Iraq needs to stop complaining!

I love how you selectively edit my comments... Here's the point of my comments, Neg....

"A war zone is a dangerous place, you want to cover the fight be ready to duck for cover."

If you can't understand that then there is no hope for you. Even the Iraqi people understand to stay away when the shells start flying. Too bad those journalists aren't that smart.

I just love to watch them pull down all of those statues and burn all of those protraits of that bastard. And keep in mind it's the Iraqi people that instigate it. THEY want him gone.

I don't "edit" your comments, KorpDeath. I just copy and paste them.

That's probably the difference between you and me: you seem to have a "comment" on everything, but I'm still waiting for your first post that actually is based on something objective, on facts. Your "they're all ****ing stupid *******s who should die"-attitude is hilarious. And every time I take you down on a fact, your only defense are insults.

Now, back to the matter:

Reuters-cameraman Taras Protsyuk (35), an Ukrainian living in Warschau, died shortly after the grenade impacted on the Palestine hotel - the hotel where the majority of foreign media is staying.
A little later, Spanish camera-man José Couso (37) from Tele5, died as well. Both were hit on the 15th floor of Hotel Palestine, a floor only occupied by journalists. Reuter's headquarters were completely destroyed, as well as Al-Arabiya's, two floors higher.

American troops acknoledged one of their tanks fired at the hotel "after we were being shot at from the hotel", but journalists do not agree.
"I have never ever heard one single shot in that area, and definitely not from within the hotel", David Charter (from British Sky) said. Chater saw the barrel of a tank being aimed at him, and ran away from his balcony.
Representatives for the US army said they were sorry, but kept on telling everyone that they were being fired at.
"A tank was being shot at with light weapons and rocketlaunchers from within the hotel, and confronted the target with one shot", US general Buford Blount said. And then a spokesman indeed added "A war zone is a dangerous place....".

They must not have seen the taped evidence yet.... tsk tsk...

"The explanation from General Blount is a blatant lie. I was driving on the road between the tanks and the hotel at the moment of the attack. No shots could be heard. The videotape registered four minutes of absolute silence right before the attack. There were no snipers in the building. We must remember that two dead and six wounded journalists is not a massacre. It doesn't even come close to the hundreds of wounded civilians who have been mutilated by the invasion-power.
And it's also true that the Iraqi regime has murdered some of its own journalists in the past, along with tens of thousands of its own people.
But yesterday, some really dangerous happened. Now, there are elements in the US army who hate the press and want to take out journalists in Bagdad. Reuters-correspondent Samia (42), a personal friend and colleage sind the Libanese civlian war (1975-1990), was in the hospital yesterday, bleeding to death. And General Blount has the guts to call this woman a sniper. What, I ask myself, does this tell us about the war in Iraq?"
- Robert Fisk, The Independent.

In another 'incident', an American warplane aimed its rockets at Al-Jazeera's headquarters yesterday.
In 2001, the US destroyed Al-Jazeera's Kabul-headquarters with a cruise missile. Kabul is the place from where the Bin Laden-tapes were being spread. The US never explained their attack. Al-Jazeera's correspondent Taiseer Alouni survived the attack. Alouni was in Al-Jazeera's Iraq headquarters yesterday when they were being attacked. To avoid "bad luck" such as in 2001, he two months ago sent the Pentagon the exact co-ordinates of their Iraqi headquarters. He was assured the US would not attack it. Guess what happened yesterday...


So, KorpDeath... I don't mind you having a different opinion. I don't mind you not caring about journalists who are being murdered. And I LOVE it how you start insulting me and everybody else who doesn't agree with you. You simply don't have facts to base anything you say on... all I hear is 'bastard, *******, blablabla...'.
Now, as long as you don't give me evidence - or at least one simple source, one comment from the soldier who fired the grenade maybe? - that those journalists were NOT MURDERED, I'm going to ignore your mindless blabber. And keep your antipoints for yourself if you can't back your "comments" up.

PS: are those "weapons of mass destruction" been found yet? Or is the US still the only army using illegal weapons (mustard gas, depleted uranium)?

PPS: good thing they pulled down all of those statues and burn all of those portraits from that bastard. Now on to the real problem: Saddam himself.

KorpDeath said

Quote:

---

A war zone is a dangerous place, you want to cover the fight be ready to duck for cover. If Saddam's men use the hotel to launch attacks against the U.S. then it's a fair target. No one, if fired upon, is going to say "Oh, no we can't shoot back cause there might be journalists there." Nobody. Not even the Belgian military........oh wait....that's an oxymoron, sorry.

---

So if Saddam enter in a hotel where there are hundreds of civilian you fire the hotel. How many collateral damage percent do you think is ok ? And if the otel there was US or UK army you say "I'm sorry but it's just a friendly shoot".

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Ghostdog
KorpDeath said

So if Saddam enter in a hotel where there are hundreds of civilian you fire the hotel. How many collateral damage percent do you think is ok ? And if the otel there was US or UK army you say "I'm sorry but it's just a friendly shoot".

---

So do you want to play the hypothetical game? Or are you just sharing with the Information Minister?

>>>>And as for your comments, Neg. You paraphrasing me "they're all ****ing stupid *******s who should die" isn't insulting? I've never even implied that. You're more biased then I could ever be on my worst day.

This "discussion" has gone from ludicrous to the sublime.

You actually expect the U.S. to go looking for WMD when there are still shells going off around them and gunfights breaking out all over the place? Why don't you take your happy lil' ass down there and find them yourself.

