RE: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
> Ken Brown[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > This has now happened - Terry Lloyd one, of Britain's better-known > reporters, seems to have been killed by US marines. According to the > cameraman he was picked up by Iraqi ambulance, so its a fair bet they > weren't embedded in the COW (thanks for the acronym, Tim) > > http://www.itv.com/news/236548.html > > Ken Brown wrote: [...] > > > > Kate Adie's broadcast (which I heard on the BBC) was in the context of a > > discussion of "non-embedded" reporters. She claimed that all the best > > news from Gulf War 2 had been from people who weren't bedding with the > > military. The ones who are being threatened are the ones with the > > temerity to travel independently rather than under military orders. > Let's not mix apples and oranges. Kate Adie's report concerned the possibility that air-launched anti-radiation missiles might be directed against radar-band transmitters in enemy territory, without first checking to see if they were actually reporter's microwave satellite uplinks. Terry Lloyd was in a battle zone, on the Iraqi side. I kind of doubt if he was wearing hunter orange, or a big flashing neon sign saying "Western Journalist: Don't shoot me." Without commenting on the legitimacy of the US invasion, it looks to me like Mr Lloyd took a calculated risk to get the news from from the Iraqi side of the front lines, and tragically lost. Peter Trei
Re: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
This has now happened - Terry Lloyd one, of Britain's better-known reporters, seems to have been killed by US marines. According to the cameraman he was picked up by Iraqi ambulance, so its a fair bet they weren't embedded in the COW (thanks for the acronym, Tim) http://www.itv.com/news/236548.html Ken Brown wrote: > > "Major Variola (ret)" wrote: > > > I'd think that the troops would explain this to the reporters tagging > > along as they confiscate all their transmitters before an op. I simply > > wouldn't trust the reporters, even though they're toast too if someone mis-IFFs. > > > Its a lot more serious than not shutting off your cell phone on a > > plane. Besides, I doubt the reporters have Iraq's FCC's clearance to > > use those frequencies there, until we extend > > the Little Powell's authority to that domain. :-) > > Kate Adie's broadcast (which I heard on the BBC) was in the context of a > discussion of "non-embedded" reporters. She claimed that all the best > news from Gulf War 2 had been from people who weren't bedding with the > military. The ones who are being threatened are the ones with the > temerity to travel independently rather than under military orders. > > There was also a comment by Robert Fisk to the effect that (I can't > remember the exact words): "There will be a war on. There is no law in a > war, you can do whatever you can get away with." > > In an article I found online Fisk gives his rules of thumb for spotring > compromised reporters: > > - Reporters who wear items of American or British military costume > helmets, camouflage jackets, weapons, etc. > > - Reporters who say "we" when they are referring to the US or British > military unit in which they are "embedded". > > - Those who use the words "collateral damage" instead of "dead > civilians". > > - Those who commence answering questions with the words: "Well, of > course, because of military security I can't divulge..." > > - Those who, reporting from the Iraqi side, insist on referring to the > Iraqi population as "his" (ie Saddam's) people. > > - Journalists in Baghdad who refer to "what the Americans describe as > Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses" rather than the plain and simple > torture we all know Saddam practices. > > - Journalists reporting from either side who use the god-awful and > creepy phrase "officials say" without naming, quite specifically, who > these often lying "officials" are.
