US Soldiers thought camera was a grenade launcher

[The Sushi Bandit]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/18/1061059785634.html
and
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/18/1061059786862.html

American troops shot dead an award-winning Reuters cameraman while he was filming near a US-run prison on the western outskirts of Baghdad.

Witnesses said soldiers in a US tank shot at Mazen Dana, 43, as he filmed outside Abu Ghraib prison, which had earlier come under a mortar attack. Dana's last pictures show a US tank driving towards him outside the prison walls.

Several shots rang out from the tank, and Dana's camera fell to the ground.

[morningtheft]

1. by far the most...

surreal, sad, atrocious, uneccessary incident thus far in GWII as far as I can tell.

Truly a tragedy and I can't imagine how powerful his last footage is.

[knowledgeispower]

3. What about when they shot at the hotel?

Remember during the war, when a U.S. tank shot right into a hotel that was known to be housing many foreign journalists? If I recall they managed to kill a few and wound some others. There was even TV footage of it (which, surprisingly, the media whores actually showed on TV).

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. Bull,

This guy does not look like an Iraqi with a grenade launcher. And if the guy you shot him has such bad eyesight, he shouldn't be allowed out with a weapon, no less on active duty.

[freeforall]

4. No Kidding!

I'm sorry, but are these troops stupid or untrained or what?! First they shoot the Canadians in Afganistan, then they shoot reporters in the hotel in Iraq, now this!

Absolutely deplorable, and IMO, they did this on purpose.

[Kellanved]

9. why should a soldier do this on purpose?

IMHO it shows in what state the troops in Iraq are - afraid, trigger happy and tired.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Because he had seen and knew too much

The following incident happened the day before he was killed and he apparently had video of what really happened.


http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3290074

Mortar Attack Kills Six Iraqi Prisoners

Sun August 17, 2003 08:58 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Six Iraqis were killed and 59 were injured in a mortar attack on Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad on Saturday, the U.S. military said on Sunday.

"Three mortar rounds impacted the scene. Three prisoners died on impact and three others died in hospital," a U.S. Army spokesman said. "The incident is under investigation."

[stickdog]

15. Answer: Because he was ordered to. (NT)

[ScotTissue]

17. Now back that guy up 50 yards....

And don't assume he's wearing a big cross on his forehead. Even if he is...as a matter of fact, he does look like an irregular carrying an RPG. The kind that have been killing US troops for weeks.

This is a mistake, but because it is a human mistake it is a mistake that we should be able to understand. understand it! And then condemn.

[stickdog]

25. I'll understand when the soldier who killed the guy explains what happened

Look, I'm playing devil's advocate with all of you apologists here.

Do you think the Iraqis are giving us the benefit of the doubt here?

Do you anyone who is not American is giving us the benefit of the doubt here?

So why are we giving ourselves the benefit of the doubt? When we no reasons whatsoever to do so?

Until further evidence is produced, agnosticism is the correct response to this tragedy.

Not condemnation.

And not rationalization, either.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. The "Ohfisshul" story I read...

was that the tank had just arrived on the scene, and the shooting was before anyone in the tank crew talked to the guys already on scene.

Still doesn't excuse it but in war, shit happens.

(That's one reason why I don't like war.)

:mad:

[stickdog]

13. What war? Isn't the "Mission Accomplished" like Bush said?

War is also a REALLY good cover for murder.

Wouldn't you agree?

[moondust]

6. Within reason.

A bleary-eyed, sun-scorched, overworked, exhausted, underpaid, stressed out, overextended, homesick, poorly fed, jumpy, defensive GI who knows he is a target at any given moment could very easily mistake a "body" in the distance raising a heavy object onto his shoulder and aiming it at him as an immediate threat. "Shoot first or die" reflexes take over.

Awful tragedies happen in war.

Lesson: Don't ever raise a heavy object onto your shoulder and aim it at the above-described soldier without first introducing yourself.

Blame Bush and Rumsfeld for overextending/overtaxing these troops in that Hell they have created.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Bush won't have to worry about lifting anything heavy

nt

[stickdog]

12. Bullshit. He was assassinated until proven otherwise.

Chances are that this was no mistake.

Note that the least "in-bedded" journalists have been killed in the most suspicious circumstances.

[moondust]

16. An assassin wouldn't fire six times.

But a scared GI might.

