Israeli forces killed more than 20 people in Gaza, including one Reuters journalist, his car was clearly marked with the word TV. You can see how the Israeli tank shoots his car.
When a person who wears a press badge is reporting to the opposing side the movement of the tanks they become an enemy.sergeriver wrote:
Israeli forces killed more than 20 people in Gaza, including one Reuters journalist, his car was clearly marked with the word TV. You can see how the Israeli tank shoots his car.
Hard world.
They know it's dangerous.
Reuters.ATG wrote:
When a person who wears a press badge is reporting to the opposing side the movement of the tanks they become an enemy.sergeriver wrote:
Israeli forces killed more than 20 people in Gaza, including one Reuters journalist, his car was clearly marked with the word TV. You can see how the Israeli tank shoots his car.
Hard world.
They know it's dangerous.
So just wondering, have Hezbollah and Hamas never killed Journalists?
EDIT: Before I get flamed for it, Id like to clarify. I am not advocating what was done here(that is if all the facts our right, they probably are), I am just pointing out that this is rather hypocritical and this is also how the world works sadly.
EDIT: Before I get flamed for it, Id like to clarify. I am not advocating what was done here(that is if all the facts our right, they probably are), I am just pointing out that this is rather hypocritical and this is also how the world works sadly.
Last edited by Commie Killer (2008-04-16 17:59:06)
Fucking hell.
Anything to make the Jews look bad.sergeriver wrote:
Reuters.ATG wrote:
When a person who wears a press badge is reporting to the opposing side the movement of the tanks they become an enemy.sergeriver wrote:
Israeli forces killed more than 20 people in Gaza, including one Reuters journalist, his car was clearly marked with the word TV. You can see how the Israeli tank shoots his car.
Hard world.
They know it's dangerous.
Israel thinks, and says that it is defending itself, fighting for democracy, etc, etc, etc...
I personally think that they have no right to be doing what they are doing. I don't deny their right to exist, I just think that they are exaggerating--there is no need to wage a full-out war against Hizbullah for 1 kidnapping. No reason to build a über-Berlin wall around them, no need to cut off Gaza from the world, to cite but a few things. And now, they do the same that the so-called terrorists do. Oh, so shooting a CLEARLY marked TV car is okay? Collateral damage? BS. The hallmark of war is that the powerful fighter has to protect the civilians, esp if it calls the wekaer one a terrorist. I say that the Israelis should apologize publicly, and compensate. And then, stop effing shooting at everything and anything.
I'm disgusted.
I personally think that they have no right to be doing what they are doing. I don't deny their right to exist, I just think that they are exaggerating--there is no need to wage a full-out war against Hizbullah for 1 kidnapping. No reason to build a über-Berlin wall around them, no need to cut off Gaza from the world, to cite but a few things. And now, they do the same that the so-called terrorists do. Oh, so shooting a CLEARLY marked TV car is okay? Collateral damage? BS. The hallmark of war is that the powerful fighter has to protect the civilians, esp if it calls the wekaer one a terrorist. I say that the Israelis should apologize publicly, and compensate. And then, stop effing shooting at everything and anything.
I'm disgusted.
I like pie.
The HALLMARK of war is... what? Ok, I think I have been using a different definition of war than you have.TSI wrote:
The hallmark of war is that the powerful fighter has to protect the civilians, esp if it calls the wekaer one a terrorist.
Just a question. Is there anything preventing a terrorist (or whatever you prefer to call them) putting 'TV' and 'press' markings on their vehicles to gain a tactical advantage while protecting themselves from fire? No, I am not saying this is the case here, just asking about the possibility. I do know that 'insurgents' in Iraq have carried weapons and explosives in ambulances (in direct violation of the Geneva Convention- but they don't have to follow it, only us; right?), as well as using mosques as military bases and strongholds (also against the Geneva Convention). Hezbola has become famous for hiding among the "innocent" population, and using them as human shields.
If your enemy does not wear a uniform, then how do you seperate them from innocent civilians if they are not actively shooting at you? If they die, and someone else takes their weapon, then how does someone looking at the scene know whether they are a terrorist or an "innocent" civilian?
Second, ever since the 1980's, cameramen in war zones have been in danger of being shot, and have been shot at repetedly, because at a distance, a television camera resembles an man-portable anti-tank missile launcher.
