It just seems to me that terrorists get vilified for killing innocent people whereas soldiers get a pass because they didn't 'mean' to do it. The guy pressed a button/pulled a trigger (I dunno, I'm not a tank cammander!) and killed those civilians...he meant to kill those people, he just maybe didn't know they were civilians.imortal wrote:
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.
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).
Yes, the military did kill civilian reporters. That looks to be a fact.
But being a jounalist in a combat area does not make you immune from the situation. Having the word PRESS emblazoned on your car or on your jacket doesn't stop bullets. You are not mystically protected from all that is wrong. Many people forget that while a journalist describes and shows us an event, by the very nature of reporting, you become a part of the event. A combat area is DANGEROUS. Most people not actively involved in the fighting just want to get away and get somewhere safe. The jounalists did not do that. They do what jounalists do. They look for the story, even if that means placing themselves in danger. Which they did. I will even say that they were acting in the finest traditions of their profession. And they got killed. Accidents happen. Was it a mistake? Yes. Was it avoidable? Most likely. Is it tragic? I would say it depends on your view of journalists, but the answer is yes. Is the tank crew evil and to be vilified for having done it? No.
First, it depends on the situation whether I, personally, vilify terrorists. That point is the intentional targeting of civilians. As in walking into a busy marketplace and blowing themselves up to create as many casuaties as possible. Terrorists find settings full of people who are not expecting violence. Places where civilians feel safe. They do this to make the populace feel unsafe. That is almost the definition of a terrorist.Braddock wrote:
It just seems to me that terrorists get vilified for killing innocent people whereas soldiers get a pass because they didn't 'mean' to do it. The guy pressed a button/pulled a trigger (I dunno, I'm not a tank cammander!) and killed those civilians...he meant to kill those people, he just maybe didn't know they were civilians.imortal wrote:
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.
Yes, the military did kill civilian reporters. That looks to be a fact.
But being a jounalist in a combat area does not make you immune from the situation. Having the word PRESS emblazoned on your car or on your jacket doesn't stop bullets. You are not mystically protected from all that is wrong. Many people forget that while a journalist describes and shows us an event, by the very nature of reporting, you become a part of the event. A combat area is DANGEROUS. Most people not actively involved in the fighting just want to get away and get somewhere safe. The jounalists did not do that. They do what jounalists do. They look for the story, even if that means placing themselves in danger. Which they did. I will even say that they were acting in the finest traditions of their profession. And they got killed. Accidents happen. Was it a mistake? Yes. Was it avoidable? Most likely. Is it tragic? I would say it depends on your view of journalists, but the answer is yes. Is the tank crew evil and to be vilified for having done it? No.
The reporters knew they were not in a safe place. They put themselves there intentionally. I feel there is a very large difference there.
Oh, I also tend to side on the side of the military (anyone's military) when incidents first come out; at least, until more infortamtion is made available. I find so many people in here as so anti-military that they automatically bias the information and judgements agaisnt them. That is how I tend to find myself on the other side.
If you mark any car with any thing and report on enemy movements I think you could have a chance of being shot...
I accept the argument that intention is very much an important factor and acknowledge that suicide bombers show no regard for innocent life in their attacks but I don't think a family who has just lost their son/daughter/brother/sister really cares at the end of the day whether the tank commander meant it or not it or didn't realise their loved one was a civilian...their loved one is still blown to bits, just the same as if it had been a suicide bomber.imortal wrote:
First, it depends on the situation whether I, personally, vilify terrorists. That point is the intentional targeting of civilians. As in walking into a busy marketplace and blowing themselves up to create as many casuaties as possible. Terrorists find settings full of people who are not expecting violence. Places where civilians feel safe. They do this to make the populace feel unsafe. That is almost the definition of a terrorist.Braddock wrote:
It just seems to me that terrorists get vilified for killing innocent people whereas soldiers get a pass because they didn't 'mean' to do it. The guy pressed a button/pulled a trigger (I dunno, I'm not a tank cammander!) and killed those civilians...he meant to kill those people, he just maybe didn't know they were civilians.imortal wrote:
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.
Yes, the military did kill civilian reporters. That looks to be a fact.
But being a jounalist in a combat area does not make you immune from the situation. Having the word PRESS emblazoned on your car or on your jacket doesn't stop bullets. You are not mystically protected from all that is wrong. Many people forget that while a journalist describes and shows us an event, by the very nature of reporting, you become a part of the event. A combat area is DANGEROUS. Most people not actively involved in the fighting just want to get away and get somewhere safe. The jounalists did not do that. They do what jounalists do. They look for the story, even if that means placing themselves in danger. Which they did. I will even say that they were acting in the finest traditions of their profession. And they got killed. Accidents happen. Was it a mistake? Yes. Was it avoidable? Most likely. Is it tragic? I would say it depends on your view of journalists, but the answer is yes. Is the tank crew evil and to be vilified for having done it? No.
