Author Topic: Killed reporters (Read 1281 times)

mora · « **on:** April 08, 2003, 02:47:27 PM »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39070000/rm/_39070137_baghdad18_omaar_vi.ram

Probably old news...but really astonishing nevertheless.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #1 on:** April 08, 2003, 02:54:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by blitz

An apology would have been the minimum standart.

At least i wished to hear that there was an investigation goin on.

Regards Blitz

Blitz, your "apology" is in this video, and there *will* be an investigation.

medicboy · « **Reply #2 on:** April 08, 2003, 03:05:54 PM »

War is dangerous, there is no way around it. You make it sound like they targeted the reporters.

I'm sorry, (hey there's your apology) but if you go romping around a battle field crap happens. I hope they could tell by all the bullets flying around and the explosions that this was a dangerous place. If not we didn't need them in the gene pool anyway.

mora · « **Reply #3 on:** April 08, 2003, 03:22:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by medicboy
War is dangerous, there is no way around it. You make it sound like they targeted the reporters.

I didn't get that impression. It would just make sense that your forces would avoid this kind of things at all costs, shouldn't take too much intelligence efforts.

blitz · « **Reply #4 on:** April 08, 2003, 03:26:56 PM »

What programm do i need to see this?

Regards Blitz

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #5 on:** April 08, 2003, 03:30:38 PM »

Propaganda Goggles 2.1

blitz · « **Reply #6 on:** April 08, 2003, 03:34:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Propaganda Goggles 2.1

Is that your favorite channel, Saur?

Regards Blitz

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #7 on:** April 08, 2003, 03:40:06 PM »

Actually my TV is usually on one of three channels:

History Channel
Speed
CNN

(Psst - I think you missed the jab)

blitz · « **Reply #8 on:** April 08, 2003, 03:46:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Actually my TV is usually on one of four channels:

Propaganda Goggles2.1
History Channel
Speed
CNN

(Psst - I think you missed the jab)

Sorry, Saur, last 3 are ok but first one is a bit odd

Regards Blitz

And don't forget : This is still an 'Agression War' on a sovereign country with violation of international law

Otto · « **Reply #9 on:** April 08, 2003, 03:50:42 PM »

They came to Baghdad to see a war and we showed it to them.

What's the issue?

blitz · « **Reply #10 on:** April 08, 2003, 04:04:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Otto
They came to Baghdad to see a war and we showed it to them.

What's the issue?

Good work, you convinced them,finaly

Regards Blitz

And don't forget : This is still an 'Agression War' on a sovereign country with violation of international law

N1kPaz · « **Reply #11 on:** April 08, 2003, 04:10:47 PM »

hey blitz...why dont your country do something about it?

all talk...no action

btw...remind me of yoda you do.

learn english more you must

heheh:p

blitz · « **Reply #12 on:** April 08, 2003, 04:36:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Blitz, your "apology" is in this video, and there *will* be an investigation.

Better late than never

Regards Blitz

btw1: If we speak of Propaganda i would say this 'embbeded' reporter crap is similar in result as Propaganda Kompanie in WW2. And this result is not by accident or circumstances.

The difference is: In WW2 they were ordered what to report.

Today, the 'embeded' reporters work for news channels.

The news channels get their money out of the news, they sell.

If 'embbeded' reporters do report things, commanders don't like ( i don't mean security stuff), they will get kicked out or don't see anything interesting again. It's a more suptile way of censorship than in former times.

That means their employer will lose money and they will be kicked outa job. The 'embbeded' reporters knows that very well.

Government lernt a lot from Vietnam War.

'Embbeded Reporters' have nothing to do with Free Press.

They are part of a big propaganda maschine, if they like it or not.

btw2 : Reporters, who were not 'embbeded' were hindered by US forces all the time and that was not because of security, it was a plan to control media.

btw3:YOU may accept it as a part of your war but "Embbeded" reporters has absolutely nothing to do with Free Press. It's a big lie and ya know that.

The main reason for controlling of media is to avoid pictures of dead babies with bodyparts lost.

Pentagon wants to show a movie with the 6th US cavallery pulling their sabres and running through the dessert to help some settlers....

....BUT WITHOUT blood. As the audience doesn't like blood.

An action movie without any content, thrilling but no information.

Pentagon wants to fool us that a war is clean.

No more Vietnam pictures of tortured enemies, dead civilians or uncensored interviews.

These guys made their homework.

That is a dangerous threat to journalism in general and i hope it won't come down on your homeland as a bummerang to hit your civil rights in the future.

" Mc Charty" "Guatanamo Bay"

Regards Blitz

btw4: Your country is surving on the top of a monsterwave of pariotism, as it looks like.

Nothing bad of loving ones country but don't lose overview.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #13 on:** April 08, 2003, 04:39:58 PM »

Damned if you do, damned if you dont..

So blitz since you are against imbedded reporters, and you are likely against the way reporters were treated during the first gulf war - please enlighten us as to how you think reporters should gain physical access to the battlefield and report on the war.

blitz · « **Reply #14 on:** April 08, 2003, 04:48:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Damned if you do, damned if you dont..

So blitz since you are against imbedded reporters, and you are likely against the way reporters were treated during the first gulf war - please enlighten us as to how you think reporters should gain physical access to the battlefield and report on the war.

I'm just the audience

Regards Blitz

And don't forget : This is still an 'Agression War' on a sovereign country with violation of international law