Also, if you voluntaraly go into a combat area, you forfeit any kind of protection. Things like this happen. Yeah, it sucks.
Oh, and when that reporter let slip the remark that "it was hard to imagine" (that the Isrealis did not see the identification), she slid from impartial reporter of the news to a biased spinner of information.
Clearly? The 2' X 1' sticker on the hood? Unless I'm missing something, that vehicle was not clearly marked, and looks as if it was behind a small hill and tree line. The tank commander probably got a bit worried when he saw a guy with a large black object on his shoulder standing in the back of a truck pointing said object directly at his tank. Wrong place, wrong time. Sucks. Welcome to a fucking warzone.TSI wrote:
Oh, so shooting a CLEARLY marked TV car is okay? Collateral damage? BS.
QFT. No one forced him to film downrange of a tank in an ACTIVE COMBAT AREA.imortal wrote:
Also, if you voluntaraly go into a combat area, you forfeit any kind of protection. Things like this happen. Yeah, it sucks.
I gotta agree with this, it sucks, but who would expect anything else from war?Jibbles wrote:
Clearly? The 2' X 1' sticker on the hood? Unless I'm missing something, that vehicle was not clearly marked, and looks as if it was behind a small hill and tree line. The tank commander probably got a bit worried when he saw a guy with a large black object on his shoulder standing in the back of a truck pointing said object directly at his tank. Wrong place, wrong time. Sucks. Welcome to a fucking warzone.TSI wrote:
Oh, so shooting a CLEARLY marked TV car is okay? Collateral damage? BS.QFT. No one forced him to film downrange of a tank in an ACTIVE COMBAT AREA.imortal wrote:
Also, if you voluntaraly go into a combat area, you forfeit any kind of protection. Things like this happen. Yeah, it sucks.
Still, incidents like these are what makes war suck more than anything else. I think its totally cool if people want to kill each other, as long as the feelings are mutual. However, when innocent bystanders die in the fighting, war isnt so pretty.
Dude, war is NEVER pretty. It never looks like it does in the movies. There is no such thing as a 'clean' war. And nothing prepares you for the smell. Come to think of it, death itself is never pretty. Never dignified.Ataronchronon wrote:
I gotta agree with this, it sucks, but who would expect anything else from war?Jibbles wrote:
Clearly? The 2' X 1' sticker on the hood? Unless I'm missing something, that vehicle was not clearly marked, and looks as if it was behind a small hill and tree line. The tank commander probably got a bit worried when he saw a guy with a large black object on his shoulder standing in the back of a truck pointing said object directly at his tank. Wrong place, wrong time. Sucks. Welcome to a fucking warzone.TSI wrote:
Oh, so shooting a CLEARLY marked TV car is okay? Collateral damage? BS.QFT. No one forced him to film downrange of a tank in an ACTIVE COMBAT AREA.imortal wrote:
Also, if you voluntaraly go into a combat area, you forfeit any kind of protection. Things like this happen. Yeah, it sucks.
Still, incidents like these are what makes war suck more than anything else. I think its totally cool if people want to kill each other, as long as the feelings are mutual. However, when innocent bystanders die in the fighting, war isnt so pretty.
Reuters has lost some credibility in covering this conflict. I didn't see Israel look, aim, and fire on the vehicle (With intent). I saw an explosion then a cut away to a blown up vehicle. It looked like someone took some white construction paper and wrote TV on it and placed it on the hood of a truck. This reminds me of the "fauxtography" scandal. Getting directly in front of a tank just didn't seem like the brightest way to cover the conflict .
So yea, the "Press" is a threat.
So yea, the "Press" is a threat.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I totally agree. There is something about this video that just doesn't look or feel right. First, I believe if a tank hit this truck....it would be seriously damaged beyond what is shown here. Tanks take out other tanks and the truck looks pretty intact. Also, this truck is NOT CLEARLY marked at all. Look at the distance the tank shot from...no way in hell would it see a poster stuck to the hood of this truck. Lastly, I find it odd that the couple of guys on the ground are laying in pristine conditions.....what I mean is that there is no debris, very little of anything but 2 bodies and a couple of shoes.....this looks staged to me.Kmarion wrote:
Reuters has lost some credibility in covering this conflict. I didn't see Israel look, aim, and fire on the vehicle (With intent). I saw an explosion then a cut away to a blown up vehicle. It looked like someone took some white construction paper and wrote TV on it and placed it on the hood of a truck. This reminds me of the "fauxtography" scandal. Getting directly in front of a tank just didn't seem like the brightest way to cover the conflict .