Re: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 10:12 AM 3/14/03 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: If the US military does Really Bad Things to Iraqi civilians with any frequency, I have little doubt we'll hear about it in time. There are journalists 'embedded' in many units. Ah, but they have an alibi! Rummy et al. have already described Iraqis in US attire, Iraqi plans to commit ground nasties wearing said garb. Or if you meant video-game atrocities, well, just today, reports of .IQ buying "thousands" of GPS jammers from (drum roll) the North Koreans. Combine this with burning oil smoke for the optics, and you've got plenty of excuses to make Iraqi Toast (a new dish served in Congress' cafeteria) or even take out an embassy. If you attribute same reliability to .IQ, .US sources then you enjoy infinite recursion. Most, rightly, don't, but the skeptical have to burn some stack on this. While watching Die another day, I was wondering if the north koreans really have those hovercraft. I finally came to my senses. I turned off the movie shortly after that. -- * pgpkey http://scum.nailed.org:3215/key.txt
Re: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
At 11:22 AM 03/13/2003 -0800, Eric Cordian wrote: This is nothing new. Radio and TV stations and other "unauthorized" sources of information are always first on the target list whenever the US starts a war. At the beginning of Part I of this war they showed the smart bomb or cruise missile or whatever blowing up the Baghdad phone company building. As someone who works for the phone company, I have to say this pissed me off :-) I think the Pentagon spokeshomo put it this way. "Propaganda outlets ARE military targets." Propaganda being anything not released by the Pentagon, of course. Peter Trei wrote: > Stopping useful information on *ongoing* operations > from reaching the enemy has been a normal, unremarkable part of > waging war for over 150 years. During the initial bombing campaign in Part I, Ramsay Clark and some journalists did a week-long couple-thousand-mile drive around Iraq filming the damage being done. One of the important parts was showing downtown Baghdad apartment buildings being bombed because they were near bridges or the water system or other strategic targets and interviewing the people who lived there. In spite of all the commercials for smart bombs and cruise missiles, most of the armament dropped on Iraq back then was dumb iron bombs; one group of people were starting to think about blowing up their own bridge so that the Yankees would stop bombing their apartments when they missed. If this part of the war starts, civilian areas in downtown are much more likely to be part of the target space than before, because it's about Regime Change, not repelling invading armies.
Re: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
"Major Variola (ret)" wrote: > I'd think that the troops would explain this to the reporters tagging > along as they confiscate all their transmitters before an op. I simply > wouldn't trust the reporters, even though they're toast too if someone mis-IFFs. > Its a lot more serious than not shutting off your cell phone on a > plane. Besides, I doubt the reporters have Iraq's FCC's clearance to > use those frequencies there, until we extend > the Little Powell's authority to that domain. :-) Kate Adie's broadcast (which I heard on the BBC) was in the context of a discussion of "non-embedded" reporters. She claimed that all the best news from Gulf War 2 had been from people who weren't bedding with the military. The ones who are being threatened are the ones with the temerity to travel independently rather than under military orders. There was also a comment by Robert Fisk to the effect that (I can't remember the exact words): "There will be a war on. There is no law in a war, you can do whatever you can get away with." In an article I found online Fisk gives his rules of thumb for spotring compromised reporters: - Reporters who wear items of American or British military costume helmets, camouflage jackets, weapons, etc. - Reporters who say "we" when they are referring to the US or British military unit in which they are "embedded". - Those who use the words "collateral damage" instead of "dead civilians". - Those who commence answering questions with the words: "Well, of course, because of military security I can't divulge..." - Those who, reporting from the Iraqi side, insist on referring to the Iraqi population as "his" (ie Saddam's) people. - Journalists in Baghdad who refer to "what the Americans describe as Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses" rather than the plain and simple torture we all know Saddam practices. - Journalists reporting from either side who use the god-awful and creepy phrase "officials say" without naming, quite specifically, who these often lying "officials" are.
