, early in the war a reporter was killed by a suicide bomber and I don't remember any outcry over targeting journalists at that time.

Of course, journalists have been killed all over the place, war correspondants have a dangerous job being in a war zone.

That the US would deliberately target any western media doesn't have a lot of substance, and is a bit hard to imagine.

What makes it very bad on this occassion was that the US lied about sustained gunfire coming from the hotel, which is totally bullshit. That's why journalists were upset, because not only did they have to carry the dead and wounded bodies of their comrades out of the building but then the US story about the reason they targeted the hotel is bullshit.

If it really was just an unfortunate accident then why not say so.

I mean really ... the idea that they are targeting Abu Dhabi (sp?) intentionally is silly

But the arab networks are where you can draw a line. After all, the US 'accidentaly' destroyed an Al-Jazeera station during the war in Afghanistan.

The US tanks definately targeted these two Arab TV stations in Baghdad, there's no doubt about that. The question is why?

Having Peter Arnott fired just tops it all off. It's a pity the US media is having a "who can dish out the most pro-US crap" war, in order to attract the 'patriotic' viewer.

[Boondock Saint]

Well in truth Arnet did step a bound ... or cross a line ...

Why?

Because he spoke out against the US? No, people all over the world have been doing that, including here in the US. Hell CNN has one pro-peace person for every pro-war person ...

Arnet gave blatant propaganda to the Iraqi's, that is a big difference then speaking your mind. I also understand Arnet said something about the Iraqi's treating journalists really well ... um ... yea ... thats total BS ... there were alot of journalists who suffered greatly at the hands of the Iraqi regime.

No big deal right? He isnt responsible for any of that, he was just speaking his mind ... right?

Wrong ... Having an Iraqi come on Iraqi tv and say this that and the next thing is one thing but having an American reporter who is well known come on and say things could potentially lead to highly motivated Iraqi's ... which means more fighting ... which means more death on both sides ...

I know you and everyone on this forum understands the power of propaganda ... and what he gave was indeed great propaganda ...

Not to mention his blatant attempt at making himself look as though he had any idea about the pentagons war plan. The claims he made were irresponsible and reckless.

As for the US targetting arab reporters ... I am open to the concept but someone has to give me a motive, an actual reason ... and proof would help too ... having the comrades of those killed say there was no fire coming from the building is not acceptable ... especially since these very news agencies we are discussing had signed a contract with Saddams regime showing only what they allowed ... in other words ... propaganda.

So ... its my opinion that the arab reporters have just as much agenda as some might beleive the US has.

Plus ... who says there was no fire from the building? Is there tape of the building and the tank the whole time?

Was the tank under no fire at all?

Was the tank under fire?

Was there any fire other then US fire?

Was this an actual battlezone?

Was it a peaceful zone with no battle going on and the US forces just opened up on targets they had confirmed as reporters?

And of course proof.

Until I see refutable proof that these reporters were targeted intentionally after being varifeid as reporters and non-threats THEN I will condemn the tank crew. Till then I take the tank crews word for it.

Call it nationalism, call it whatever you want ... but what we have here is a case of 'he said, they said' ...

[John Doe]

What makes it very bad on this occassion was that the US lied about sustained gunfire coming from the hotel, which is totally bullshit. That's why journalists were upset, because not only did they have to carry the dead and wounded bodies of their comrades out of the building but then the US story about the reason they targeted the hotel is bullshit.

Actually, if he had watched the press conference (as I did), you would know that the above was inaccurate. Under repeated questioning the Officer (I forget his name but can look it up if you insist) said that he didn't know the details but thought the troops were fired on from the lobby. He repeatedly said he didn't know the details, but it would be investigated. BTW, at the very same press conference a reporter corrected him by pointing out reports were the firing came from the top of the building, not the lobby.

What reports you ask? Ahh... there's the nub of the problem. Those reports were PRESS reports on the 24 hour news channels. Many of these channels (FOX in particular on the US side) are rushing rumors onto the air and then people are taking those rumors as official statements. That's just plain sloppy reporting.

I might also point out -- since many of you folks claim you have such fine tuned American propoganda antennas -- that it is pretty sloppy processing of information on your parts too.

[CasX]

Sadly Boondock Saint, you probably wouldn't know propaganda if it bit you in the ass. Read Propaganda by Jaques Ellul, it's good book.

Arnett did not give "blatant propaganda" to the Iraqis, he spoke his mind and made good decisions based on the evidence he had. He is a very good journalist. He should be respected for not taking the official Pentagon line like all the crappy CNN reporter drones.

No big deal right? He isnt responsible for any of that, he was just speaking his mind ... right?

Right.