So yea, the "Press" is a threat.
I could be totally wrong..but I think people are jumping the gun once again on this site. This video just looks very strange. Just my thoughts.
TBH, your source needs a big whack of the biasmeter.
While it isn't right that the tanks fired, the tone of the report makes it clear to me that all is not as it seems.
While it isn't right that the tanks fired, the tone of the report makes it clear to me that all is not as it seems.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
yeah, something smells fishy here.
as has been said, the car wasn't really "clearly marked", and from the distance, the tank commander could have easily confused the camera with an AT weapon.
Also, neither the vehicle nor the passengers seem to have taken as much "damage" ( for lack of a better term ) as I would expect from a tank round hitting an unarmored vehicle. But I am not an expert on that, maybe active service personnel with some expertise in the area can weigh in here.
And the "TV" sign on the hood could have been applied after the blast.
My best guess would be that the Reuters team went out of their way to get quality footage of the israeli operation, used an unmarked/not sufficiently marked car, and then somehow got in the way of the military machine ( maybe the tank round exploded next to the vehicle, I dunno ).
Guess that can happen anytime when one of the conflict parties fights in civilian clothes and generally uses civilian vehicles.
And why any sane journalist would enter an area where tanks are actively operating, is beyond me.
My guess is they asked the IDF to be embedded, were turned down, and then chose to go anyway.
as has been said, the car wasn't really "clearly marked", and from the distance, the tank commander could have easily confused the camera with an AT weapon.
Also, neither the vehicle nor the passengers seem to have taken as much "damage" ( for lack of a better term ) as I would expect from a tank round hitting an unarmored vehicle. But I am not an expert on that, maybe active service personnel with some expertise in the area can weigh in here.
And the "TV" sign on the hood could have been applied after the blast.
My best guess would be that the Reuters team went out of their way to get quality footage of the israeli operation, used an unmarked/not sufficiently marked car, and then somehow got in the way of the military machine ( maybe the tank round exploded next to the vehicle, I dunno ).
Guess that can happen anytime when one of the conflict parties fights in civilian clothes and generally uses civilian vehicles.
And why any sane journalist would enter an area where tanks are actively operating, is beyond me.
My guess is they asked the IDF to be embedded, were turned down, and then chose to go anyway.
Its not a 'warzone' its a country under occupation.Welcome to a fucking warzone.
Military personnel have an obligation to avoid civilian casualties even in war zones.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
If you are suggesting that the TV sign was applied after the incident, than you are suggesting that the cameraman purposely "martyred" himself to create a scandal. Because I am sure that someone with much experience covering a war zone wouldnt go out without markings on his car. Pretty bad argument to assume that just because he is middle-eastern looking. Suggesting that the sign was not visible enough is a valid argument and its quite possible. In that case Reuters should be blamed as well for not providing better marked vehicles.
Also to suggest that Israel has the right to treat all journalists as possible terrorists because terrorist can pretend to be journalists is ludicrous. And that they should treat ambulances as hostile trucks transporting weapons is even worse.
@imortal and many others.... If you are fighting on the side of good against evil than you CAN NOT use the argument "they are doing it also". It just doesn't make sense.
Also to suggest that Israel has the right to treat all journalists as possible terrorists because terrorist can pretend to be journalists is ludicrous. And that they should treat ambulances as hostile trucks transporting weapons is even worse.
@imortal and many others.... If you are fighting on the side of good against evil than you CAN NOT use the argument "they are doing it also". It just doesn't make sense.
That's possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard you say ATG, you just went down in my estimations.ATG wrote:
When a person who wears a press badge is reporting to the opposing side the movement of the tanks they become an enemy.sergeriver wrote:
Israeli forces killed more than 20 people in Gaza, including one Reuters journalist, his car was clearly marked with the word TV. You can see how the Israeli tank shoots his car.
