War Day 15

Ah, who needs those Bovril-guzzling tramps anyway? What are they gonna do? Invade us? If they want to die in our war, cool. If not, to hell with 'em. We got what we wanted from Blair, now screw him. We can take the world single-handed!

*thumps chest, drags knuckles on ground*

 

I think it was the media who presented more NEGATIVE info to begin with. This were exaggerated and overblown when it was never that bad.

I mean just look at the way the media treats other "major" stories in the past and how it blows them up and makes big deals out of nothing and continually has "experts" predicting what is going to happen next.

Just take reports with a wider view and know that everything(wether good or bad) is going to be blown up.

I guess this was just redundant info but it seems like alot of us on BS seem not to follow that rule.

 

hopefully bush comes around on this sooner as well.

 

Have a look at an analysis of Gulf War I media coverage. Pretty frightening. http://www.fair.org/extra/extra-highlight.html#1991

I can think of several examples of very "negligent" journalism so far in this war.

For instance, all the talk about how the finding of chemical weapons suits and gas mask was more evidence that the Iraqi's were planning to use chemical weapons, because, "the US doesn't use them." That's crap. There were several pre-war articles in the media about how US field commanders had the green light to use riot-control agents. NOBODY mentioned that the gas masks could be used to defend against such US attacks. I'm not saying that is why the Iraqi's had them, or even that it is the most pluasible explanation. But it is on credible explanation that NOBODY offered.

Another example is all this talk about targeting the Iraqi tv station. The news folks were practically cheering this -- asking why it didn't happen earlier. NOBODY made the point that the Iraqi TV station is civilian target that is, absent compelling evidence from the US, off-limits under the Geneva Convention (as discussed by various, independent and objective human rights organizations).

Yet another example is cluster bombs. Several field reporters have discussed US cluster bomb attacks. NOBODY mentioned that cluster bombs are (at least arguably) on a moral par with land mines due to their high failure rate. Even now, unexploded cluster bomb muntions from Gulf War I are found in the Iraqi desert at a rate of 200 per month.

 

I dunno if you are saying that Iraqui TV is a civilian target, but if you are, youre WRONG. Iraqui TV is a STATE RUN TV Station used and controlled by Saddam. They are not an Independent News organization(or atleast try to be, like US TV).

If you are saying that they were wrong for targeting the station because it was around a residential neighborhood, then thats a different story. It's sad yes, but not against the Geneva Convention.

 

Yes, but degree is very important.

 

True. But if you have a look at the site -- which contains some quantitative analysis, you can see for yourself.

Wrong.

Using your argument, in attacking a totalitarian regime where everything is state run, everything would be a legitimate military target -- Markets, schools, religious buildings, etc.

From this link: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaq.htm#Military Attacks Please click and read this link before you reply.

I'm too lazy to find the Amnesty International article saying essentially the same thing.

And before you decry this organization as some anti-American peacenik outfit, take a look around the stie. They are extremely objective -- detailing more Iraqi crimes than American.

And you know what? Whether or not it actually violates the Geneva Convention isn't all that relevant. The point is that it very well might -- that there is a very credible argument that it does. NOBODY has reported that.

 

Irrelevant.

 

"Although stopping enemy propaganda may serve to demoralize the Iraqi population and to undermine the government's political support, neither purpose offers the "concrete and direct" military advantage necessary under international law to make civilian broadcast facilities a legitimate military target (see Protocol I, article 57)."

 

Many universities in this country are state run. Are they legitimate targets?

 

"Although stopping enemy propaganda may serve to demoralize the Iraqi population and to undermine the government's political support, neither purpose offers the "concrete and direct" military advantage necessary under international law to make civilian broadcast facilities a legitimate military target (see Protocol I, article 57)."

Except it is not a civilian broadcast facilities.

 

It is not just that they are OWNED by the state, but directly used by the state to aid them in war. If that said state University was being used to train soldiers and educate them(ie West Point) then yes it is legit.

 

So any university with an ROTC program is a legitimate target. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Why do you think this particular TV station was anything but a civilian broadcast facility? The fact that it is state-owned does strip it of its civilian status. The distinction is between military and civilian, not state and private. The burden is on the US to show that it was being used to provide a military advantage.

 

Eyewitness reports that the US is using cluster bombs in civilian areas:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=393127

As to the bombing of Iraqi TV this is what the Human Rights watch FAQ says,

" Civilian TV and radio stations are legitimate targets only if they meet the criteria for a legitimate military objective, that is, if they are used in a way that makes an "effective contribution to military action" and their destruction in the circumstances ruling at the time offers "a definite military advantage." Civilian stations could become military targets if, for example, they are used to broadcast military communications or if they are otherwise used concretely to advance a military campaign. "

I think it is highly debatable whether Sadaam or one of his henchmen getting on Iraqi TV and saying, "kill all the Americans" is making an "effective contribution to military action". Are generalized statements like that sufficient to be considered military communications? Geraldo is giving out more military details than that! But why isn't this being discussed in the US media?

The point I am trying to make is that the US media sanitizes all of this and is quick to point out the CENTCOM claims of Iraqi violations of the Geneva Convention without even discussing any possible US violations of those conventions. Fair and impartial indeed!

 

US Missile Did Hit Baghdad Market

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=393066

" An American missile, identified from the remains of its serial number, was pinpointed yesterday as the cause of the explosion at a Baghdad market on Friday night that killed at least 62 Iraqis.

The codes on the foot-long shrapnel shard, seen by the Independent correspondent Robert Fisk at the scene of the bombing in the Shu'ale district, came from a weapon manufactured in Texas by Ray- theon, the world's biggest producer of "smart" armaments. "

I'm sure the US networks will be rushing to place this story on the air.

 

Re: US Missile Did Hit Baghdad Market

damn that is impressive...the iraqi's planted that piece of bomb right in the middle of the market a week after the bombing...

oh wait, sorry...that is what some will say when WMD are found in iraq...

my bad.

 

proof? all in the eye of the beholder i guess...a doctor saying the injuries are consistant with cluster bombs? has anyone found un-exploded clusters? usually happens with cluster bombing but i have not heard any reports of such. centcom saying they have not used cluster bombs. believe who you wanna believe, that is our right.