U.S. Studies Report Its Soldiers Killed Journalist

[gr8fuldaniel]

New York Times The death brings to 66 the number of journalists and their aides killed in Iraq since the start of the invasion in 2003, said Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based news media rights group. That surpasses the 63 journalists killed over 20 years of conflict in Vietnam, the group said.

So thats more than 10 times as many journalists murdered in Iraq, compared to Viet Nam.

Coincidence? Cheap ammo? ......Or are they being targetted?

Iguess if they dont kill some journalists once in a while, they will start printing the truth.
This is how bush has been getting favorable press for so long, either print what they say or die.

[Sean]

Moved to Pol and Gov since the source cannot be read by a majority of people (which is the whole point of the latest-news forum).

[monty of ll]

gr8fuldaniel- This is a very ugly situation and the last I heard the U.S. military were refusing to release the dead man's injured partner after more than 24 hours. There's little doubt that a U.S. sniper did the shooting and now they will have to find a satisfactory explanation for doing it.

Sean- I have no difficulty reading the link and I have no special privileges with the N.Y. Times. Why move it? Is it by subscription only in the U.S.?

[GodBlessAmerica]

"I heard shooting, looked up and saw an American sniper on the roof of the shopping center."

I love that quote from the article. Makes it sound like our military did it by that reporting.
The reason that is outrageous was the reporter was shot several times, but a sniper rarely needs more than one.

I think reporters aren't staying out of the way and are standing straight up in a fire zone and getting hit. That is what my logic concludes as to the reason for the increase.

They used to crawl on their hands and knees, but that is beneath them today I guess.

[grandpa]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica I love that quote from the article. Makes it sound like our military did it by that reporting. The reason that is outrageous was the reporter was shot several times, but a sniper rarely needs more than one. I think reporters aren't staying out of the way and are standing straight up in a fire zone and getting hit. That is what my logic concludes as to the reason for the increase. They used to crawl on their hands and knees, but that is beneath them today I guess.

Didn't the military "accidentally" shoot at a press hotel in Iraq not that long ago?

Grandpa h.

[Logjam]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel So thats more than 10 times as many journalists murdered in Iraq, compared to Viet Nam. Coincidence? Cheap ammo? ......Or are they being targetted? Iguess if they dont kill some journalists once in a while, they will start printing the truth. This is how bush has been getting favorable press for so long, either print what they say or die.

I've heard that the journalists are pretty much keeping to hotels in the Green Zone. These hard chargers dare not step out into the streets, as then they are as exposed as are our troops.

The great journalists, Ernie Pyle, Bill Mauldin, and Robert Capa went with the troops. Pyle and Capa were killed doing this. They also supported the troops who were putting themselves in danger to protect these journalists. I doubt, btw: that any of the above mentioned journalists could be considered hard core pro-military war mongers.

But they were all glad that we were winning. I'm not sure that many of the current batch of journalists want us to win.

[Logjam]

Quote by: monty of ll gr8fuldaniel- This is a very ugly situation and the last I heard the U.S. military were refusing to release the dead man's injured partner after more than 24 hours. There's little doubt that a U.S. sniper did the shooting and now they will have to find a satisfactory explanation for doing it. Sean- I have no difficulty reading the link and I have no special privileges with the N.Y. Times. Why move it? Is it by subscription only in the U.S.?

While I don't support our snipers shooting at journalists. I'm not sure that one few jouralists hurts our war effort. I'd just as soon that journalists were banned from the war zone.

But that won't happen.

[monty of ll]

GBA- Are you unaware of the facts of the story or are you aware of the facts and are willing to defend your war at any cost. The cost is dishonesty my friend and that 'should' be troubling for a Christian such as yourself.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...nrestmedialead

One bullet in the head and three in the chest. Two in the space of one of the victim's ID card.

[dotcoma]

What is that site that let's you view sites that require a username and password without registering? I hate how the nytimes and wash post do that.

Does anyone have stats as far as counts go for journalists? How many traveled with troups in Vietnam vs Iraq? Something tells me there are way more on the ground now then before.

[PatrickHenry]

Here's the same article from truthout: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082905I.shtml

If US snipers in Iraq are targetting "non-embedded" journalists, can you say "foreign terrorist?"

[Mr_Burns]

It seems that their are two basic sides to this issue. One (the liberals) who beleive their is an epidemic of dead US journalists who are intentionally being killed by US forces. Further, that this is generally encouraged and promoted by officers. On the other (the conservatives) who beleive that US soldiers are engaged in a difficult campaign and that journalists, like many others, are getting in the middle of firefights. That the higher statistics of dead journalists are do to a) more vicious and direct combat where troops, journalists,civlians and insurgents are involved in closer fighting b) a higher number of journalists and c) a distance between journalists who dislike or veiw the military in a deragatory fashion and refuse to cooperate with measures that could insure their safety. I, being a libertarian, favor the latter rather then the former.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Mr_Burns I, being a libertarian, favor the former rather then the later.

