Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/20/05 11:23 AM, bcdemon wrote: "We had no clue there were journalists over at that hotel," (Lt. Col.) Philip de Camp

What total BS that colonel is giving. The military is REQUIRED to note all 'knowledgable' resources that indicate civilian or military friendlies/neutral/enemy, etc. (ie. Rules of engagement.) I can totally see a grunt(Sergeant, or other subordinate), or even a Lieutenent making a mistake, but when he checked in to clear for fire (to the Captain), then the responsiblity is transferred to that captain, who should have checked his map to see if it was possible they could be firing at friendlies.

The Colonel would have been givin intel about those journalists - its merely a BS card to subdue blame - You can't play ignorance all the time.

This somewhat reminds me of the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan, where the pilot did not wait to check in with the command post, and assumed he was being fired at (where as it is required to check in, get clearance, if clear intent of aggression is unclear) - Thats the whole point of checking in - To make sure you are not firing at friendlies!

At 10/20/05 11:39 AM, RedScorpion wrote: This somewhat reminds me of the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan, where the pilot did not wait to check in with the command post, and assumed he was being fired at (where as it is required to check in, get clearance, if clear intent of aggression is unclear) - Thats the whole point of checking in - To make sure you are not firing at friendlies!

You mean where he thought hew as takign fire from the ground while at high enough off the ground that small arms wouldnt be able to hit him, then turned around after he passed it to drop a 500 lbs bomb on canadian soliders doing a live fire night time training exersize and had informed the US of this?

At 10/20/05 11:23 AM, bcdemon wrote: The Sgrena story sticks out aswell.

Oh, you mean the pompous, self important Italian who thinks Americans were targeting her to silence her oh so important claims of evil doings in Fallujah? Here is some quotes for you to ponder.

"The shooting was not justified by the speed of the vehicle. Our vehicle rode a normal speed which should not have induced misunderstanding. It was not a checkpoint, but a patrol that fired upon us, right after having illuminated us with a projector"
Sgrena

"We were driving normally. It was a patrol, in an armoured vehicle, that fired without warning".
Italian Agent

So, Sgrena claims they were fired on after being warned with a light and the agent claims there was absolutely no warning. If these dumbasses cant even get this right, Im supposed to trust anything they say?

And, on top of that, it was a cheeckpoint. They stopped 15 vehicles that night before and fired 58 rounds.

58 Rounds

15-30 vehicles

From 15-30 vehicles were turned around without incident based upon how the position was established.

(U) The spotlight and green laser pointer had proven effective in stopping and turning around vehicles before the car with the Italians arrived at the on-ramp. Many of the vehicles, though, screeched their tires when stopping. While effective for accomplishing the mission, the spotlight and laser pointer may not be the best system from a civilian point of view.

The car was traveling at approximately 50 mph as it crossed the Warning Line.

Wait, just for me to get this straight, the gunners, after being in position and stopping cars with the same tactics, the decide to fire on this one without provocation? My ASS. Only 11 rounds were fired on the vehicle. Yes, indeed, they were surely trying to eliminate those damned Italians. But, wait, why are they still alive? The gunner had damn near half his ammunition left, why didnt he waste them?

BECAUSE THEY DIDNT WANT TO KILL THEM AND THE DAMN SGRENA WOMAN WAS LYING.

She was going faster than 60 mph on top of that and, somehow, Pier Scolari, right after talking to Sgrena, got the idea 300-400 bullets were fired at them. Kinda funny how that happens.

And Sgrena claiming "a rain of fire" hit the car is laughable. I didnt know 5 rounds hitting the car is considered a "rain". I will remember that next time I step outside and see 5 drops "OMG RAIIIIIIINNNN!!!"

A gem from Scolari

"They were 700 meters from the airport. They had already passed a number of American checkpoints. The Americans and Italians knew about (her) car coming," Then, after a turn the American troops trained their light on the car. It wasn't a checkpoint but a patrol that immediately opened fire with a hail of bullets. Three or four hundred bullets, say those who were at the scene. Then Calipari threw his body over Giuliana and saved her. All this happened while they were in direct phone contact with Chigi Palace. We were connected with cellular phones, but at a certain point, the American soldiers decided to cut communications. It was no longer possible to speak.

