I'm aware of that - It was an analogy.GC covers military conflict, Dilbert.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-04-18 02:37:08)
If CIA agents pretended to be journalists it would be a bad thing because it would compromise the integrity of other journalists. The FACT that various terrorist organisations use red cross insignia, ambulances or press insignia is a BAD thing because it compromises the integrity of other journalists and red cross members. But that doesnt give the right to the CIA enemies or the terrorists enemies to consider all journalists as enemies.Parker wrote:
i wonder if you would say that same thing if the CIA used journalists as a cover?zeidmaan wrote:
SO according to many of you EVERY cameraman is a legitimate target because he could be feeding the information to the terrorists and because camera looks similar to an AT weapon. That is absolutely horrible point of view. How can you not know how important journalists are in wars. You cant make them legitimate targets EVER.
im guessing no.......
1-It works the opposite way, if you aren't 100% sure you don't shoot.imortal wrote:
1- The point being made is that the tank crew had no assurances that the TV crew was not, in fact, terrorists pointing an anti-tank missile at them.sergeriver wrote:
1-As far as we know the tank shot him and there were no extremists nearby. A cameraman IS a fucking civilian, he just happens to be working. He didn't make the choice when the tank shot him without a reason.
2-Tanks have electronic devices to detect RPG and missile launchers.
3-You are saying Reuters has such a huge bias against Israel they staged this?
4-The video conveniently cuts maybe coz the cameraman was shot dead, and the camera was fucked up. Maybe the tape or whatever the camera was using still worked after the shot, who knows.
5-So, you agree the cameraman is dead, that he was killed by the Israeli army, and you really think they need to stage the video just to dramatize the already very dramatic event?
2- No, they don't. Stop getting your information from movies or games. (I was not only an artilleryman, but a tanker as well.)
3- no comment or opinion at this point.
4- we have no way of knowing what was not aired. I am more interested in the footage prior to what was shown on the air.
5- no comment for the overly dramatic statement designed to draw argument away from the other points.
I'm going to address you instead of addressing the 100 posts that say exactly the same. It doesn't matter if they couldn't see the TV sign from a mile away. They need to be 100% sure it was a threat to them. Otherwise, they can't shoot. It's their responsibility to protect civilians, and a cameraman is a fucking civilian. If they can't manage that responsibility they should not be in a tank.thtthht wrote:
Although there was no shooting, think about it.sergeriver wrote:
1-As far as we know the tank shot him and there were no extremists nearby. A cameraman IS a fucking civilian, he just happens to be working. He didn't make the choice when the tank shot him without a reason.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
WOW...the level of ridiculous has reached a peak in this thread.
Let's get a few things straight.
1) Yes, a cameraman is dead and he himself said he would continue to report until he couldn't (dead or crippled), so he is largely to blame for himself being killed. He is a big boy and knew what might happen. It is much different when civilians die on either side of this conflict....he made a choice, those civilians didn't.
2) Israel did not deliberately attack civilians in this vid. From that distance, this guy was holding a camera (according to the video) pointing it at tanks. If I was a tank commander, I would be suspicious of it too. Remember, Hamas has used civilians, Red Crescent vehicles and yes even press vehicles to what they are best at ...terrorism.
3) I watched a longer version of this vid and it still smells and looks bad. I am not saying that a cameraman didn't get killed but at this point, I do not believe he was killed in that video. If you look at the longer version, the truck is on a road between two burms, the hills on each side of the road are taller than the truck....it just doesn't make sense.
4) Even in the video, how does anyone know when that shot was taken, who shot it and from the video I saw, the video was taken by somebody else, not the dead cameraman. The video conveniently cuts out and then we see another shot from someone else. The video was put together, it is not one continuous shot from the same camera. In fact, they show the camera of the dead cameraman...and in no way could that camera still work. Somebody put that vid together and who knows where all the clips came from.
5) Yes, there is a cameraman dead, but I believe that parts of the video being shown on the net is staged. I don't believe he was killed in that truck, I don't believe that a tank shell would do so little damage to a small pick up truck and I don't believe the story as it was told. Did a cameraman die, yes. Did he die by being killed by the Israeli army, yes....but the video is staged to dramatize what may have happened else where.