[stickdog]

19. The guy had survived over 20 shootings.

I'd say an assassin would fire six times.

[moondust]

30. You're implying

that "they" had been targeting this particular guy, knew his exact location at this moment and that it was him and his camera they were assassinating, and took advantage of this "golden opportunity" to knock the guy off. Right? And made damn sure he was dead! A photographer. In a volatile war zone. With witnesses around.

Remotely possible I suppose considering how the IDF hunts down and assassinates terrorists. Methinks the U.S. military in Iraq has much more pressing things to do than to stalk and assassinate photographers using tanks in broad daylight.

[Yentatelaventa]

18. Chances are it was a mistake

What world do you live in where you're guilty until proven innocent? Please do tell because I refuse to live there.

[stickdog]

21. The Middle East.

I assume you live in the USA.

Maybe you should ask Padilla if you need to consider moving.

[Yentatelaventa]

22. Is the Middle East democratic?

Somehow I doubt that it is.

[stickdog]

24. So you talked to Padilla?

Just wondering.

[sal]

7. * seems to have stuffed such a device in his flightsuit

but the only confusion it has caused is media homo-erotic cod piece envy.

[symbolman]

11. That makes 18 journalists so far

The US Command is targeting these guys--

Here's our commentary on it at Take Back the Media:

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/mediarevolution.html

[Yentatelaventa]

20. The US Command is targeting these guys?

Nice theory. All you have to do is provide proof now.

[stickdog]

23. No. Who was killed, when they were killed and how they were killed

form a compelling pattern.

This pattern has shifted the burden of proof.

It's as if the LA cops accidently shot 18 police watchers over a couple of years. Innocent until proven guilty extends to perhaps the first several questionable incidents. Then common sense takes over.

[Yentatelaventa]

26. Common sense tells me...

Getting between two enemies with a camera that is shoulder mounted is dangerous. I can't decide if these cameramen are brave or ignorant. I would film from behind the friendly forces and not in front of them.

[stickdog]

29. And who was the "enemy"?

Every brown person in sight?

Furthermore, of course it makes perfect sense to you -- because you are giving the brave soldiers of your righteous country the benefit of all doubts.

It would also make sense to most LA cops that they beat up Rodney King only as much as necessary.

[zekeson]

14. Don't they have training for this?

Like for identifying the red markings on the helmet, shilouete training of what rocket launchers look like in the mid afternoon heat? Hint, they are long, longer than a camera.

It sounds suspicious to me...

[QuietStorm]

27. Yeah right

Just any story will do to fit an authorized hit. US doesn't have to even investigate this one. Dana's camera was a grenade launcher. Oh sure the media whores will peddle that swill to the swine and oh sure American's will believe that. The DoD don't even have to break a sweat on it.

[Sushi Bandit]

28. Why wasnt this story published in the US?

I found it in the Austrailian press

[berry]

32. Most of the news programs tonight did mention it--though barely.

Wolf Blitzer talk to a Palestinian woman journalist about Dana. She was a friend and was deeply outraged (naturally). Then Wolf said, but wouldn't it be easy to confuse the camera with a weapon (I can't remember what he called it). She said no, categorically. Wolf couldn't take no for an answer and asked her again. When she wouldn't back down, he finally did, saying well there is going to be an investigation (some general in Baghdad said so, so it must be true).

Still, I was amazed that they put her on, and that Wolf backed down. NOT amazed that he rudely pushed her over and over again to accept a lie.

MSNBC (I think) also gave it a longish slot. But I fear this will be the end of the story as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Unless the journalist groups keep up some pressure....

[The_Casual_Observer]

33. Don't worry, there will plenty more after this one

"MSNBC (I think) also gave it a longish slot. But I fear this will be the end of the story as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Unless the journalist groups keep up some pressure"

The end of this will be followed by the beginning of the next.

[QuietStorm]

35. oh how consoling

with no real investigation just the big old RUBBERSTAMP -- accident!

[QuietStorm]

34. Probably

will be the end of the story. Unless Kopel decides to get into the act and has a segment planned on Dana for this evening. But I know I'm just dreamin'...

[The_Casual_Observer]

31. This only proves that these Troops have been there too long

With that kind to firepower there isn't any need to "ask questions later". Wonder what that tank gunner feels like now, he might have a little trouble getting to sleep from now on. Just a taste of the "untidyness" that ol' Don Rumsfeld talks about on occasion.