Reuters Camaraman killed by US Forces

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-08-17 11:07pm

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-08-17 11:22pm

[democraticunderground] But don't you *see*, he was really killed because he was going to expose the war crimes perpetrated by the imperialist war-mongering U.S. Army! [/democraticunderground]

In all seriousness, it sounds like it was just a stupid accident. The man got out of his car and pointed a camera, which was probably shoulder held, at a military convoy. Wrong move.

My condolences go out to his family.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-08-17 11:24pm

They showed the clip of him pointing the camera at a tank and then dropping the camera as he got hit. It looks like a terrible accident. And yes, it appeared to be shoulder held. Im sure at a distance that might make a tank crew believe he was holding an RPG.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-08-17 11:45pm

I wouldn't be surprised to hear of the Reuters service becoming more hostile to the Iraq war after this.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-08-17 11:57pm

This is one of the reasons I don't like the idea of news people omn the front lines.

My condolences go out to his family.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-18 12:16am

It's damn shame he died. I hope his family is taken care of.

But it's a clear cut accident. Given the mounting toll the RPG ambushes are taking it's not suprising. I just wish the man had exercised a little more caution.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-08-18 01:09am

Ouch. Whoops. Though I will be 100 dollars American that the person who feels the worst about this is the soldier that accidently shot him.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-08-18 01:12am

Sheesh. My condolences to the man's relatives. Still, he was on the battlefront, hardly the safest place. Accidents happen.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-08-19 11:34pm

Well the Americans are still safer to be around than the Israelis. With them if you're carrying your camera in your hand by its handle, shouting that you're a journalist, wearing bright orange reflective vests with "PRESS" taped onto them in reflective tape, with the helmets decked out much the same and walking slowly towards them waving a white flag - YOU STILL GET SHOT - REPEATEDLY.

And my condolences go out to his family. This seems to be a genuine mistake.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-08-20 12:45am

This really isn't anyone's fault. These soldiers have been out there for months hearing of their comrades being killed in guerrilla attacks. They must be on the tips of their toes when it comes to anything suspicious looking, and the heat can't be helping their perceptions very much. The journalists really should be wearing some sort of easily-identifiable badge or something.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-08-20 02:05am

This does, though, underscore that our troops need to change the emphasis of their training, reducing the emphasis on warfighting and increasing the emphasis on peacekeeping if we're going to keep getting into missions like this.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-08-20 04:20am

Iceberg wrote:This does, though, underscore that our troops need to change the emphasis of their training, reducing the emphasis on warfighting and increasing the emphasis on peacekeeping if we're going to keep getting into missions like this.

Winds of Change has a post on this which brings up a good point: that journalists are used to dealing with third-world wars, but that their ways of getting the story are more dangerous to them when dealing with modern professional armies, such as the U.S. Army.

Most of the "combat junkie" international journalists of the current generation are used to being near third world fighting. The combatants being covered have little or no training, are often high on drugs and lack modern fire control on their weapons. The reporters can often bluff or bribe their way through these 3rd worlders to get the shots and quotes they need for the evening news.

American soldiers on the other hand are well trained, stone sober and have the latest fire control on their weapons. They are also well disciplined and trained to deal with reporters as a matter of course down to the junior officer level and cannot be bribed. Those American troops that forget their training are dealt with by the American chain of command so reporters as a whole are given very little or nothing to work with.

What these reporters refuse to take seriously is that their only protection from American firepower on a modern battlefield is to be part of an American embedded reporter program. Editors who came up through the same 3rd world battlefields of the 1980's and 1990's as their current news crews just cannot understand the orders of magnitude difference in killing power between western troops and 3rd worlders when the former are fighting with serious intent.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-20 04:29am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:They showed the clip of him pointing the camera at a tank and then dropping the camera as he got hit. It looks like a terrible accident. And yes, it appeared to be shoulder held. Im sure at a distance that might make a tank crew believe he was holding an RPG.

Head on? Almost exactly the same.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-08-20 04:29am

Iceberg wrote:This does, though, underscore that our troops need to change the emphasis of their training, reducing the emphasis on warfighting and increasing the emphasis on peacekeeping if we're going to keep getting into missions like this.

Yet that's exactly what we trained for during the Clinton Years - Peacekeeping, Peacekeeping, Peacekeeping and more peacekeeping.

Posbi · Post by **Posbi** » 2003-08-20 10:42am

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:US troops thought camera was RPG

Bad luck. He knew the risks, and really, it's really incredibly stupid to point a large, shoulder-held object at soldiers of a foreign country trying to pacify the nation of an former enemy where those soldiers are often attacked by people wielding large, shoulder-held objects...