That is my opinion, if Israel and Palestinians continue this fight, innocence on both sides will die. This guy chose his way to die and knew it might and did happen. He has to take a large part of responsibility. In WW2, quite a few journalists died in combat action, some famously, but again, they knew and accepted what could happen.
2-Tanks have electronic devices to detect RPG and missile launchers.
3-You are saying Reuters has such a huge bias against Israel they staged this?
4-The video conveniently cuts maybe coz the cameraman was shot dead, and the camera was fucked up. Maybe the tape or whatever the camera was using still worked after the shot, who knows.
5-So, you agree the cameraman is dead, that he was killed by the Israeli army, and you really think they need to stage the video just to dramatize the already very dramatic event?
There are plenty of cases where an AT terrorist had fired on a tank before any shots were fired.
Also, a tank cannot detect a RPG because it is basically a metal tube with an explosive thing on the end.
Do you seriously think someone will think, "Wait, is that the press?" before shooting in a battle?
NO!!!
The reporter expected this.
These things happen.Also, nobody is going to notice a teeny tiny TV sign at 700 meters.
I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm sure no news agency needs to "fabricate" evidence to show that. It is plain obvious, and there are tons of real evidence to show if they choose. The real effort lies in hiding Israel's dark side.FEOS wrote:
Just as it was obvious that Israel bombed a civilian neighborhood in Beirut multiple times...oh wait that was Reuters fabricating "evidence" to show how bad Israel is.oug wrote:
And let me guess. This video was made up by the baddies to frame the IDF. Reuters suddenly sided with the Palestinians.
Some people will claim anything to avoid the truth. And a bloody obvious one in this case.
No oug...it could never happen.
Forget the press, they killed an innocent civilian, yes a journalist is a civilian doing a job in a war zone, and they never were sure he was a threat to them. That's outrageous. You can't shoot a guy from a mile away just in case. Those tanks have top notch technology, and yes Vilham they can detect shit with the support of UAVs and other electronic devices.FEOS wrote:
Since in this case, Israel didn't do any of those things (or at least there is no evidence to support the claim of "purposeful targeting of the press"), not sure of the relevance to the OP.
So, you can't avoid killing an innocent journalist coz it was a war zone?FEOS wrote:
We've already been down that road, and it wasn't very productive...for either of us.
They killed several.sergeriver wrote:
So, you can't avoid killing an innocent journalist coz it was a war zone?
How many journalists did the US forces killed in Iraq? I bet none. Why can't Israel do the same?
And very deliberately killed Al Jazeera I seem to remember.They killed several.
It worked fine for meWe've already been down that road, and it wasn't very productive...for either of us.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-04-18 06:14:40)
wait, so either the idea is "wrong and stupid" or terrorist organizations use that tactic.zeidmaan wrote:
The FACT that various terrorist organisations use red cross insignia, ambulances or press insignia is a BAD thing because it compromises the integrity of other journalists and red cross members.zeidmaan wrote:
You cant make them legitimate targets EVER.
just wrong and stupid.
Also from your link: "Sensors include radar with four antennas placed around the vehicle. The IDF has begun procurement of the system with serial production to begin in 2007."sergeriver wrote:
1-It works the opposite way, if you aren't 100% sure you don't shoot.imortal wrote:
1- The point being made is that the tank crew had no assurances that the TV crew was not, in fact, terrorists pointing an anti-tank missile at them.sergeriver wrote:
1-As far as we know the tank shot him and there were no extremists nearby. A cameraman IS a fucking civilian, he just happens to be working. He didn't make the choice when the tank shot him without a reason.
2-Tanks have electronic devices to detect RPG and missile launchers.
3-You are saying Reuters has such a huge bias against Israel they staged this?
4-The video conveniently cuts maybe coz the cameraman was shot dead, and the camera was fucked up. Maybe the tape or whatever the camera was using still worked after the shot, who knows.
5-So, you agree the cameraman is dead, that he was killed by the Israeli army, and you really think they need to stage the video just to dramatize the already very dramatic event?
2- No, they don't. Stop getting your information from movies or games. (I was not only an artilleryman, but a tanker as well.)
3- no comment or opinion at this point.
