BF2S Forums The Press is a Threat to Israeli Tanks

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Well at least the coverage is even-handed and doesn't automatically assume the Israelis saw the markings...oh wait.

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.
Does your car have some kind of markings which identifies it as civilian?

heard of a technical?

Blame cannot solely be placed on the tank crew, from that distance he could easily appear to be holding an RPG or shoulder fired weapon. Picking out TV on the vehicle isn't exactly easy either, especially over range whilst obscured by trees and bushes. I also believe it said the explosion occured overhead, that was according to a part of News 24 I heard this morning, not directly on him.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Well at least the coverage is even-handed and doesn't automatically assume the Israelis saw the markings...oh wait.

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.
Does your car have some kind of markings which identifies it as civilian?

heard of a technical?

Blame cannot solely be placed on the tank crew, from that distance he could easily appear to be holding an RPG or shoulder fired weapon. Picking out TV on the vehicle isn't exactly easy either, especially over range whilst obscured by trees and bushes. I also believe it said the explosion occured overhead, that was according to a part of News 24 I heard this morning, not directly on him.

So are you admitting that this kind of killing of civilians can happen quite easily despite claims by people in other threads that modern day military procedure and technology make such events a rarity?

sergeriver wrote:

Ataronchronon wrote:

Jibbles wrote:

TSI wrote:

Oh, so shooting a CLEARLY marked TV car is okay? Collateral damage? BS.

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.


QFT. No one forced him to film downrange of a tank in an ACTIVE COMBAT AREA.

I gotta agree with this, it sucks, but who would expect anything else from war?

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.

That would be fine if the innocent bystander wouldn't have been shot intentionally.  This isn't collateral damage, this is murdering a journalist.

First, you can not state their intentions.  No, you can not.  Secondly, I agree that they targeted the car; whether they shot it to take out a bunch of nosy jounalists, or because they thought the car was a valid threat has yet to be determined.

And do NOT start with "of course they were no threat!" What we know is the case and what the crew thought were the case at the time are complely different things.  The primary thing is to take distance into account for the asessment of the threat.  Secondly, that stupid little "TV" sign of theirs, so prominant in the camera in the news clip, may NOT have been visible at the angle they viewed the car at, at the distance they shot from. 

For all we know, they crew saw a car pull up, a bunch of guys get out, one of them put a heavy devide to his shoulder and point it at them.  I said before that for a while now, cameramen in war zones have been mistaken for AT missile launchers.  The glare of the camera lens actually makes them more likely to be shot, since the AT missile launchers have a similar feature for their optics.

I would not say this is the intentional targeting of a civilian.  I would call this a case of incorrectly identifying a target, with unfortunate and tragic results.  It happens; war sucks.

sergeriver wrote:

imortal wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

That would be fine if the innocent bystander wouldn't have been shot intentionally.  This isn't collateral damage, this is murdering a journalist.

First, you can not state their intentions.  No, you can not.  Secondly, I agree that they targeted the car; whether they shot it to take out a bunch of nosy jounalists, or because they thought the car was a valid threat has yet to be determined.

And do NOT start with "of course they were no threat!" What we know is the case and what the crew thought were the case at the time are complely different things.  The primary thing is to take distance into account for the asessment of the threat.  Secondly, that stupid little "TV" sign of theirs, so prominant in the camera in the news clip, may NOT have been visible at the angle they viewed the car at, at the distance they shot from. 

For all we know, they crew saw a car pull up, a bunch of guys get out, one of them put a heavy devide to his shoulder and point it at them.  I said before that for a while now, cameramen in war zones have been mistaken for AT missile launchers.  The glare of the camera lens actually makes them more likely to be shot, since the AT missile launchers have a similar feature for their optics.

I would not say this is the intentional targeting of a civilian.  I would call this a case of incorrectly identifying a target, with unfortunate and tragic results.  It happens; war sucks.

You can't shoot a target just in case.  Period.

That is great in the civilian world when you are target shooting or hunting.  It does not apply to a war zone, where the maxim "Aything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing."  If you are enganged in combat, and you see a possible threat, you shoot it.  Yes, accidents happen all of the time.  You hear of numerous cases of fratricide; of friendly fire happening in these circumstances as well.

Your point of view is valid from a civilain standpoint, but it does not bear up during active combat. It is just the wrong mindset to have if you have a desire to survive.

i think all of us in a combat situation would easily revert back to the most basic instincts.



like, "my ass or his ass".........i know what i would choose.
sorry, but its called "war", not "happy fucking fun time".













also, see Geraldo in Afghanistan.......

PureFodder wrote:

imortal wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

You can't shoot a target just in case.  Period.

That is great in the civilian world when you are target shooting or hunting.  It does not apply to a war zone, where the maxim "Aything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing."  If you are enganged in combat, and you see a possible threat, you shoot it.  Yes, accidents happen all of the time.  You hear of numerous cases of fratricide; of friendly fire happening in these circumstances as well.

Your point of view is valid from a civilain standpoint, but it does not bear up during active combat. It is just the wrong mindset to have if you have a desire to survive.

So you're saying that if, country A invades a civillian area of country B then they are quite alright to kill anything they feel might be a threat, and let's face it, anyone might be a threat? Rememeber that the place wasn't a war zone until the Israeli tanks showed up. Invading armies don't have rights, they have responsabilities. If they don't feel they can carry out those responsabilities then they either don't invade or they take a trip to the Hague.

I never said what they did was right, I just said it was understandable.  I simply gave a circumstance in which the Isrealis might have destroyed the vehicle without saying "oh, look, a press car, go ahead and shoot it."  I was presenting a viewpoint which has been decidedly lacking in this thread.

And your attempt to and and ramp up my argument to redicuous levels and throw it back at me is silly.