As such, I really count feel sorry for the guy.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-08-20 12:53pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:They showed the clip of him pointing the camera at a tank and then dropping the camera as he got hit. It looks like a terrible accident. And yes, it appeared to be shoulder held. Im sure at a distance that might make a tank crew believe he was holding an RPG.
Head on? Almost exactly the same.

He was not pointing dead center at the tank, but close enough that tankers might think he was. There was more than one tank/vehicle in the clip.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-08-20 02:45pm

Alex Moon's duplicate post has been deleted.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-08-20 02:52pm

Something i`m wondering about reporters in a war zone.

If the enemy is shooting at them,they act like (well its part of the job) but if an allied forces shoot at them,then its unacceptable.

i guess they go in with a double standard.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-08-20 02:55pm

Montcalm wrote:Something i`m wondering about reporters in a war zone.

If the enemy is shooting at them,they act like (well its part of the job) but if an allied forces shoot at them,then its unacceptable.

i guess they go in with a double standard.

I don't recall anyone dismissing situation #1 as a job risk then going bonkers when #2 comes to pass

Perhaps you're imagining this double standard?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-20 03:45pm

MKSheppard wrote:

Yet that's exactly what we trained for during the Clinton Years - Peacekeeping, Peacekeeping, Peacekeeping and more peacekeeping.

And all of it was a constantly declining budget to the point the army ran out of training ammo.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-08-21 04:15am

These war junkie camera men grew up on third world conflicts, where
the combatatants were doped up junkies who were fucking incompetent
and with a little bribe, would do anything for them...

Now they're dealing with stone cold sober Americans who are essentially
unbribeable and have the capabilities of a 25MM Bushmaster on call

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-08-21 05:23am

From Tanknet's thread http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum13/HTML/002182.html on the subject which appear relevent here.

Mk 1
posted 18 Aug 2003 20:37 Log:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ExtremePower:
I think the journalist became too used to working in the area and didn't realize what type of a picture he presented to the tank crew.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed. I mean, when you read through the write-up and realize that the camera man and his assistant where both middle-eastern ... sheesh! Yeah we try real hard to prevent (or at least to deny) "racial profiling", but when someone's life is on the line on a minute-by-minute basis for days, weeks, and months ... when the lives of many other people depend on his decision-making again and again and again ... this person will find shortcuts so his decision-making can take place quickly and efficiently. Hopefully, he will choose relavent criteria -- observable aspects that actually affect the likelyhood of making decisions correctly. But what his likely opponents will look like is bound to be present in his mind.

Now consider our poor TC. He is specifically charged with protecting a convoy. He knows the modus operendi of his opposition includes hopping out of civilian settings (cars or crowds) and quickly opening up with deadly weapons. He knows that the first sign of an ambush will probably be someone trying to disable his tank. And look what he sees up ahead -- probably within 100 meters -- as his convoy roles along the road: two middle-eastern men get out of a car just off to the side, one of them hoists some object onto his shoulder and points it at the tank.

I feel for the TC. He'll be crucified for this. But there was NO other decision he could have made, other than to be derilict in his duty and accept probable disaster for his convoy.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it is an unfortunate mistake BUT a risk that the journalist willingly took all the time. ... If you go in harms way often enough, you will get hurt. Period. We all try to keep it to the bare minimum of course. But, he died doing what he liked to do. He is not a hero, just dead......[/i]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said...
The cameraman seems to have done a good job of making himself look like something the tankers were looking for. A tragic event to be sure, precipitated by a cameraman who was too dedicated to his profession to bother using his brain, and a TC who was dedicated enough to his profession not to become a statistic. Looks like a case of Darwin at work on the battlefield to me.

I hope I didn't fudged the format.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-21 06:25am

MKSheppard wrote:
Now they're dealing with stone cold sober Americans who are essentially
unbribeable and have the capabilities of a 25MM Bushmaster on call

I don't know about unbribeable, considering there's been widespread reporting of thefts in Iraq (i.e. stealing satellite phones, cash, etc)

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-08-21 07:23am

basic Journelistic Ethics.

Do not become a war correspondant.

You get involved with the people your covering or you can get killed that way. It's been a fact for many many years. Probably since someone lugged one of those things onto a civil war battle field

My teacher in college covered Aftrica and South America during the 1970's and brought the footage of those guys at Jonestown to class along with dead cameramen from WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-08-21 02:19pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote: Probably since someone lugged one of those things onto a civil war battle field

IIRC Julius Ceaser had small virtual armies of journelists tailing his armies during his campaigns, much to his chagrin(sp).

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Reuters Camaraman killed by US Forces

Reuters Camaraman killed by US Forces

Re: Reuters Camaraman killed by US Forces