So, again evidence of a light, like has been practiced. The warning. And calling it a patrol again. 15 cars stopped is a patrol? And "those at the scene" claim 300-400 bullets? What fuckin shit is this? These people are all idiots and have no idea whats truth from bull.

And we are supposed to trust ANY of these people?

At 10/20/05 11:39 AM, RedScorpion wrote: The Colonel would have been givin intel about those journalists - its merely a BS card to subdue blame - You can't play ignorance all the time.

I really like how you are pretending to know exactly what has happened.l

See, this is the fuckin reason I DO NOT want these people on trial. Here you are in Canada, your journalists werent even killed and you are immediately assuming its some giant fuckin conspiracy to kill all journalists.

As if they would ever have a fair trial in SPAIN? My fuckin ass. They would be blood for the masses. Nothing more.

Fact is... NO ONE CAN PROVE THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY DOING IT OR, goddamn, IT WAS AN ACCIDENT, which, some of you may like to learn, HAPPENS IN THE MIDDLE OF A MOTHERFUCKIN WARZONE.

According to one of your links their vehicle was travelling at 50 mph when it hit the alert line, and the avergae speed clocked at the alert line was 44 mph, meaning they were only travelling slightly faster than normal. Also, why did the US refuse to allow the Italians access to the car? Also, no investigaters visited the scene of the incedent, and no mention of sataliete photos are in that article. Also there are several key points blacked out, including one about driving conditions I believe. How did he shine the light, fire warnign shots and shoot the car in 3 seconds, that must have been an awful short use of the light if he was able to then fire warnign shots in the 3 seconds before he shot the vehicle.

At 10/20/05 12:32 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: You mean where he thought hew as takign fire from the ground while at high enough off the ground that small arms wouldnt be able to hit him, then turned around after he passed it to drop a 500 lbs bomb on canadian soliders doing a live fire night time training exersize and had informed the US of this?

Thats the indicent I'm talking about :|

At 10/20/05 02:51 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 10/20/05 11:39 AM, RedScorpion wrote: The Colonel would have been givin intel about those journalists - its merely a BS card to subdue blame - You can't play ignorance all the time.

I really like how you are pretending to know exactly what has happened.l

See, this is the fuckin reason I DO NOT want these people on trial. Here you are in Canada, your journalists werent even killed and you are immediately assuming its some giant fuckin conspiracy to kill all journalists.

Stop spewing your own shit, I never said anything about the journalists once you dickweed. I wrote in regards to military intelligence. But now I have to reiterate it for you.

You didn't even read what I wrote. I said, in regard to his statement ' "We had no clue there were journalists over at that hotel," (Lt. Col.) Philip de Camp.'

I did not say I know what the hell happened. That's why I excused it when regarding to whoever was driving that tank. However, WHEN he called in to check if it was military target, to clear for fire, then it became to responsiblity of the captain, who was at the command post. It is their JOB, to clear questionable fire zones.

And to the colonel, who is the Commander!! of the base, he is flat out lying when he says he ('we' is what he said, as in the military) did not know their were journalists over in the hotel, even though it was DESIGNATED by the military. If you are professing that the military ['we'] did not know it was a civilian target, then you may as well profess to utter failure of intelligence between critical command posts.

Remember, he called in to the command post; from there, if the go-ahead is granted, then action due to being attacked is no longer legitable.

Also, the US military seems intent on stopping even a small investigation into the matter, and refused! to cooperate with those governments that wanted at least some answers. To say that they were out for blood, is reckless and absurd judgement on countries who do not deserve such refutement. Would you not want some answers if Canadian, or British soldiers 'accidently' killed some US Soldiers? Or would you say "Fuck it, it doesn't matter, it was an accident".

The main thing was that the US didn't even cooperate with those other countries. What are they so afraid of, that they can't withhold themselves to some scrutiny?

