Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

2008-04-17 09:17:43
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6836|'Murka

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I was referring to the knee-jerk reactions of the anti-Israel crowd here, not to the actions of the Israeli tank crew.
Knee-jerk reaction of the anti-Israel crowd?  I would call it a support to Human Rights.
If you consider condemning a group without any real evidence "support to human rights", that's up to you.
“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
2008-04-17 09:27:45
PureFodder
Member
+225|6710

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I was referring to the knee-jerk reactions of the anti-Israel crowd here, not to the actions of the Israeli tank crew.
Knee-jerk reaction of the anti-Israel crowd?  I would call it a support to Human Rights.
If you consider condemning a group without any real evidence "support to human rights", that's up to you.
Seen any real evidence that the Palestinians killed were valid targets? They weren't condemed, they were killed.
2008-04-17 09:30:35
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6836|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


Knee-jerk reaction of the anti-Israel crowd?  I would call it a support to Human Rights.
If you consider condemning a group without any real evidence "support to human rights", that's up to you.
Seen any real evidence that the Palestinians killed were valid targets? They weren't condemed, they were killed.
Haven't seen any evidence either way, yet that doesn't stop people on here from condemning the Israelis.

People here are too quick to dismiss the notion that it may have been a horrible mistake. Instead they immediately cling to the notion that it was intentional and that the actions of the Israelis were criminal...with zero evidence to support the claim.
“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
2008-04-17 09:59:11
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7182|Argentina

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I was referring to the knee-jerk reactions of the anti-Israel crowd here, not to the actions of the Israeli tank crew.
Knee-jerk reaction of the anti-Israel crowd?  I would call it a support to Human Rights.
If you consider condemning a group without any real evidence "support to human rights", that's up to you.
The evidence is the dead cameraman.  Any further evidence is pointless, since you can't bring him back to life.

Last edited by sergeriver (2008-04-17 09:59:49)

2008-04-17 10:06:38
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6819|The Gem Saloon

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Parker wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

israeli tank shoot at unarmed group of palestinians including a press cameraman with a big TV painted on his car.
TV crews arent civilians.
I don't hear any gunshot coming from the area of that cameraman..
lol wut
are all fascists dense?




ill say it again so you might get it this time.

here it goes, so get those comprehension skills up to par:
TV CREWS ARE NOT CIVILIANS.


now, that was just a warm up, so here goes the big part:

if the people in that tank feel that the cameraman may be feeding video so that others could coordinate an attack, then that cameraman is a threat.

still dont get it?

look at the cameraman as a possible forward observer.


now, i dont know any other way to spoon feed that information to you, so i give up.

Last edited by Parker (2008-04-17 10:07:44)

2008-04-17 10:11:31
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6836|'Murka

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


Knee-jerk reaction of the anti-Israel crowd?  I would call it a support to Human Rights.
If you consider condemning a group without any real evidence "support to human rights", that's up to you.
The evidence is the dead cameraman.  Any further evidence is pointless, since you can't bring him back to life.
So if you accidentally kill a pedestrian with your car, are you a human rights violator?
“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
2008-04-17 10:13:30
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7182|Argentina

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:


If you consider condemning a group without any real evidence "support to human rights", that's up to you.
The evidence is the dead cameraman.  Any further evidence is pointless, since you can't bring him back to life.
So if you accidentally kill a pedestrian with your car, are you a human rights violator?
Lol, I don't drive a tank, but to answer your question no.  They need to be sure what they are shooting at before even shooting.
2008-04-17 10:32:29
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6836|'Murka

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


The evidence is the dead cameraman.  Any further evidence is pointless, since you can't bring him back to life.
So if you accidentally kill a pedestrian with your car, are you a human rights violator?
Lol, I don't drive a tank, but to answer your question no.  They need to be sure what they are shooting at before even shooting.
Let's see you make a snap decision under tense circumstances like that. You're not even trying to see how it could have all been a horrible mistake. They are in what is considered hostile territory, against an adversary that has used AT weapons before. They see something that looks like an AT shooter and make the decision to engage, because they only have a split-second to determine hostile from non-combatant.