Re: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:57:42PM -0500, Steve Furlong wrote: > On Friday 14 March 2003 10:12, Trei, Peter wrote: > > > If the US military does Really Bad Things to Iraqi civilians with > > any frequency, I have little doubt we'll hear about it in time. > > There are journalists 'embedded' in many units. > > Whether or not the US military does Really Bad Things to Iraqi > civilians, I have little doubt we'll hear stories of atrocities. There > are US-bashers (Noam Chomsky) and US-military-bashers (Marc Herold) > embedded throughout the world. > "Whether or not" It's pretty safe to assume it's a given the US military will have little reqard for civilian life in Iraq. They certainly didn't in Vietnam. Nor in Desert Stork One. Or since. And we just saw pretty conclusive evidence that the US forces in Afghanistan are torturing prisoners, some to death. "US-bashers" -- how about truth-tellers? Most people in this world have a pretty clear idea what the US is all about at this point. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
RE: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
At 7:12 AM -0800 3/14/03, Trei, Peter wrote: >If the US military does Really Bad Things to Iraqi civilians with >any frequency, I have little doubt we'll hear about it in time. >There are journalists 'embedded' in many units. In the credit where credit's due department, this change in press relations is one of the better things to come out of the G. W. Bush administration. Compared with the way the press was handled during Gulf War I, this approach is much more likely to bring incidents such as Mai Lai to the light of day. (It also should produce a much better version of, "War, the Latest Reality Show", coming to a TV network near you.) Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
RE: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
At 10:12 AM 3/14/03 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: >If the US military does Really Bad Things to Iraqi civilians with >any frequency, I have little doubt we'll hear about it in time. >There are journalists 'embedded' in many units. Ah, but they have an alibi! Rummy et al. have already described Iraqis in US attire, Iraqi plans to commit ground nasties wearing said garb. Or if you meant video-game atrocities, well, just today, reports of .IQ buying "thousands" of GPS jammers from (drum roll) the North Koreans. Combine this with burning oil smoke for the optics, and you've got plenty of excuses to make Iraqi Toast (a new dish served in Congress' cafeteria) or even take out an embassy. If you attribute same reliability to .IQ, .US sources then you enjoy infinite recursion. Most, rightly, don't, but the skeptical have to burn some stack on this.
Re: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
On Friday 14 March 2003 10:12, Trei, Peter wrote: > If the US military does Really Bad Things to Iraqi civilians with > any frequency, I have little doubt we'll hear about it in time. > There are journalists 'embedded' in many units. Whether or not the US military does Really Bad Things to Iraqi civilians, I have little doubt we'll hear stories of atrocities. There are US-bashers (Noam Chomsky) and US-military-bashers (Marc Herold) embedded throughout the world. -- Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel Guns will get you through times of no duct tape better than duct tape will get you through times of no guns. -- Ron Kuby
RE: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
> Eugen Leitl[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Trei, Peter wrote: > > > 1. An journalist doing what he was specifically told not to do? > > Most probably. Those pesky civilians. No backbone, no way to gag them by > extreme sanctioning after perfunctory tribunal. > If a journalist is hazy on the distinction between the Darwin Awards and the Pulitzer, I have limited sympathy. Think of it as evolution in action. Geraldo, anyone? > > 2. An Iraqi or Al-Queda forward fire director, calling in coordinates > > for a VX loaded missile attack on your side. > > They don't have anything stronger than dirty sarin or crappy lost. Tipping > bad SCUD clones. > I wouldn't want one landing in the vicinity. Would you? Or are you arguing that the military should let themselves be targeted, and just deal with it? Remember, one explosive-laden scud killed over a hundred US soldiers in GW1. > > > If you wait, and it's a bad guy, the signal will be lost, and you can't > use > > your missiles. The attack will take place, and your friends will die. > > All they want is to blow up enough journalists to deter them from > reporting from hot areas thus acting as a leak thus acting as bad PR > (Merkins don't do shredded meat by FAE, minimally invasive peachy-clean > strategical surgery strictly). > Ever since the mid-1800s, when telegraph networks started to get significant, the media has been restricted in reporting on-going military operations. During the Napoleonic Wars (before 1815), it was common for British newspapers to report on the departure of troopships, with numbers of soldiers, and their destinations. French spies in London could read the papers, but the fastest means of getting the word to someone to whom it would be useful was no faster than those troopships. By the Crimean War (1854-1856) telegraph networks allowed such intelligence to outrun the troops, and the British had to implement their first military press censorship laws. Stopping useful information on *ongoing* operations from reaching the enemy has been a normal, unremarkable part of waging war for over 150 years. If the US military does Really Bad Things to Iraqi civilians with any frequency, I have little doubt we'll hear about it in time. There are journalists 'embedded' in many units. Peter Trei
Re: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
At 11:54 AM 3/13/03 -0500, Sunder wrote: > >Hey, we're fighting for freedom after all, the freedom to suppress the >truth... So how soon before France is on the Axis of Evil? :) Well, if they're giving info to Mr. Hussein their embassy there could be NIMA'd, as in "oops, we hit the Chinese consulate in Yugoslavia, but it was a mapping error". Taking out Paris would probably require more explanation. --- Would you like some Jewish Fries with that, Congressman. Moran?