4- we have no way of knowing what was not aired. I am more interested in the footage prior to what was shown on the air.
5- no comment for the overly dramatic statement designed to draw argument away from the other points.
2-I don't know what tanks you worked with, but the Merkava for instance has this kind of devices. The tank is fitted with the Amcoram LWS-2 laser warning system, with threat warning display installed at the commander's station. This links to the Israel Military Industries POMALS (Pedestal Operated Multi Ammunition Launching System) decoy launcher. One launcher is fitted on either side of the tank, which can launch smoke grenades and decoys. A Merkava 4 has also been fitted with the Rafael Trophy Active Protection System. Trophy provides 360° coverage against anti-tank rockets, anti-tank missiles and tank HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) rounds. Once Trophy has detected a threat, it is tracked and classified and the optimal intercept point is computed, prior to launching a countermeasure.
4-Be suspicious of the victim, typical.
5-That seemed to be a comment IMO.
Could have been holding an RPG, no laser either, just point and shoot, wouldn't have activated any warning systems.imortal wrote:
Also from your link: "Sensors include radar with four antennas placed around the vehicle. The IDF has begun procurement of the system with serial production to begin in 2007."sergeriver wrote:
1-It works the opposite way, if you aren't 100% sure you don't shoot.imortal wrote:
1- The point being made is that the tank crew had no assurances that the TV crew was not, in fact, terrorists pointing an anti-tank missile at them.
2- No, they don't. Stop getting your information from movies or games. (I was not only an artilleryman, but a tanker as well.)
3- no comment or opinion at this point.
4- we have no way of knowing what was not aired. I am more interested in the footage prior to what was shown on the air.
5- no comment for the overly dramatic statement designed to draw argument away from the other points.
2-I don't know what tanks you worked with, but the Merkava for instance has this kind of devices. The tank is fitted with the Amcoram LWS-2 laser warning system, with threat warning display installed at the commander's station. This links to the Israel Military Industries POMALS (Pedestal Operated Multi Ammunition Launching System) decoy launcher. One launcher is fitted on either side of the tank, which can launch smoke grenades and decoys. A Merkava 4 has also been fitted with the Rafael Trophy Active Protection System. Trophy provides 360° coverage against anti-tank rockets, anti-tank missiles and tank HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) rounds. Once Trophy has detected a threat, it is tracked and classified and the optimal intercept point is computed, prior to launching a countermeasure.
4-Be suspicious of the victim, typical.
5-That seemed to be a comment IMO.
s is a brand-new system,barely out of the test phase. The article says they have begun procurment. Not even instalation. In fact, I think this things was on Futureweapons less than a month ago. 1) Do you know how long it takes or will take to fully outfit every tank with them? 2) It is also a brand-new system. Even IF] the tank in question was so outfitted, it can not have been on the tank long, and that crew, at the very least the commander (the most experienced person on the tank) will have ingrained attitutes on that particular threat. And it would not prevent me from attacking a group I think posed a valid threat in a combat zone. I know there were a LOT of really pretty articles like that about the M1A2. It has taken YEARS (as in 8-10 years) to outfit the US army after the M1A2 was developed.
Russian designed anti-tank missiles: http://www.wonderland.org.nz/rat.htm guidance methods wire-guided or radio guided; not laser.
US-designed anti-tank systems:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … dragon.htm Wire guided
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … avelin.htm Passive optical/thermal guidance
The laser detection system is designed to defeat (obviously) laser-guided munitions by detecting the guiding laser beam and warning the crew and (possibly) directing the system to a particular direction.
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-04-18 11:17:56)
Have there been lots of people shooting at cars stopped at that red light?sergeriver wrote:
Ok, following your line of thinking if you are driving your car by a rough neighborhood and you get a red light and you need to stop, what do you do? The law says you must stop, but you could cross the red light because, in your opinion, stopping would be putting your life at risk, and maybe you would be right. But by crossing the red light you are putting your life and other people's lives at risk, just because you thought there was a threat. The other possibility is to stop at the red light. You stop and next to your car there is a truck with tinted windows. You get to see there's two people inside. But you can't see clearly because of the tint. The driver takes an old cell phone (bigger than new ones), but to you it seems like a gun. Would you shoot him just in case?
