h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ok boys and girls, I am a bit bored over here. The killing just aint so fun anymore. I will make this a tentative return to the thread. ES/Wraith. I am willing to enact an ROE (rules of engagement) if you two will be grown-up enough to step up to it. Stick to the issues and see if intellect can make up for a lack of insults. No more genocidal puppet fascist stupid or otherwise racist (well America isn't exactly a race but you get the drift) remarks and I will act likewise.

I want a clean fight
Now touch gloves and come out fighting...

The Guardian article that was posted....

I know the bird they are refering to. It was a medevac flight and I know I guy who is no longer alive because he was on that flight. Want to know my take on it? Think for a minute. Your a member of an organization. You are standing around a helicopter that fell out of the sky after being attacked. Other members of your organization are dead on that helicopter. Someone who fits the description of a would-be attacker is lurking around the crash site. What are you going to do, you detain them. The article (read the slant) mentioned no press badges on the Iraqis. More than likely if they had em it would have broadcast that fact big as daylight. More than likely the 82nd soldiers were not the nicest in the world, remember they have dead comrades lying right behind them. However, the extent of what was/was not done is based solely on the word of the Iraqis in the article.

"The article (read the slant) mentioned no press badges on the Iraqis."



"The journalists were all wearing bulletproof jackets clearly marked "press"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1121981,00.html

Are we following the same links?

Well, before anyone else gets the chance. I actually missed two whole paragraphs whilst reading. The one about the OH-58 and the date and the vests. So let me modify my last post slightly.

It was not the UH-60 medevac flight that article was referring to. I knew no one involved in the incident and once in custody at least, the soldiers would have been informed by the vests that the suspects were probably press.

The points that do still stand however are
1) the vests were marked press, still no mention of ID. Is it possible that a bad guy with a stolen/fake vest was coming by to survey the site?

2) The soldiers were still at a crash site. The presence of dead or wounded comrades goes far towards influencing ones state of mind.

3) Al Jezera has a wonderful reputation of getting good tip offs about incidents. They seem to show up right before an event,(i.e. a gathering crowd) leave during it (when the crowd opens up first) and come back just in time to film the US reaction and the Iraqi bodies. This is not something I heard or read. This is first hand experience. Yes, I know these reporters were not Al Jezera, however an Arab with a vest that says "Press" not "NBC" would be assumed as such by almost anyone.

4) The ONLY account given of the treatment of the Iraqis is by the Iraqis themselves. I have not participated in/ seen/ heard of anyone getting treated like that while in custody. No strip search, no shoes in mouths. The procedure is a search, hands on yes but not strip. Zipcuffs (plastic ties) around the wrists and an eye covering. No gag. Yes, at times it can get a little bit umm rough. However arresting people often is.

I have used levels of force that I was not happy with. However, every single time I have matched force for force. A suspect that does not offer resistance is cuffed blindfolded and put in a truck. One that wants to fight the entire time will be fought back. Is there anyone out there that is/knows a cop? It is the same thing.

Just like the cops there are ones that get off on it. You all have one like that in your home town. Most don't, most of us would be perfectly happy to not be put in a position to hurt someone, although we too often are. There have been cases of mistreatment. There are also criminal cases in front of Courts Martial trials for mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners that amounts to much less than what is described in this article. The 82nd Airborne division has pretty strict ROE and good oversight for what happens.

Its politics folks. Stuff like this is bad press, and if it happens our superiors would have no problems at all roasting us over an open fire to save face. Think about it from my angle. Yes, I do think before I pull a trigger. However, if I am in a situation where I perceive a threat, I will use the tools at my disposal. If I do end up making a mistake, I could end up in prison. We are out here with threats from both ends. Usually the old adage is king, "It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six"

The trouble is Blick that some of us are naiive.

Once they realise they have been deceived by an institution they once trusted they tend to become disenfranchised. I suppose that's why people do not vote in big numbers. Hence the dispute about the election of GW Bush in the US.

Well, there's a point there, isn't there? While we are all pontificating from the comfort of offices and homes, sgtflipper is actually there. We can go round and round on if he should be there or not, but that point is actually pretty moot.

Now the question is how to redress the damage done. And honestly, given the circumstances the 82nd airborne was in at the time, how would any of us react?

Not that I think that shooting people wearing press jackets is a good idea --unless they're with Fox!

They're asking for it. They should go and get a proper job instead.

No-one here is a journalist are they? *ducks*

Are you serious Bounce?

Now you know I'm not a big fan of the press BUT no free press..goodbye freedom.

OOOH, sarcasm. I like it. I think the world needs more sarcasm, actually.

(Okay, so I'm weird...who knew?!)

No, really. If I were with the press in Iraq, I would have a big neon sign over my head. Anything that says no, really, I am press, so don't shoot me. Vests, hats, a blown up copy of my ID the size of a dinner plate...