RE: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Trei, Peter wrote: > 1. An journalist doing what he was specifically told not to do? Most probably. Those pesky civilians. No backbone, no way to gag them by extreme sanctioning after perfunctory tribunal. > 2. An Iraqi or Al-Queda forward fire director, calling in coordinates > for a VX loaded missile attack on your side. They don't have anything stronger than dirty sarin or crappy lost. Tipping bad SCUD clones. > If you wait, and it's a bad guy, the signal will be lost, and you can't use > your missiles. The attack will take place, and your friends will die. All they want is to blow up enough journalists to deter them from reporting from hot areas thus acting as a leak thus acting as bad PR (Merkins don't do shredded meat by FAE, minimally invasive peachy-clean strategical surgery strictly). > Make a decision. Nuke Washinton D.C.? Done. > Now. That one was easy.
RE: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
At 02:04 PM 3/13/03 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: > >Is it: > >1. An journalist doing what he was specifically told not to do? >2. An Iraqi or Al-Queda forward fire director, calling in coordinates >for a VX loaded missile attack on your side. I'd think that the troops would explain this to the reporters tagging along as they confiscate all their transmitters before an op. I simply wouldn't trust the reporters, even though they're toast too if someone mis-IFFs. Its a lot more serious than not shutting off your cell phone on a plane. Besides, I doubt the reporters have Iraq's FCC's clearance to use those frequencies there, until we extend the Little Powell's authority to that domain. :-)
RE: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
> Sunder[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29750.html > > Airstrike! The Pentagon simplifies media relations > By John Lettice > Posted: 13/03/2003 at 17:10 GMT > > Should war in the Gulf commence, the Pentagon proposes to take > radical new steps in media relations - 'unauthorised' journalists will be > shot at. Speaking on The Sunday Show on Ireland's RTE1 last sunday veteran > war reporter Kate Adie said she had been warned by a senior Pentagon > official that uplinks, i.e. TV broadcasts or satellite phones, that are > detected by US aircraft are likely to be fired on. > ok. A loitering US plane equipped with HARMs (High explosive Anti Radiation Missiles) detects a satellite uplink from within or just our side of the front line (or even out front). It lacks the correct IFF codes. Is it: 1. An journalist doing what he was specifically told not to do? 2. An Iraqi or Al-Queda forward fire director, calling in coordinates for a VX loaded missile attack on your side. If you wait, and it's a bad guy, the signal will be lost, and you can't use your missiles. The attack will take place, and your friends will die. Make a decision. Now. Peter Trei
Re: Unauthorized Journalists to be shot at
Sunder writes: > Should war in the Gulf commence, the Pentagon proposes to take > radical new steps in media relations - 'unauthorised' journalists will be > shot at. Speaking on The Sunday Show on Ireland's RTE1 last sunday veteran > war reporter Kate Adie said she had been warned by a senior Pentagon > official that uplinks, i.e. TV broadcasts or satellite phones, that are > detected by US aircraft are likely to be fired on. This is nothing new. Radio and TV stations and other "unauthorized" sources of information are always first on the target list whenever the US starts a war. I think the Pentagon spokeshomo put it this way. "Propaganda outlets ARE military targets." Propaganda being anything not released by the Pentagon, of course. Have you seen this lovely new media room in Qatar that Hollywood is building as a set for Iraq war briefings? <"In front of the stage, two 70-inch projection screens and five 50-inch plasma screens will flash maps, graphics and crystal-clear video images of war-zone action. In the background will hang a soft-focus elongated map of the world, as if to imply that the entire globe is united behind the United States.> <"I like to achieve a level of detail that makes it difficult to distinguish a set from reality," Mr. Allison recently told the Times Union newspaper in Albany, N.Y.> http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/ArticleNews/gtnews/TGAM/20030312/UTVTVM -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