Wrong ... Having an Iraqi come on Iraqi tv and say this that and the next thing is one thing but having an American reporter who is well known come on and say things could potentially lead to highly motivated Iraqi's ... which means more fighting ... which means more death on both sides

So anything that could be anwhere near the truth but could lead to any sort of positives for Iraq should be banned?

In other words, anything that means 'our' side won't feel so positive about the war, and the 'other' side will feel a little better should be censored?

We should only be able to see pro-war reporting?

Back to the Palestine Hotel incident:

who says there was no fire from the building?

Virtually all the journalists present who could verfiy that there wasn't. Also the whole incident is on tape, there were journalists on hotel balconies making their reports. According to the US version, gunfire was raging around them.

I have a NZPA (New Zealand Press Association) print-out right here that has the early US version. That "sustained gunfire" was coming from the Hotel. It wasn't!

Is there tape of the building and the tank the whole time?

Yes.

Was the tank under no fire at all?

No, it wasn't.

Was there any fire other then US fire?

No.

Was it a peaceful zone with no battle going on and the US forces just opened up on targets they had confirmed as reporters?

Hopefully they hadn't confirmed them as reporters. Why not?

what we have here is a case of 'he said, they said'

We have a case of 'evidence says', 'Boondock Saint says'.

You can get of the topic of 'did they fire at reporters' and move on to 'why did they fire at reporters'.

Actually, if he had watched the press conference (as I did), you would know that the above was inaccurate. Under repeated questioning the Officer (I forget his name but can look it up if you insist) said that he didn't know the details but thought the troops were fired on from the lobby. He repeatedly said he didn't know the details, but it would be investigated. BTW, at the very same press conference a reporter corrected him by pointing out reports were the firing came from the top of the building, not the lobby.

Exactly. The US changed it's story. I have three conflicting statements that were each made about two hours after the previous. These are official statements made by the US and sent over the NZPA to media outlets.

We know most of the facts. So why did it happen?

[Boondock Saint]

Ok so I have read alot of reports about it and they are all teh same ... do u have a link to this video of the tank firing on the hotel?

I could only find audio.

[CasX]

Not one that I know of, it was on TV. I believe the tape belongs to the BBC, but I'm not sure.

[John Doe]

"Was the tank under no fire at all?"
"No, it wasn't."

That is an absolutely untrue statement. The tanks were slowly pushing their way onto the bridge and were under heavy fire. That battle is what the reporters were filming. In the film of that battle you see the tanks firing both primary and secondary guns as well as fire coming in.

The US did not issue three different "official" versions of the event and send them over the wire that day. I watched the press conference and the US authorities were very unambiguous is stating they didn't know what happened. Once again, rumors pumped out by FOX or on the wire quoting "Pentagon sources" are not official statements. The official version released the next day was that the tanks, while under fire, were scanning the buildings for spotters. The saw people with binoculars at the Hotel and fired a round to suppress what they thought were spotters.

[CasX]

Actually you're right, the tank was in a battle wasn't it.

And yes, they did provide conflicting statements. Earlier ones said there was "sustained gunfire" coming from the hotel. Later, this seems to have been taken back.

And what about the arab media outlets, why were they destroyed?

I don't believe the US would deliberately target western journalists, so I guess we'll have to see what their 'investigation' finds.

[Proctor]

There is almost actual footage of the tank firing on the Palestine Hotel. I'll try to describe a mental image of what happened.

Imagine a bridge with tanks on. To the right of this and on the side of the river that the tanks are facing, is the Palestine Hotel. To the left of the bridge are the Baghdad Abu Dhabi TV offices. This is what a French cameraman saw. I don't know what network.

The tanks are firing down the street that they are facing. Suddenly, one of the tanks turns its turret to the left, and fires on the Abu Dhabi offices. And again. Multiple times. They blow up pretty good. As you can imagine, the cameraman is pretty scared, and zooms in on the tank. The tank turns its turret around towards the camera, which is on x floor of the Palestine Hotel. The cameraman shits himself, stops filming, and I assume gets the fuck away from the window.

Cut to Abu Dhabi TV. They are filming the tanks from outside their offices. You can see the Hotel in the background. A tank fires on them, the camera gets those rainbow lines you see when there is a big shockwave, and the cameraman goes down.

Cut to Raguegh Omar from BBC reporting on one of the Hotel's balconies. He's talking about reporter stuff, when the camera freezes and goes rainbowy, there is a HUGE sound, you see Omar ducking for cover on the ground, and the cameraman turns around and looks up to see a lot of smoke coming from a small balcony on the fifteenth floor. This room was occupied by the BBC.

Toll? One dead from BBC, one from a Spanish network, and one from Abu Dhabi.