Oh, by the way, yes.  If I were in a war zone, regardless of who invaded whom; say it was in my own city and not a foreign one, and I saw  a shodow in a window that looked like someone pointing a weapon at me, I would fire into that window.  And if it turned out to be a civilian pointing a camera at me, I would feel really, REALLY crappy.  But things like that happen.  But these are not those circumstances.  THe normal reaction of a civilian in a war zone during combat is to run away and get somewhere safe.  These journalists did nothing of the kind.  By the very act of standing their ground or driving TOWARD the sounds of combat seperate them from a 'normal' civilian reaction, and automatically raise the degree of suspicion in them. 

I said it before and I will say it now.  If you voluntarally enter a war zone, you do not have any protection due to your 'press' status.  You are not sacrosanct, and you are no longer just an innocent civilian.  I do not say you are a combatant; just another piece on the board.

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Israeli terrorists.

again, your invaluable contributions blow me away.


try making a point instead of trolling.

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Parker wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Israeli terrorists.

again, your invaluable contributions blow me away.


try making a point instead of trolling.

Ok

israeli tank shoot at unarmed group of palestinians including a press cameraman with a big TV painted on his car.

When you target civilians intentionnally, you are a terrorist not different than Hamas.

So israelis are terrorists.

Get it?

man, for as long as it took you to respond, i was SO hoping for something better.
but since this is all you can come up with, ill deal with this.



TV crews arent civilians. as was pointed out earlier in this thread, CIVILIANS run from battles.....not run too the battle to videotape it.
see how that works?




and wait, you see hamas as terrorists?
well, thats pretty enlightening....ill be sure to remember that

1:  Media should get the fuck out of war zones, they're a burden on everyone involved, and are not properly trained or equipped to be on or near the front lines.

2:  In a land where car bombings are a daily ocurrance, a poorly marked car still driving around during an invasion would make any military personnel uncomfortable.

My point being, it is unfortunate that innocent people were killed, but driving between an advancing army and their target and pointing things out the window isn't the best of ideas either...

imortal wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

imortal wrote:

That is great in the civilian world when you are target shooting or hunting.  It does not apply to a war zone, where the maxim "Aything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing."  If you are enganged in combat, and you see a possible threat, you shoot it.  Yes, accidents happen all of the time.  You hear of numerous cases of fratricide; of friendly fire happening in these circumstances as well.

Your point of view is valid from a civilain standpoint, but it does not bear up during active combat. It is just the wrong mindset to have if you have a desire to survive.

So you're saying that if, country A invades a civillian area of country B then they are quite alright to kill anything they feel might be a threat, and let's face it, anyone might be a threat? Rememeber that the place wasn't a war zone until the Israeli tanks showed up. Invading armies don't have rights, they have responsabilities. If they don't feel they can carry out those responsabilities then they either don't invade or they take a trip to the Hague.

I never said what they did was right, I just said it was understandable.  I simply gave a circumstance in which the Isrealis might have destroyed the vehicle without saying "oh, look, a press car, go ahead and shoot it."  I was presenting a viewpoint which has been decidedly lacking in this thread.

And your attempt to and and ramp up my argument to redicuous levels and throw it back at me is silly.

Oh, by the way, yes.  If I were in a war zone, regardless of who invaded whom; say it was in my own city and not a foreign one, and I saw  a shodow in a window that looked like someone pointing a weapon at me, I would fire into that window.  And if it turned out to be a civilian pointing a camera at me, I would feel really, REALLY crappy.  But things like that happen.  But these are not those circumstances.  THe normal reaction of a civilian in a war zone during combat is to run away and get somewhere safe.  These journalists did nothing of the kind.  By the very act of standing their ground or driving TOWARD the sounds of combat seperate them from a 'normal' civilian reaction, and automatically raise the degree of suspicion in them. 

I said it before and I will say it now.  If you voluntarally enter a war zone, you do not have any protection due to your 'press' status.  You are not sacrosanct, and you are no longer just an innocent civilian.  I do not say you are a combatant; just another piece on the board.

It's not a war zone, it's an invasion, hence everyone not holding a weapon is the responsability of the invading force to safeguard. If a county thinks that theirarmed forces can't do that they shouldn't be there. Suspicion simply doesn't give you the right to shoot first. If you think that puts your forces in too much danger then there's a fairly danger-free alternative, stay in your own country.

The Geneva convention says they're not to be targeted.

As far as standing your ground or moving towards the combat goes, who can easily tell which way that even is? Going away from one tank can easily be towards another. You shouldn't need any special protection for being a member of the press in a war zone, if you aren't fighting back you shouldn't get shot at. You may think this sounds unfair to the invading forces, but the situation is VERY MUCH less fair to the civillian populace getting invaded. Remember that 20 Palestinians were killed too, terrorists that were involved in attacking Israeli forces in Israel, gunmen defending themselves from an Israeli invasion or civillians? Chances are nobody cares enough to find out.

As I said before, invading armies don't have rights, they have responsabilites. Carry out those responsabilities of go to the Hague and defend your actions.

Hard to tell if this was an accident or on purpose.  Sucks though.

PuckMercury wrote:

Pug wrote:

Hard to tell if this was an accident or on purpose.  Sucks though.

With respect to the TV crew, I'm really going to have to agree with ATG here.  Once you start reporting the positions of units and conveying that to the opponent, you become an opponent.  There's a reason such work as war reporting is considered hazardous.

So by your logic, if some israeli settlers calls the IDF to report the position of palestinians militants around their settlements, the militants have every right to enter the house and kill the settlers?

There's a reason such as being an illegal settler is considered hazardous.

Works both ways.

PuckMercury wrote:

There is a reason war is hell

Cannot agree more.