Btw, a fair and impartial hearing would be held, and could be held in the accused home country. (like in the US-Canadian friendly fire incident) - With US defense lawyers. And the defense and prosecutors have opportunity to exempt people they feel is biased - Jury, and Judge.

At 10/19/05 10:01 PM, TimeFrame wrote: Im just saying what's the point? We already have something just as bad called the media.

The US media is HEAVILY one-sided. And no, not on the liberal side, as so many people in the US like to claim.

How could the army not know that the hotel was the base of operations for hundreds of reporters and media staff? I mean they seem to know when there is a single terrorist in a house in the middle of a residential area.

BTW the second leading cause of death in Iraq for journalists, is the US militray with 9 confirmed kills. The only cause beating the US is the insurgents with 19. And then several have been killed in cross fire but undetermined who actually was the one to kill them.

At 10/20/05 06:01 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: BTW the second leading cause of death in Iraq for journalists, is the US militray with 9 confirmed kills.

What, you think it would be flying fish? Of course its going to be the US.

At 10/20/05 03:24 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: According to one of your links their vehicle was travelling at 50 mph when it hit the alert line

Thats what the soilders said, no?

and the avergae speed clocked at the alert line was 44 mph, meaning they were only travelling slightly faster than normal.

Even if they were going at 10 mph, someone shines a fuckin spotlight on you from a military cheeckpoint, you damned well better stop. They DIDNT.

Also, why did the US refuse to allow the Italians access to the car?

http://www.repubblic..ca/autosgrena/1.html

The rounds hit the right and front sides of the vehicle, deflated the left front tire, and blew out the side windows. (Annexes 104C, 105C, 132C, 1I).

Whadda ya know. Fits the description.

Also, no investigaters visited the scene of the incedent, and no mention of sataliete photos are in that article. Also there are several key points blacked out, including one about driving conditions I believe.

Highlight it and you can read it all. And I would guess its tough to get investigators there because those posts are only up for awhile, like 15-20 minutes and sitting out there for a long amount of time exposes you.

How did he shine the light, fire warnign shots and shoot the car in 3 seconds, that must have been an awful short use of the light if he was able to then fire warnign shots in the 3 seconds before he shot the vehicle.

???
Specialist Lozano stopped firing as he saw the car slow down and roll to a stop. Approximately four seconds had elapsed between the firing of the first round and the last round, and no more than seven seconds from the time the car crossed the Alert Line until it came to a stop. Annexes 77C, 79C, 81C, 83C, 87C, 129C, 131C, 132C, 133C, 134C).

At 10/20/05 05:25 PM, RedScorpion wrote: Stop spewing your own shit, I never said anything about the journalists once you dickweed. I wrote in regards to military intelligence. But now I have to reiterate it for you.

Ok, how am I supposed to take "the commander is lying". If he is lying, he knowingly attacked a hotel full of journalists.

And you werent implying anything? My fuckin ass. And if I got the message wrong, please, TELL ME what you meant by the Colonel was lying.

And to the colonel, who is the Commander!! of the base, he is flat out lying when he says he ('we' is what he said, as in the military) did not know their were journalists over in the hotel, even though it was DESIGNATED by the military.

Designated by the damned military doesnt mean designated by the Colonel. For all I KNOW and all YOU KNOW he is telling the complete truth. Fuckin a, its not like it would be the first time intelligence wouldnt have gotten where it was needed. Heard of 9/11 ever?

And I still like how you are pretending to know what is happening.

At 10/20/05 07:25 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:
And you werent implying anything? My fuckin ass. And if I got the message wrong, please, TELL ME what you meant by the Colonel was lying.

I already explained it before - but that's only my personal opinion on his reaction (playing ignorance card). And when a Lt. Col. says 'we', it generally means the people under his command. Otherwise, try to explain his wording. He is a Commander, representing the military in this situation.

And to the colonel, who is the Commander!! of the base, he is flat out lying when he says he ('we' is what he said, as in the military) did not know their were journalists over in the hotel, even though it was DESIGNATED by the military.