The reporters knew they were not in a safe place. They put themselves there intentionally. I feel there is a very large difference there.
Oh, I also tend to side on the side of the military (anyone's military) when incidents first come out; at least, until more infortamtion is made available. I find so many people in here as so anti-military that they automatically bias the information and judgements agaisnt them. That is how I tend to find myself on the other side.
Obviously there is the reality of military life to be taken into account when looking at these situations but I think the people you regard as very 'anti-military' here are actually more 'anti-the reasons these armies are fighting'...the military scenarios we usually discuss here are nearly always in Israel, Iraq or Afghanistan and these conflicts come with a lot of strong political division behind them. If we were continually discussing situations from WW2 you'd probably find a lot more of these people you speak of siding with the military. For example I would look at this Israeli example in terms of the tank commander acting understandably in line with his training and military instinct but my argument would be that the tanks shouldn't have been rolling around in that area in the first place and that Israel use their military to suppress an angry people whose country they have robbed from under them.
So in essence, Israel did not intentionally kill the journalist, but is still responsible for his death because of their role in starting the current conflict?
Your boss can kill you in the military for disobeying orders? I thought that was the court martial for.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).
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-04-19 06:15:29)
QFT!!!!Ataronchronon wrote:
I gotta agree with this, it sucks, but who would expect anything else from war?Jibbles wrote:
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.TSI wrote:
Oh, so shooting a CLEARLY marked TV car is okay? Collateral damage? BS.QFT. No one forced him to film downrange of a tank in an ACTIVE COMBAT AREA.imortal wrote:
Also, if you voluntaraly go into a combat area, you forfeit any kind of protection. Things like this happen. Yeah, it sucks.
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.
I'm just sick of assholes who say negative stuff like that, and how we're "Murdering innocent civilans".
Last edited by Bradt3hleader (2008-04-19 06:24:58)
Well they're responsible for his death because they blew him up with a tank round, quite simple really...the wider conflict doesn't really enter into that aspect of the debate. Their role in creating the wider conflict would however, as far as I'm concerned, dictate that they had no right to be rolling around that area in their tanks in the first place.nukchebi0 wrote:
So in essence, Israel did not intentionally kill the journalist, but is still responsible for his death because of their role in starting the current conflict?
Under battlefield conditions, different rules apply. One instance I can think of off the top of my head in the US army is clearing from an NBC enviroment. Once we were all geared up and had our masks on, we would have to determine if the area was clear of contamination. WE had little kits to use, and detector tape on our protective clothing. If all of that showed that the area was clear, there was only one more test. You bring the lowest ranking member of the unit to the commander. You take the soldiers weapon. Then the commander and the NBC NCO would take him through the actions to make sure the area was clear.sergeriver wrote:
Your boss can kill you in the military for disobeying orders? I thought that was the court martial for.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).
Hold his breath, break the seal on his mask, reseal and clear his mask. Wait and watch soldier for reaction.
Take off mask, take two deep breaths, put mask back on, clear and seal. Wait and watch soldier for reaction.
Take off mask and breathe normally for ten minutes. Wait and watch soldier for reaction.
If the soldier is still okay, then the area is clear. But it is kinda rough on the soldier if the area is not clear. And the soldier may not want to do it. Which is why you take his weapon first. And a commander does have the authority to fire if a soldiers actions are bringing a direct danger to the unit, or if his actions are "detrimental to good order and disclipline." Needless to say, it has not been used for a very long time. Military officers are not inhuman, and are not themselves immune to such actions. But the regulation remains.
Now it's starting to devolve into a "proximate cause" discussion. What was the proximate cause of the reporter's death? The firing of the round? Or him being in a combat zone?Braddock wrote:
Well they're responsible for his death because they blew him up with a tank round, quite simple really...the wider conflict doesn't really enter into that aspect of the debate. Their role in creating the wider conflict would however, as far as I'm concerned, dictate that they had no right to be rolling around that area in their tanks in the first place.nukchebi0 wrote:
So in essence, Israel did not intentionally kill the journalist, but is still responsible for his death because of their role in starting the current conflict?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Okay, so you judge the situation the same as if that tank rolled into downtown Tel Aviv on a peaceful Tuesday morning, and shot their car as they got in after breakfast to drive to the office?Braddock wrote:
Well they're responsible for his death because they blew him up with a tank round, quite simple really...the wider conflict doesn't really enter into that aspect of the debate. Their role in creating the wider conflict would however, as far as I'm concerned, dictate that they had no right to be rolling around that area in their tanks in the first place.nukchebi0 wrote:
So in essence, Israel did not intentionally kill the journalist, but is still responsible for his death because of their role in starting the current conflict?