Now you are just picking words from my post and arranging them as you please.Parker wrote:
wait, so either the idea is "wrong and stupid" or terrorist organizations use that tactic.zeidmaan wrote:
The FACT that various terrorist organisations use red cross insignia, ambulances or press insignia is a BAD thing because it compromises the integrity of other journalists and red cross members.zeidmaan wrote:
You cant make them legitimate targets EVER.
just wrong and stupid.
you seem to be slightly confused.
here, let me tell you a little secret. there are already laws in place that keep the CIA from using a journalists cover (see Doctors Without Borders)
you can look at that CIA statement i made as a little trap, which you fell right into.
you make your point, but without even realizing it, and while attempting a personal attack, you prove MY point.
this thread is SEETHING with hypocrisy
alas, im done though.....the Jews are evil, we all know it.
It's a real bad neighborhood, you hear stories about crime there all the time. Same thing.Morpheus1229 wrote:
Have there been lots of people shooting at cars stopped at that red light?sergeriver wrote:
Ok, following your line of thinking if you are driving your car by a rough neighborhood and you get a red light and you need to stop, what do you do? The law says you must stop, but you could cross the red light because, in your opinion, stopping would be putting your life at risk, and maybe you would be right. But by crossing the red light you are putting your life and other people's lives at risk, just because you thought there was a threat. The other possibility is to stop at the red light. You stop and next to your car there is a truck with tinted windows. You get to see there's two people inside. But you can't see clearly because of the tint. The driver takes an old cell phone (bigger than new ones), but to you it seems like a gun. Would you shoot him just in case?
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-04-18 13:01:15)
i didnt pick and choose words and arrange them how i wanted. those were two relevant statements that YOU made.zeidmaan wrote:
Now you are just picking words from my post and arranging them as you please.Parker wrote:
wait, so either the idea is "wrong and stupid" or terrorist organizations use that tactic.zeidmaan wrote:
The FACT that various terrorist organisations use red cross insignia, ambulances or press insignia is a BAD thing because it compromises the integrity of other journalists and red cross members.
just wrong and stupid.
you seem to be slightly confused.
here, let me tell you a little secret. there are already laws in place that keep the CIA from using a journalists cover (see Doctors Without Borders)
you can look at that CIA statement i made as a little trap, which you fell right into.
you make your point, but without even realizing it, and while attempting a personal attack, you prove MY point.
this thread is SEETHING with hypocrisy
alas, im done though.....the Jews are evil, we all know it.
I never engaged in "personal attack" against you, I only quoted you because you quoted me and only the 1st paragraph was a response to you. I than continued with stating "many people in this topic". And those few words that you picked "just wrong and stupid" were meant for people that think that the tank crew identified him as a cameraman but killed him because of the possibility that he was also a spotter, and they agree that its legitimate course of action. There are many many people that thinks this way.
You are better, much better than that Parker. I fell in a trap wtf?!?
Anyway I say again, there is a possibility that ANYONE can misuse the protection that is given to journalists. CIA (yes CIA), Russia, IRAQ, Iran, Bosnia, Austria, AL Q, Israel, Germany, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Talibans, Greece, Canada, Australia, Peru, Colombia, Slovenia, Hamas, Mormons, Slovakia, Zimbabwe, Croatia, Mexico, Mexifornia, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden etc etc... you get my point. Also they could be carrying AT weapons, small arms, riffles, explosives or explosive vests, laser designators, they can be relaying grid coordinates, maybe even GPS, infantry movements, armour formations and movements, spot air support etc. POSSIBILITIES OF MISUSE OF JOURNALIST PROTECTION IN MODERN WORLD IS INFINITE!!!!!!!!!!! But all those jobs can be done by Priests, Imams, little children on bicycles, old people, hot teenage chicks, ugly teenage chicks, dogs and cats with cameras strapped on them (or explosives?), PIGEONS!!! Again the posibilities are fucking infinite.