Hard world.
They know it's dangerous.
Well at least the coverage is even-handed and doesn't automatically assume the Israelis saw the markings...oh wait.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
More importantly is that an Israeli tank was shooing people in another country.
How is it hypocritical? When Hamas and Hezbollah kill journalists, threads are posted and people are disgusted in just the same manner.Commie Killer wrote:
So just wondering, have Hezbollah and Hamas never killed Journalists?
EDIT: Before I get flamed for it, Id like to clarify. I am not advocating what was done here(that is if all the facts our right, they probably are), I am just pointing out that this is rather hypocritical and this is also how the world works sadly.
Well, when you stroll into a civilian area with soldiers, tanks and helicopters, you don't shoot at everything that moves. Clearly the Israelis didn't confirm their target in a situation where targets -must- be confirmed or at least pose an obvious and immediate threat before attacking. They're showing a disgusting disdain for human life, and it makes them no better than neither Hamas nor Hezbollah.FEOS wrote:
Well at least the coverage is even-handed and doesn't automatically assume the Israelis saw the markings...oh wait.
A few points about this video...
1. The vehicle wasn't marked that clearly. Personally I'd make sure my vehicle was plastered with "TV" or "PRESS" in big large letters...at the the very least I'd try and make sure my hood sticker was on straight.
2. The report was by Al Jazeera so there is obviously a certain amount of bias.
3. The level of damage shown in the later shots may indeed not be indicative of a tank blast (I'm no expert on this though) but it is undeniably visible on the clip that the tank did indeed fire in their general direction.
4. Arguments about stickers aside, when I argue in these forums about collateral damage and civilian casulaties in urban war zones I am often given the response that sophisticated new weaponry and military techniques only allow for such accidents in very rare cases...well on the evidence of this clip that is obviously bullshit as the people in that tank either couldn't see what they were shooting at properly or simply didn't care and blew up and killed a load of civilians.
1. The vehicle wasn't marked that clearly. Personally I'd make sure my vehicle was plastered with "TV" or "PRESS" in big large letters...at the the very least I'd try and make sure my hood sticker was on straight.
2. The report was by Al Jazeera so there is obviously a certain amount of bias.
3. The level of damage shown in the later shots may indeed not be indicative of a tank blast (I'm no expert on this though) but it is undeniably visible on the clip that the tank did indeed fire in their general direction.
4. Arguments about stickers aside, when I argue in these forums about collateral damage and civilian casulaties in urban war zones I am often given the response that sophisticated new weaponry and military techniques only allow for such accidents in very rare cases...well on the evidence of this clip that is obviously bullshit as the people in that tank either couldn't see what they were shooting at properly or simply didn't care and blew up and killed a load of civilians.
As Braddock pointed out, its a civilian area, I wasn't aware civilian vehicles needed markings of some kind to be in a civilian area.FEOS wrote:
Well at least the coverage is even-handed and doesn't automatically assume the Israelis saw the markings...oh wait.
Does your car have some kind of markings which identifies it as civilian?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I thought it was worse when they killed the HBO documentary guys in Palestine. They were bulldozing houses at the time, and an APC then located the guy who was filming it all and shot him through the neck... I'm not saying it's only Israel, but there is just so much of this shit, it's ridiculous.
Also, ATG, I think that story that you posted was just a sensationalist thing... I think the boy was hit by a stray bullet - quite possibly from the Palestinians... I think it's strange how the boy survived and bled for so long before dying...sounds sketchy, but eh.
-konfusion
Also, ATG, I think that story that you posted was just a sensationalist thing... I think the boy was hit by a stray bullet - quite possibly from the Palestinians... I think it's strange how the boy survived and bled for so long before dying...sounds sketchy, but eh.
-konfusion
Killing journalists is wrong. If a terrorist organization feels right with that it's there problem, but a "democracy" like Israel doing this is outrageous. It's very clear that the tank shot the car intentionally.Commie Killer wrote:
So just wondering, have Hezbollah and Hamas never killed Journalists?
EDIT: Before I get flamed for it, Id like to clarify. I am not advocating what was done here(that is if all the facts our right, they probably are), I am just pointing out that this is rather hypocritical and this is also how the world works sadly.