As for me insulting anyone. Where's your documentation? That comment about oxymoron is the truth. You can't deny that. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative


If is the important word here. The Palestine Hotel is known to be a hotel were only Western journalists reside. The exact co-ordinates of all hotels where journalists reside, along with co-ordinates of media-haedquarters, were passed to the Pentagon before the war even begun (Al-Jazeera, Abu Dhabi,...- Al-Jazeera has been bombed, and so has Abu Dhabi). According to all journalists staying in the hotel at that time, there were no attacks launched from within the hotel against the U.S. I hope this some day will go to court, and it'll be the word of the American soldier who fired the grenade against the words of dozens of journalists, backed up with filmed evidence.



According to American spokesman brigade-general Vincent Brooks, the decision to fire was not taken by central command, but by an officer right there. "We can not know every place where journalists work in the field. We only know the journalists who are active with our troops.", Brooks added. Excuse me? If you don't know Hotel Palestine is the hotel where almost all Western journalists are staying, you don't belong there.

Immediately after the accusations by the IFJ, Central command said there were shots being fired from within the hotel. ALL journalists deny this.

A spokesman for US External Affairs already admitted that the bombing of Al-Jazeera headquarters was "a serious mistake".
I'm waiting for the same statement about Hotel Palestine.... just a matter of time if you ask me.

---

Just to be pedantic, it seems it was not a grenade, but one tank shell, which is why the damage was significant.
What do you expect officers on the ground to do?
Phone home to Washington and ask if they can return fire?
How do you know there was no hostile fire from the buildings mentioned?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darkes
What do you expect officers on the ground to do?
Phone home to Washington and ask if they can return fire?
How do you know there was no hostile fire from the buildings mentioned?

---

I didn't say anything about what that officer on the ground should have done. I simply quoted General Brooks. His statement that "they can not know every place where journalists work in the field. We only know the journalists who are active with our troops." is a blatant lie, since the Pentagon had gotten the exact co-ordinates for both the Palestine press-center and Al-Jazeera headquarters months ago already (that might explain why the attacks were so damn accurate :D).

More than a dozen journalists are willing to agree against the soldier who fired the tank shell (Peter Arnett is one of them, btw. And at least 5 British journalists.). The video by France 3 confirms the statements of the journalists.
I don't know there was no hostile fire from the buildings mentioned. I'll just have to believe those journalists, and the video. I don't think any of those journalists know how to handle a sniper-gun though.

According to a few newspapers here many Iraqi's are not complaining, but in fact celebrating.
A headline quote:

Quote:

---

Baghdad cheers as regime crumbles; looting, fighting pesist

---

Obviously, I bet not all Iraqi's are cheering because it was the US who came in and attacked. This link to arabnews.com reinforces that there is at least one split in how the Iraqis feel:

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=25014

I wonder though that if the other middle-eastern arab nations, who were tired of Saddam, banded together and attacked, how would the world react? I also wonder why that did not happen? I would have rathered we not go over there, but keep hunting that slippery wascal Bin Laden and pay a military, yet 'diplomatic' visit to NKorea.

I also just caught this on CNN on a post-war Iraq:

Quote:

---

Chirac, Schroeder and Russia's President Vladimir Putin are to meet this weekend to discuss a post-war Iraq, with the likely emphasis on pushing for an increased U.N. role.

Italy's La Repubblica criticized the anti-war grouping, saying in an editorial: "The battle lines are drawn and this time the countries that opposed the coalition war are ready to muscle in and demand a piece of the Iraqi pie."

---

I don't think that Germany, Russia, or france should have a f**king thing to do with post-war Iraq. And the fact that they are going to discuss it is, IMHO, a little hypocritical. I guess they've been sharing, amongst other things, the Information Minister's drugs.

I'm not upset with the those countries, never have been, I'm upset with their reppresentation in the U.N. and their "holier than thou" attitude toward U.S. actions. And now that there's light at the end of the tunnel, all of a suden, they think they can just jump on the train.

My opinion.....No ticket, no ride.

For me this war is illegal since only UN is entitled to decide. UN it's 15 members. US is 1 member. US is like Saddam in 90, they have invade Iraq. I know that's strong but that's my opinion. Germany, Russia and France don't want to do something, they just say that's UN must do the work. And I repeat UN it's 15 members (5 permanent and 10 elected every 2 years). If only US manage the post war how can others know if they don't do things for their profit (there's much oil). If UN manage everybody have a look to what is done. As I can see on TV for the moment Iraq is gone for dictatorship to anarchy. There is lots of pillaging, even in the hospital. If this war have been UN validated there will be more troops and less pillaging (there is always some in every war).

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by KorpDeath
I don't think that Germany, Russia, or france should have a f**king thing to do with post-war Iraq. And the fact that they are going to discuss it is, IMHO, a little hypocritical. I guess they've been sharing, amongst other things, the Information Minister's drugs.

I'm not upset with the those countries, never have been, I'm upset with their reppresentation in the U.N. and their "holier than thou" attitude toward U.S. actions. And now that there's light at the end of the tunnel, all of a suden, they think they can just jump on the train.

My opinion.....No ticket, no ride.

---

Well, this is a tricky one. I think you will find that the UK is keen to build bridges with the EU and the UN. The UK is in a difficult position at the moment, as France has suddenly realised that it has backed the wrong horse, and all their economic ties with a brutal dictatorship have gone out of the window.