But this possibility does not make all journalists, Imams, children on bicycles, chicks and dogs and cats a legitimate target. Think of the pigeons
well I could say that if it was a Jewish reporter killed by an Palestinian RPG round you people would be furiousParker wrote:
i didnt pick and choose words and arrange them how i wanted. those were two relevant statements that YOU made.
i merely pointed out the hypocrisy in your statements....thats all.
take it however you want to take it.
now the tank crew is stupid....whatever works man.
like i said earlier in this thread, if it were a jewish reporter, you people would be throwing parties.
have fun.
Bad analogy. You are still attempting to place the situation into a civilian setting; You cannot compare a combat situation to a civilian one. They are not compatable. The term "apples and oranges" comes to mind. I have lived in the civilian world. I have lived in the military world. I know the difference.sergeriver wrote:
Ok, following your line of thinking if you are driving your car by a rough neighborhood and you get a red light and you need to stop, what do you do? The law says you must stop, but you could cross the red light because, in your opinion, stopping would be putting your life at risk, and maybe you would be right. But by crossing the red light you are putting your life and other people's lives at risk, just because you thought there was a threat. The other possibility is to stop at the red light. You stop and next to your car there is a truck with tinted windows. You get to see there's two people inside. But you can't see clearly because of the tint. The driver takes an old cell phone (bigger than new ones), but to you it seems like a gun. Would you shoot him just in case?
Palestine is not really a 'military' setting in the classic sense though, it was the same in Northern Ireland during the troubles...I never felt like I was in a warzone when I was there. Cam went to Palestine on holiday for God's sake! It's a civilian setting where a lot of military shit takes place! The fact remains, analogies aside, that the military ended up killing innocent people here (members of the press who have a right and a duty to be there) and what this situation proves is that the Israelis either don't take enough care to avoid civilian deaths or just don't care full stop.imortal wrote:
Bad analogy. You are still attempting to place the situation into a civilian setting; You cannot compare a combat situation to a civilian one. They are not compatable. The term "apples and oranges" comes to mind. I have lived in the civilian world. I have lived in the military world. I know the difference.sergeriver wrote:
Ok, following your line of thinking if you are driving your car by a rough neighborhood and you get a red light and you need to stop, what do you do? The law says you must stop, but you could cross the red light because, in your opinion, stopping would be putting your life at risk, and maybe you would be right. But by crossing the red light you are putting your life and other people's lives at risk, just because you thought there was a threat. The other possibility is to stop at the red light. You stop and next to your car there is a truck with tinted windows. You get to see there's two people inside. But you can't see clearly because of the tint. The driver takes an old cell phone (bigger than new ones), but to you it seems like a gun. Would you shoot him just in case?
Can you be legally shot for not doing something your boss told you to? You can in the military (in a combat situation, at least).
Okay, Palastine is not a warzone. I am sure that many places are very nice. But when you get to an area where miliary units are shooting and fighting (and Isreal DOES have a military, even if Palastine doesn't have an official one) it is a combat situation.Braddock wrote:
Palestine is not really a 'military' setting in the classic sense though, it was the same in Northern Ireland during the troubles...I never felt like I was in a warzone when I was there. Cam went to Palestine on holiday for God's sake! It's a civilian setting where a lot of military shit takes place! The fact remains, analogies aside, that the military ended up killing innocent people here (members of the press who have a right and a duty to be there) and what this situation proves is that the Israelis either don't take enough care to avoid civilian deaths or just don't care full stop.imortal wrote:
Bad analogy. You are still attempting to place the situation into a civilian setting; You cannot compare a combat situation to a civilian one. They are not compatable. The term "apples and oranges" comes to mind. I have lived in the civilian world. I have lived in the military world. I know the difference.sergeriver wrote:
Ok, following your line of thinking if you are driving your car by a rough neighborhood and you get a red light and you need to stop, what do you do? The law says you must stop, but you could cross the red light because, in your opinion, stopping would be putting your life at risk, and maybe you would be right. But by crossing the red light you are putting your life and other people's lives at risk, just because you thought there was a threat. The other possibility is to stop at the red light. You stop and next to your car there is a truck with tinted windows. You get to see there's two people inside. But you can't see clearly because of the tint. The driver takes an old cell phone (bigger than new ones), but to you it seems like a gun. Would you shoot him just in case?
Can you be legally shot for not doing something your boss told you to? You can in the military (in a combat situation, at least).