Quote by: Mr_Burns I, being a libertarian, favor the latter rather then the former.

WTF? Do you see the edit button on your screen? If you make a mistake, don't just duplicate your post with the information corrected. EDIT the first post...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Dang, how'd you ever spot THAT, Patrick? :eek:
I just thought it was a duplicate post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The media was the second casualty in the war.
I like the way Naomi Klein put it:

The Guardian In Iraq, the US does eliminate those who dare to count the dead <snippet> Mr Ambassador, I believe that your government and its Iraqi surrogates are waging two wars in Iraq. One war is against the Iraqi people, and it has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. The other is a war on witnesses.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: grandpa Didn't the military "accidentally" shoot at a press hotel in Iraq not that long ago? Grandpa h.

Hi Grandpa,
Sure they accidentally shot at a press hotel thinking it was something else, but that is more an example that humans are doing this. Humans are mighty error ridden and do make mistakes all the time. They try real hard to reduce them, but I've never heard of perfection during a war.

If we think back to Nam, it is believed many thousands died in friendly fire.

These are all American young men and women who are regular people.
Back in Nam they never tried to kill people on their own side and I think they wouldn't on purpose try and take out the press either.

Doesn't make any sense to me that these college age kids would come up with some vendetta to kill off the press.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica Doesn't make any sense to me that these college age kids would come up with some vendetta to kill off the press.

So if it is happening, are you saying there must be an agenda or even a conspiracy?

Oh, no. I get it. You are saying it just can't be happening!

[Clarence]

Why would U.S troops want to kill a journalist? lately, I suppose it's possible, but, why? nevermind, missed a whole page. yeah, looks bad over there, over here, I feel a culmination of events coming to, at least, change our lives a bunch and possibly spread fear and distrust a little farther on the map. For those arguing that the U.S government is responsible, what is to be done about it?

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: monty of ll GBA- Are you unaware of the facts of the story or are you aware of the facts and are willing to defend your war at any cost. The cost is dishonesty my friend and that 'should' be troubling for a Christian such as yourself. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...nrestmedialead One bullet in the head and three in the chest. Two in the space of one of the victim's ID card.

There is no war against the press, I find the concept to be truly asinine.

Let's use a little logic here for the thread to drive home a big difference between Nam and the Middle East.

Nam = Jungle and almost everywhere has cover.
Middle East = Desert with little cover.

In Nam, you could walk through the jungle, be some feet away from the enemy and you could walk by each other and never realize it.

In the Middle East, there is a lot of open desert with many flat open areas where you can see people for a great distance.

Nam = Jungle made it very hard to spot people.
Middle East = Very hard to NOT be seen.

Of course you are going to have far more deaths in the open compared to when you are hidden. Makes perfect sense to me.

I most certainly won't make the absurd leap that the American military is out to kill the press. They are out to do their job and to then come home.

If people really want to believe that what the press is saying is so upsetting to the military that they have started assassinations, then you better figure when they get home they'll be hunting up all the anti-war crowd for fun as well!

IMO this is outrageous and makes no sense.
Nam = Jungle Middle East = Almost always out in the open.... That is the big answer to the difference in death levels between the two military operations.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: Mr_Burns It seems that their are two basic sides to this issue. One (the liberals) who beleive their is an epidemic of dead US journalists who are intentionally being killed by US forces. Further, that this is generally encouraged and promoted by officers. On the other (the conservatives) who beleive that US soldiers are engaged in a difficult campaign and that journalists, like many others, are getting in the middle of firefights. That the higher statistics of dead journalists are do to a) more vicious and direct combat where troops, journalists,civlians and insurgents are involved in closer fighting b) a higher number of journalists and c) a distance between journalists who dislike or veiw the military in a deragatory fashion and refuse to cooperate with measures that could insure their safety. I, being a libertarian, favor the latter rather then the former.

See my #17
Nam had lots of jungle and cover.
The Middle East desert leaves almost nothing for cover, so if you are in the open more, either the enemy or an accident will get to you easier IMO.

These are nice American young people of mostly college age, they are great people, not press hunting assasins.

Makes no sense!

[Clarence]

hey, look I'm a snow cone! edited that post up there. There are a lot of good boys and girls over there. also there's evil firmly entrenched in the U.S government, now, too. Good and bad people all around us. What do we do about that? I guess all we can do is pray. :( and argue online.

[Clarence]

I'm a U.S senator. tell me what to do about this investigation