Designated by the damned military doesnt mean designated by the Colonel. For all I KNOW and all YOU KNOW he is telling the complete truth. Fuckin a, its not like it would be the first time intelligence wouldnt have gotten where it was needed. Heard of 9/11 ever?

Actually, its debatable that the Bush Administration actually had knowledge of 9/11 before it occured - so don't throw that in. Also, heard of 'Rules of Engagement' ever?

And I still like how you are pretending to know what is happening.

I'd like to know how you seem to know how everything is happening as well.

At 10/20/05 05:45 PM, Elfer wrote:

And no, not on the liberal side, as so many people in the US like to claim.

In canada maybe. But in the US it is on the left.

At 10/20/05 08:32 PM, RedScorpion wrote:

At 10/20/05 07:25 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: And you werent implying anything? My fuckin ass. And if I got the message wrong, please, TELL ME what you meant by the Colonel was lying.

I already explained it before - but that's only my personal opinion on his reaction (playing ignorance card).

Thats not what I was asking and you damned well know it.

You were implying since he is lying about that he was directly targeting the journalists. Seriously, what the hell else would you be saying? That is what I was asking. Jesus, I didnt know I needed to spell this out so clearly.

Actually, its debatable that the Bush Administration actually had knowledge of 9/11 before it occured - so don't throw that in.

It was a point saying intelligence that was important didnt get to the proper places, namely the administration. Just like its possible the intelligence could also have not gotten to the Colonel.

Also, heard of 'Rules of Engagement' ever?

Yeah, they followed them.

I'd like to know how you seem to know how everything is happening as well.

How I know? I have the military officals word. What do you have? "THEY ARE ALL LYING!!!" What do you have to prove that? Nothing. Jack shit. And no motive. There are still imbeded and unimbeded reporters in Iraq so obviously this little scare tactic didnt work so well if thats what they intended, eh? Also I can guarantuee you I can show MANY times where intelligence has not gotten to the proper places throughout history and maybe even in Iraq if the proper documentation is on the internet. This is by no means an isolated incident. The military isnt always on the same page. They just do their best to try to remain on it. Hell, even you provided a perfect example in your first post of a military mishap. Precedent is wonderful, aint it?

So, what exactly do you have supporting you? Anything? Or just their lying?

And hows this for a scare tactic? If the military indeed was trying to scare reporters out of the country, why not pay of native Iraqis to dispose of them? Their hands remain clean, it looks like the big bad old Iraqis are killing everyone. Why not "accidentaly" bomb them like Blackhawk suggested? "Oops, the bomb didnt go where it was supposed to go. ONE IN A MILLION!"

What do you gain by slamming a tank shell right into a hotel jammed with reporters, on purpose? You honsetly think the military was trying to kill them? Again, the best way to do it would have been to hire native Iraqis to hunt them down.

I swear to God, arguing with you guys is like arguing with the Illuminati conspiracy nuts. You have nothing to back you up. Nothing.

Spain is just scared that Al-Qaeda is going to attack them again.

Hiring Iraqis to do the work would be a bad idea, because eventually it would leak out that the militray, the CIA or whoever was hiring mercs to kill journalists, and there would be no way the military could try and wash its hands clean, syaing it was an accident or something.

At 10/21/05 12:02 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Hiring Iraqis to do the work would be a bad idea, because eventually it would leak out that the militray, the CIA or whoever was hiring mercs to kill journalists, and there would be no way the military could try and wash its hands clean, syaing it was an accident or something.

If not native Iraqis, they could send in some of the black ops units. Dress them up as a terrorist, issue weapons commenly found on terrorist (ie AKs, RPGS, ect.) Then have them hunt down terrorist. You then have them hunt down the new press, pretty soon you scare off most of the press and make them more sympathetic to the US.