You expect them to be 100% correct 100% of the time, and that is simply impossible.

Of course, that is all supposition, as the investigation has only just begun...something for you to keep in mind when playing the blame game.
“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
2008-04-17 10:35:14
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6715|Éire

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:


If you consider condemning a group without any real evidence "support to human rights", that's up to you.
Seen any real evidence that the Palestinians killed were valid targets? They weren't condemed, they were killed.
Haven't seen any evidence either way, yet that doesn't stop people on here from condemning the Israelis.

People here are too quick to dismiss the notion that it may have been a horrible mistake. Instead they immediately cling to the notion that it was intentional and that the actions of the Israelis were criminal...with zero evidence to support the claim.
The results aren't in on this one yet, you are correct. Two points that are worth making however are 1. the Israeli's aren't known for their thorough investigations into the murder or accidental killing of foreign press and even when there are investigations they often dismiss the findings and even on occasion ignore requests for extradition and prosecution, as was the case with British journalist James Miller and 2. not everyone who leans towards the Palestinians side here necessarily feel the Israelis go out intending to kill innocent civilians and press but more that they employ heavy-handed and often indiscriminate tactics that invariably lead to such accidents time and time again. We can't very well criticize terrorists for using techniques that are indiscriminate when the military do the same thing.

Parker wrote:

lol wut
are all fascists dense?

ill say it again so you might get it this time.

here it goes, so get those comprehension skills up to par:
TV CREWS ARE NOT CIVILIANS.

now, that was just a warm up, so here goes the big part:

if the people in that tank feel that the cameraman may be feeding video so that others could coordinate an attack, then that cameraman is a threat.

still dont get it?

look at the cameraman as a possible forward observer.

now, i dont know any other way to spoon feed that information to you, so i give up.
The fact was this cameraman was press, he was not feeding video back to help co-ordinate an attack (a theory I find a little preposterous given that the Palestinian side of the struggle is usually typified by rock throwing and the occasional prehistoric missile attack).

The Israeli military are supposed to be the official military of a democratic state, they can't be going around making these kind of judgement errors time and time again. This incident makes an absolute joke of anyone on this forum who attempts to argue that modern military procedure and equipment make incidents of collateral damage very rare.

At the moment we don't know the full story of what happened here but the burden appears to be very much on Israel to come up with a good excuse as to explain why this happened.
2008-04-17 10:38:07
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6952|Portland, OR USA

Braddock wrote:

At the moment we don't know the full story of what happened here but the burden appears to be very much on Israel to come up with a good excuse as to explain why this happened.
I'll absolutely agree with that bit.  However, if a strong case is made for a legitimate belief of an intelligence leak - so be it.
2008-04-17 10:43:20
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6648|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

MOAB wrote:

heard of a technical?
Yes of course - do you normally find technicals in civilian areas?

If I take a roll down your street and put a tank round through your car can I say 'well it could have been a technical, oops sorry for your wifes loss MOAB'?

Come to think of has a technical ever been seen in Palestine? As far as I have seen only the Israelis have armoured vehicles and heavy weapons.
In an area where you have militia and terrorists? Yes you will find them using civilian vehicles for transport, they use them in hit and run attacks, Somalia was a prime example of this. The cameraman was holding a large camera on his shoulder pointing toward the tank, standing next to a vehicle, and from what I've seen the rest of the crew wer not wearing anyhting that distinguished them as journalists, blue body armor and helmets, with PRESS written on it, they looked no different in clothed appearance to the terrorist fighters. He could easily have been interpreted by a tank commander as a hamas member carrying a shoulder launched anti-tank weapon, with a vehicle ready to make an escape. If you were the commander I doubt your decision would have been any different. How was that tank crew to know that there were journalists in the area? Unmarked journalists as well beyond their vehicle, which appears to be partially obscured. Regardless to say the cameraman picked a bad spot to film.