Depends on what type it is. KE round would have done little to medium damage, HEAT round would have done a lot, HESH would have destroyed the car (think car bomb). (All of these are theoretical guesses, based on how the various rounds operate)B.Schuss wrote:
yeah, something smells fishy here.
as has been said, the car wasn't really "clearly marked", and from the distance, the tank commander could have easily confused the camera with an AT weapon.
Also, neither the vehicle nor the passengers seem to have taken as much "damage" ( for lack of a better term ) as I would expect from a tank round hitting an unarmored vehicle. But I am not an expert on that, maybe active service personnel with some expertise in the area can weigh in here.
And the "TV" sign on the hood could have been applied after the blast.
My best guess would be that the Reuters team went out of their way to get quality footage of the israeli operation, used an unmarked/not sufficiently marked car, and then somehow got in the way of the military machine ( maybe the tank round exploded next to the vehicle, I dunno ).
Guess that can happen anytime when one of the conflict parties fights in civilian clothes and generally uses civilian vehicles.
And why any sane journalist would enter an area where tanks are actively operating, is beyond me.
My guess is they asked the IDF to be embedded, were turned down, and then chose to go anyway.
By the report, the round that hit the car was what the US army calls a "beehive" round. THe round detonates in midair, spreading a could of flachettes (think ten penny nails) in that spread out like a shotgun blast. The round is mainly used against troops without armor protection. The US only had the round for its 105mm cannon; I did not know there was a 120mm version. Of course, I am not sure which cannon the tank had, either.fermatx wrote:
Depends on what type it is. KE round would have done little to medium damage, HEAT round would have done a lot, HESH would have destroyed the car (think car bomb). (All of these are theoretical guesses, based on how the various rounds operate)B.Schuss wrote:
yeah, something smells fishy here.
as has been said, the car wasn't really "clearly marked", and from the distance, the tank commander could have easily confused the camera with an AT weapon.
Also, neither the vehicle nor the passengers seem to have taken as much "damage" ( for lack of a better term ) as I would expect from a tank round hitting an unarmored vehicle. But I am not an expert on that, maybe active service personnel with some expertise in the area can weigh in here.
And the "TV" sign on the hood could have been applied after the blast.
My best guess would be that the Reuters team went out of their way to get quality footage of the israeli operation, used an unmarked/not sufficiently marked car, and then somehow got in the way of the military machine ( maybe the tank round exploded next to the vehicle, I dunno ).
Guess that can happen anytime when one of the conflict parties fights in civilian clothes and generally uses civilian vehicles.
And why any sane journalist would enter an area where tanks are actively operating, is beyond me.
My guess is they asked the IDF to be embedded, were turned down, and then chose to go anyway.
Older variants of the Merkava (Israeli Tank) use a 105mm cannon. The newer ones uses a 120mm. "Beehive" rounds can be made for either. The US hasn't used them in anger since Vietnam, but the IDF has recieved criticism for their use in Gaza previously.imortal wrote:
By the report, the round that hit the car was what the US army calls a "beehive" round. THe round detonates in midair, spreading a could of flachettes (think ten penny nails) in that spread out like a shotgun blast. The round is mainly used against troops without armor protection. The US only had the round for its 105mm cannon; I did not know there was a 120mm version. Of course, I am not sure which cannon the tank had, either.fermatx wrote:
Depends on what type it is. KE round would have done little to medium damage, HEAT round would have done a lot, HESH would have destroyed the car (think car bomb). (All of these are theoretical guesses, based on how the various rounds operate)B.Schuss wrote:
yeah, something smells fishy here.
as has been said, the car wasn't really "clearly marked", and from the distance, the tank commander could have easily confused the camera with an AT weapon.
Also, neither the vehicle nor the passengers seem to have taken as much "damage" ( for lack of a better term ) as I would expect from a tank round hitting an unarmored vehicle. But I am not an expert on that, maybe active service personnel with some expertise in the area can weigh in here.
And the "TV" sign on the hood could have been applied after the blast.
My best guess would be that the Reuters team went out of their way to get quality footage of the israeli operation, used an unmarked/not sufficiently marked car, and then somehow got in the way of the military machine ( maybe the tank round exploded next to the vehicle, I dunno ).
Guess that can happen anytime when one of the conflict parties fights in civilian clothes and generally uses civilian vehicles.
And why any sane journalist would enter an area where tanks are actively operating, is beyond me.
My guess is they asked the IDF to be embedded, were turned down, and then chose to go anyway.
(I've seen the downrange impacts of 120mm shells. Anti-Tank rounds would obliterate a truck that size, no doubt, but the "lack" of damage to that vehicle is characteristic of canister shot.)
Last edited by Major.League.Infidel (2008-04-21 00:46:23)