Yeah Fabo, I'm not going over that Sgrena bit again, we covered that in the appropriate thread,

Maybe I missed it (I didn't read your entire rants) but did you respond to that idiot not knowing about journlists residing in Hotel Palestine when anyone watching CNN at the time did know?
What a feakin liar, who else knows what he would lie about. Aren't these tanks outfitted with some kickass video equipment, able to see a mile away or something? You would think this guy would look at the balcony and see it was a camaraman and not a sniper shooting him (camaras and sniper rifles are somewhat different). Maybe his training sucked ass?

Imma go read up on that abrams video equipment

At 10/21/05 12:39 AM, Blackhawkdown wrote: If not native Iraqis, they could send in some of the black ops units. Dress them up as a terrorist, issue weapons commenly found on terrorist (ie AKs, RPGS, ect.) Then have them hunt down terrorist. You then have them hunt down the new press, pretty soon you scare off most of the press and make them more sympathetic to the US.

19 journalists have already been killed by insurgents, how do we know that they weren't the result of the US doing just this?

Besides, hitting the journalists why they were in their hotel rooms gives them the message they aren't safe anywhere. I mean you kill them on the street, they already know they could be killed there, thats why they are wearing flap jackets and helmet, but kill them in their hotel room where they assume they are safe, thats a hole different story.

At 10/21/05 01:10 AM, bcdemon wrote: Yeah Fabo, I'm not going over that Sgrena bit again, we covered that in the appropriate thread,

Maybe I missed it (I didn't read your entire rants) but did you respond to that idiot not knowing about journlists residing in Hotel Palestine when anyone watching CNN at the time did know?
What a feakin liar, who else knows what he would lie about. Aren't these tanks outfitted with some kickass video equipment, able to see a mile away or something? You would think this guy would look at the balcony and see it was a camaraman and not a sniper shooting him (camaras and sniper rifles are somewhat different). Maybe his training sucked ass?

They were looking for a spotter not a sniper. They were receiving motar fire and had just captured an enemy combatant who said there was a spotter in the general direction of the hotel. According to Sgt. Shawn Gibson he spotted somebody with a pair of binicocuras looking down at them. After that they got the clearnce to take the shot and fired.

Imma go read up on that abrams video equipment

Obviously someone had to know that the press was there if the army held a press confrence about the shelling within minutes of it occuring. The JCC issued a message minutes after it happend with their version of what happend. All they could have found out from CNN was that a tank shell hit the building, bu tnot any other details, so either they bullshitted their entrie press breifing or they knew about this before hand.

At 10/21/05 01:17 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

At 10/21/05 12:39 AM, Blackhawkdown wrote: If not native Iraqis, they could send in some of the black ops units. Dress them up as a terrorist, issue weapons commenly found on terrorist (ie AKs, RPGS, ect.) Then have them hunt down terrorist. You then have them hunt down the new press, pretty soon you scare off most of the press and make them more sympathetic to the US.

19 journalists have already been killed by insurgents, how do we know that they weren't the result of the US doing just this?

A) If it was Black Ops groups doing this stuff it would be a lot more then 19 dead jounralist. Espically since they would be backed up by US intelligance agancies

B) I don't buy into the whole thing about the US trying to scare off journalist bit.

Besides, hitting the journalists why they were in their hotel rooms gives them the message they aren't safe anywhere. I mean you kill them on the street, they already know they could be killed there, thats why they are wearing flap jackets and helmet, but kill them in their hotel room where they assume they are safe, thats a hole different story.

If they really wanted to do that they could just place a bomb in the hotel and detonate it. The results would hav been more devistating and eaiser to blame on the enemy combatants.

At 10/21/05 01:21 AM, Blackhawkdown wrote: They were looking for a spotter not a sniper. They were receiving motar fire and had just captured an enemy combatant who said there was a spotter in the general direction of the hotel. According to Sgt. Shawn Gibson he spotted somebody with a pair of binicocuras looking down at them. After that they got the clearnce to take the shot and fired.

"We had no clue there were journalists over at that hotel," (Lt. Col.) Philip de Camp
This is what I am talking about, them not knowing about journalists in the building when everyone watching the news knew.

Maybe the lieutenant colonel wasn't watching CNN that day?