A technical doesn't have to have a mounted weapon either.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-04-17 10:44:18)

2008-04-17 10:50:06
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7182|Argentina

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:


So if you accidentally kill a pedestrian with your car, are you a human rights violator?
Lol, I don't drive a tank, but to answer your question no.  They need to be sure what they are shooting at before even shooting.
Let's see you make a snap decision under tense circumstances like that. You're not even trying to see how it could have all been a horrible mistake. They are in what is considered hostile territory, against an adversary that has used AT weapons before. They see something that looks like an AT shooter and make the decision to engage, because they only have a split-second to determine hostile from non-combatant.

You expect them to be 100% correct 100% of the time, and that is simply impossible.

Of course, that is all supposition, as the investigation has only just begun...something for you to keep in mind when playing the blame game.
You bring some valid points, yet they killed an innocent person.  How do they repair that?  That's why they are trained to take decisions under the hostile conditions you described.
2008-04-17 10:50:30
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7026|132 and Bush

sergeriver wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Reuters has lost some credibility in covering this conflict. I didn't see Israel look, aim, and fire on the vehicle (With intent). I saw an explosion then a cut away to a blown up vehicle. It looked like someone took some white construction paper and wrote TV on it and placed it on the hood of a truck. This reminds me of the "fauxtography" scandal. Getting directly in front of a tank just didn't seem like the brightest way to cover the conflict .


So yea, the "Press" is a threat.
Interesting video, however I'd prefer it from someone other than AISH. Not exactly the most unbiased source on the planet. It is concerning though.

And I do agree, the vehicle was not clearly marked, however I don't know why anyone would be stupid enough to go into an area that Israel are running around with tanks in an unmarked vehicle.
Why should a civilian vehicle in a civilian area be clearly marked anyway?
Because Hamas likes to deliberately launch rocket attacks from civilian areas... thus inviting retaliation on their own people.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-04-17 10:55:01
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7046|London, England
Whilst I feel for the reporter and his (or her) family, they know what fucked up shithole/situation they're getting into. Same goes for Soldiers at the end of the day, although they get pretty much no say whereas the Journo's can not go if they don't want to and infact it's probably the opposite

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-04-17 10:56:17)

2008-04-17 10:58:36
Nordemus
BC2 plat: CG, GL, M60, Mortar, Knife
+60|6422
Meh, I feel sorry for the family of the reporter, but they willingly accept the danger when they accept such a work. Also, it was his fault only, dont blame the Israeli, basically every moving vehicle that close to them is potential danger or every insurgent could just paint TV on their technicals, ride close to the tanks and blows themselves up.
2008-04-17 10:59:48
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6715|Éire

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:


Interesting video, however I'd prefer it from someone other than AISH. Not exactly the most unbiased source on the planet. It is concerning though.

And I do agree, the vehicle was not clearly marked, however I don't know why anyone would be stupid enough to go into an area that Israel are running around with tanks in an unmarked vehicle.
Why should a civilian vehicle in a civilian area be clearly marked anyway?
Because Hamas likes to deliberately launch rocket attacks from civilian areas... thus inviting retaliation on their own people.
I'm not condoning such activity but let's face it, it's not like they've got a giant paintball zone that they can use instead. They've had their country pulled out from under them, in order to mount an offensive against their oppressors weapons have to be kept somewhere and given the size of the area they are in and the strength and might of the opposition the only viable option is to store equipment in Palestinian strongholds where the Israelis can't go strolling about. During the troubles in Northern Ireland these strongholds were frequently housing estates and it's most likely a similar situation in Palestine. I'm not saying it's right but it's the reality of their situation.
2008-04-17 11:07:19
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7026|132 and Bush

Braddock wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Why should a civilian vehicle in a civilian area be clearly marked anyway?
Because Hamas likes to deliberately launch rocket attacks from civilian areas... thus inviting retaliation on their own people.
I'm not condoning such activity but let's face it, it's not like they've got a giant paintball zone that they can use instead. They've had their country pulled out from under them, in order to mount an offensive against their oppressors weapons have to be kept somewhere and given the size of the area they are in and the strength and might of the opposition the only viable option is to store equipment in Palestinian strongholds where the Israelis can't go strolling about. During the troubles in Northern Ireland these strongholds were frequently housing estates and it's most likely a similar situation in Palestine. I'm not saying it's right but it's the reality of their situation.
I understand it completely. Sacrifice innocent people to protect your weapons. Then ask why innocent people are getting killed. It's not that complicated. The benefit is two fold. The Palestinians are also their own enemies.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-04-17 11:14:03
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6836|'Murka

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


Lol, I don't drive a tank, but to answer your question no.  They need to be sure what they are shooting at before even shooting.
Let's see you make a snap decision under tense circumstances like that. You're not even trying to see how it could have all been a horrible mistake. They are in what is considered hostile territory, against an adversary that has used AT weapons before. They see something that looks like an AT shooter and make the decision to engage, because they only have a split-second to determine hostile from non-combatant.