Think about it. Here are the US soldiers, most of whom did NOT sign up for this kind of duty, and they know they're not well-loved, and there's daily attacks. These guys are in shoot first, ask questions later mode. Is it morally right? Perhaps not. Morals don't count for much when life and death are on the line.

That's the reality MR. Kill or be killed.

Oh no I agree journalists serve a useful purpose in that way. As long as their is a greed motivation for them to find a big story, they will dig things up that the rest of us will want to know.

I was just taking the opportunity to have a snipe at the fourth estate.

I've said much the same myself earlier on this thread, which is why I don't feel qualified to cast the first stone at the grunts in the firing line. The buck stops with the politicals who start wars knowing (unless they're *totally* stupid) what's likely to follow.

Noggin

Of course that's true: politicians make the decisions.
And yes Bounce "the fourth estate" or the press often
force the hand of the politician.

But SH was not democratically elected. Iraq did not have a free press.
I believe the Al JaZheera news service is funded by Bin Laden.

BL is not democratically elected.

No questions for me at all.
The US president could be Homer Simpson: the personality is irrelavent when your democracy is attacked or threatened.

I think Al Jazeera (sp?) has been around longer than OBL, hasn't it?

Noggin

Fair Point. Hand on heart I believe my statement to be true.
BL funds AlJaz.

Flipper, "ES/Wraith. I am willing to enact an ROE (rules of engagement)..."

Are you still banging away with that? We are NOT the same person. Before yesterday I've barely been online. Grow up and stop being a twit.

"The article (read the slant) mentioned no press badges on the Iraqis." The article said they were wearing bullet proof vests with "PRESS" printed on them.

"However, the extent of what was/was not done is based solely on the word of the Iraqis in the article." - you're confusing your assumptions with fact.

"the vests were marked press, still no mention of ID. Is it possible that a bad guy with a stolen/fake vest was coming by to survey the site?" - so shoot everyone and if there are any complaints just say you didn't belive the uniform. Hey Anhaga, we've got an explanation for all those frendly fire incidents you were so upset about.

Montana, "Well, there's a point there, isn't there? While we are all pontificating from the comfort of offices and homes, sgtflipper is actually there." - actually montana I've asked but still haven't seen that email address to verify.

"Think about it. Here are the US soldiers, most of whom did NOT sign up for this kind of duty, and they know they're not well-loved, and there's daily attacks. These guys are in shoot first, ask questions later mode. Is it morally right? Perhaps not. Morals don't count for much when life and death are on the line."

There's a simple counter to this. Does anyone elses military get excused or apologised for. Being American should not count for anything.

Oetzi, "I believe the Al JaZheera news service is funded by Bin Laden." - Let's hope you keep beliving in gravity so we all don't float away.

A lot of folks round here keep hoping Wraith...still here cousin!

<>
Say what? Lentilla, aren't you being a bit one eyed here? Both Flipper and Ferrettbadger have resorted to a lot of name calling, especially Flipper, and I for one, am not inclined to make any excuses for him on account of where he is. In fact, the fact that he is in danger of bombs and guns, is the crux of this discussion! He chose to join the armed forces and take part in an illegal invasion. If he faces opposition for that - well, what does he expect?

<>
I don't *think* so! Isn't the question of whether he should be there the whole point of this thread? Montana, please, you of all people, don't go making excuses for him! He has admitting to using 'levels of force' he wasn't comfortable with - and as for what he says about the incident with the journalists, what a bunch of ill-considered rationalisations!
"Maybe" they this or "possibly" that, he's trying to defend the indefensible.After his sympathy ploy of 'unsubscribing' while blaming an anti-war person (and how the 'neutrals took the bait, it was classic!) he's back to put the case for the occupiers. I am blown away!
Now the question is how to redress the damage done.

Do you have evidence for that? I would think that Osama would keep a tighter reign on what they do. I mean they're not pro-US but they don't exactly seem entirely pro-Saddam or Osama either. Maybe Osama understands that people noticeoverly biased reporting, especially when they're exposed to it all the time, but then shouldn't he be trying to whip up the extremists into a frenzy by enlarging upon what they already believe? That's what I'd do if I wanted to raise a fundamentalist army quickly.

You don't see televangelists tempering their words.

I believe that Al Jazeera (sp?) are biased because that is the profitable way to milk opinion in the world. In their case they are milking Arab opinion. Over here the newspapers milk British public opinion. Which is more accurate depends on which have better access to facts and ability to publish them, and also on the level to which the public they cater to are informed.

Oh by the way I'd like to throw my support in for Sergeant Flipper, whose opinions do seem well informed and reasoned out. I may not entirely agree with them, and I may have trouble identifying with someone who would join the army, but they are always well put.

He has insulted people, but in all cases has been provoked in my opinion.

Sergeant Flipper is, in my opinion, someone who does temper his words. Highly placed amongst the Charles Kennedys of this thread .