Its not as if all of these journalists appeared in the hotel overnight. They had been there for a few weeks.

At 10/21/05 01:30 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 10/21/05 01:21 AM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

"We had no clue there were journalists over at that hotel," (Lt. Col.) Philip de Camp
This is what I am talking about, them not knowing about journalists in the building when everyone watching the news knew.

I was replying to your part about them firing on a sniper, but I'll answer this to.

The guys are on the ground in a combat situation. They aren't going to be watching CNN for their intell. They use what's given to them. They were also taking fire so things were hectic, when things get hectic people can slip up and make mistakes. Somebody might have made a mistake in identifiying the targets location so when they went to get cleared for firing on the target nobody new it was the hotel.

Like I've stated before, if they really wanted to scare off the reporters there are much more effective ways then firing a tank shell at a hotel.

I mean, seriously guys, what do you have going for you? Any proof at all? Or only conjecture?

Stop the crap. You dont know. The only reason you are saying any of this is because it is the US military, who you dont like.

At 10/21/05 01:40 AM, Blackhawkdown wrote: Like I've stated before, if they really wanted to scare off the reporters there are much more effective ways then firing a tank shell at a hotel.

EXACTLY

At 10/23/05 04:35 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: I mean, seriously guys, what do you have going for you? Any proof at all? Or only conjecture?

Stop the crap. You dont know. The only reason you are saying any of this is because it is the US military, who you dont like.

Actually, the reason I would say they are guilty is because the US has killed many journalists in Iraq. Mazen Al-Tomaizi killed by a missile while filming a blowed up humvee. Mazen Dana shot dead while filming near Abu Ghraib, the soldiers mistook a camara for a gun.?.?. Doods at the Palestine Hotel, the guy at the Al Jazeera office. Like I said along time ago, you're either targetting these journalist, or your soldiers are complete fucking morons.
Oh yeah, and those saying that these guys aren't watching CNN, well I would like to think that the US military has better intel than CNN, argue that if you want.

Not only that, but more journalsits have died (100) in the 2.5 years since USA invaded Iraq, thats more than the 63 that died in Vietnam from 1955 to 1975, more than the 49 killed from 1991-1995 in the Balkans.

For Mazan Dana, I don't know what the soldiers were thinking when they fired, maybe the gunner caught him out of the corner of his eye, saw what he thought was an RPG paniced and fired.

But if they delibrately killed him, why leave the camera as evidence? Don't you think they would have at least removed the tape? It makes no sense at all.

And as I said before there are much easier ways to target journalist then the afformentioned situations.

If you want to see who's really targeting the journalist I suggest you start taking a look at the insurgents.

At 10/23/05 01:08 PM, bcdemon wrote: Actually, the reason I would say they are guilty is because the US has killed many journalists in Iraq.

http://icasualties.org/oif/journalist.aspx

1) I counted 58 killed in total.
2) I ccounted a total of 6 that were killed by the US. The IFJ claims 18 have been killed by Coalition forces but I count at least 10 that blatently died in a gunbattle. I hardly think those qualify as cold blooded murders.
3) There is no front in this war. No shit there is going to be more non military killed by the guerillas and Coalition gunbattles. There is NO safe zones. I mean, cmon. Is this really that tough?
4) Never, in the history of warfare, have journalists been imbedded as closely and intamately as they are today. There are also a lot more. War reporting is big business. Albiet, dangerous, but good money.

And bc, seriously, anthing concrete at all? Or are you going to continue the conjecture? If this was a trial, lets say, and that was all your evidence that lots of journalists died, thus its the US's fault, youd be laughed out of the court. Period.

And about your claim of 100, Id like to see proof. Heres mine to show your info is totally wrong.

At 10/23/05 01:08 PM, bcdemon wrote: Mazen Dana shot dead while filming near Abu Ghraib, the soldiers mistook a camara for a gun.?.?. Doods at the Palestine Hotel, the guy at the Al Jazeera office. Like I said along time ago, you're either targetting these journalist, or your soldiers are complete fucking morons.

The stinger looks almost exactly like a camera.