You expect them to be 100% correct 100% of the time, and that is simply impossible.

Of course, that is all supposition, as the investigation has only just begun...something for you to keep in mind when playing the blame game.
You bring some valid points, yet they killed an innocent person.  How do they repair that?  That's why they are trained to take decisions under the hostile conditions you described.
And the best training in the world doesn't provide a perfect solution every time.

As has been said previously by others, innocent people die in war all the time. Innocent people have died in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict on both sides. It's unfortunate and sad, but it's the nature of warfare.
“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
2008-04-17 11:18:10
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6967|Texas - Bigger than France

PuckMercury wrote:

Pug wrote:

Hard to tell if this was an accident or on purpose.  Sucks though.
With respect to the TV crew, I'm really going to have to agree with ATG here.  Once you start reporting the positions of units and conveying that to the opponent, you become an opponent.  There's a reason such work as war reporting is considered hazardous.
I'm not sure about that.  But my point is from the video, you don't know if they meant to kill the TV crew, or the TV crew got in the way of something else happening, or much at all.

Who knows?  Perhaps they targeted the car, or perhaps they targeted something behind the car.  I, for one, don't believe Israeli tanks randomly open fire because of boredom.  And that's just as valid as showing a video condemming the act without any other information on how it happened.
2008-04-17 12:29:53
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6819|The Gem Saloon

Braddock wrote:

[

Parker wrote:

lol wut
are all fascists dense?

ill say it again so you might get it this time.

here it goes, so get those comprehension skills up to par:
TV CREWS ARE NOT CIVILIANS.

now, that was just a warm up, so here goes the big part:

if the people in that tank feel that the cameraman may be feeding video so that others could coordinate an attack, then that cameraman is a threat.

still dont get it?

look at the cameraman as a possible forward observer.

now, i dont know any other way to spoon feed that information to you, so i give up.
The fact was this cameraman was press, he was not feeding video back to help co-ordinate an attack (a theory I find a little preposterous given that the Palestinian side of the struggle is usually typified by rock throwing and the occasional prehistoric missile attack).

The Israeli military are supposed to be the official military of a democratic state, they can't be going around making these kind of judgement errors time and time again. This incident makes an absolute joke of anyone on this forum who attempts to argue that modern military procedure and equipment make incidents of collateral damage very rare.

At the moment we don't know the full story of what happened here but the burden appears to be very much on Israel to come up with a good excuse as to explain why this happened.
you say with certainty that he wasnt feeding video to anyone, but then say we dont know the full story.
you say it was poor judgment, but then blame procedure and equipment.
you make the Palestinians out to be harmless rock throwers that sometimes find funny missiles, but fail to mention their favored method of attack.

for some reason, i think there would be people dancing if this was a jewish member of the press.
2008-04-17 12:56:13
zeidmaan
Member
+234|6840|Vienna

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.
2008-04-17 13:20:53
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6872|Chicago, IL

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.
From an American viewpoint, every war that has received heavy media coverage has been a disaster, while those that remain largely "over there" are successful.  People have a right to know the outcomes of engagements, but they don't need to see all the brutal details.
2008-04-17 13:25:36
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6819|The Gem Saloon

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.
i wonder if you would say that same thing if the CIA used journalists as a cover?

im guessing no.......
2008-04-17 14:57:30
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6836|'Murka

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.
I don't recall anyone ever saying this guy was a legitimate target...merely that he wasn't targeted simply for being a journalist.
“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
2008-04-17 15:09:13
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6604
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.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard