Article

2004-05-21 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2004-05-21 8:57:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Arab news channel al-Jazeera said today one of its employees was killed in clashes between U.S. forces and militiamen. It said Rashid Hamid Wali was killed in fighting in the southern city of Kerbala where U.S. forces are battling to put down a weeks-old rebellion by Sadr's militia.

Like I said, one of their embeds.

Posted by Steve 2004-05-21 9:03:24 AM|| 2004-05-21 9:03:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 What?! No women and children??

Posted by The Screaming Nun 2004-05-21 9:19:06 AM|| 2004-05-21 9:19:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Interesting. Al Jiz is Sunni-TV. Saderites are Shia. If anyone needed proof that Sunni & Shia extremists were working together, this is it.

Posted by Anonymous4904 2004-05-21 9:20:23 AM|| 2004-05-21 9:20:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 So, we're nowadays assuming that civilians no longer exist at all? Where did you get that all the victims were "Sadrites", pretty please?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-05-21 10:46:51 AM|| 2004-05-21 10:46:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Better question is, where is AFP getting that these "people" are civilians, aside from the one in Najaf? Interesting thing - the articles never directly quote named hospital sources about that - it's just asserted before and after the actual quotations, which mention "people" and "bodies". It's actually daintier than I'd expect from the AFP, to be honest. Have to wonder if it's a cleanup job by the end-users.

Or do you believe in intense gunbattles in which all victims are innocent victims, Aris?

Posted by Mitch H. 2004-05-21 10:52:58 AM|| [http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2004-05-21 10:52:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Is anyone sure the imbed reporter was Al-Jazzera, and not Washington Post?

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-21 11:06:44 AM|| 2004-05-21 11:06:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 How can you tell thie difference? Maybe he was sending the same copy to both and getting paid by both.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-05-21 11:41:40 AM|| 2004-05-21 11:41:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 "Or do you believe in intense gunbattles in which all victims are innocent victims, Aris?"

I never said that and you know very well I didn't.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-05-21 11:57:16 AM|| 2004-05-21 11:57:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Isn't it special how when the reporter is standing within a few dozen yards of armed militiamen firing on, or threatening to fire on, U.S. soldiers and he is killed in the counterfire, the U.S. is responsible for his death. Can't remember ever hearing this said when one of our embeds was killed or wounded by the other side.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-05-21 12:25:24 PM|| 2004-05-21 12:25:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 There may be intense gunbattles where innocents are victims.

But on the other hand, if the place is a declared warzone, it's a lot less likely that they're merely innocents, and more probable that they are somehow involved with one side or the other. Sad fact is, anyone in a warzone is a possible target, be they innocent or a participant. Best thing to do is to get the hell out of there, let the professionals and the amateurs deal with it.

Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-21 12:27:35 PM|| 2004-05-21 12:27:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 And be very careful about where you point that shoulder-carried "TV camera" - K?

Posted by .com 2004-05-21 12:33:32 PM|| 2004-05-21 12:33:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Aris, the concept is called implication.

Posted by Raj 2004-05-21 12:48:53 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2004-05-21 12:48:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Actualy , Aris, you do raise a good point in #4.

# define Torquemada
And besides, who among us is truly innocent, hmmm?
# undefine Torquemada

At some level it is incumbent upon the noncombatants to make themselves distinct from the targets, especialy when the targets are deliberately trying to get the noncombatants killed by us for their own purposes. The targets appear by their actions to have declared that they will not accept anyone being neutral or having a protected, uninvolved status.

Because of the pecular nature of this war, camoflage takes on a whole new definition. The (surviving) targets have learned that physicaly avoiding detection is essentialy impossible, the deception has to take the form imitating prohibited target sets. It will be fascinating to see the evolution of this particular arms race.

Posted by N guard 2004-05-21 1:35:05 PM|| 2004-05-21 1:35:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 N guard> "At some level it is incumbent upon the noncombatants to make themselves distinct from the targets"

Yeah, perhaps the civilians should start wearing some kind of uniform to distinguish them, right?

But anyway, since there exist no civilians, and everyone is guilty by implication, as Raj seems to me to be claiming, the problem has been solved already.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-05-21 1:49:00 PM|| 2004-05-21 1:49:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 There are no innocents. Just the unlucky.

Posted by john 2004-05-21 1:51:07 PM|| 2004-05-21 1:51:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 perhaps the civilians should start wearing some kind of uniform to distinguish them, right?

They should vacate the street, for starters. As the US military doesn't bomb houses haphazardly, I would say they are much safer in their own homes.

Posted by Rafael 2004-05-21 1:52:28 PM|| 2004-05-21 1:52:28 PM|| Front Page Top

15:21 Anonymous5082
18:49 NCO
00:55 Jen
23:51 Tex
13:12 Anonymous4985
20:16 Curious
19:04 muck4doo
18:59 .com
18:53 muck4doo
18:37 Big Mama
18:30 Romana
17:23 yorgos
17:19 Aris Katsaris
17:15 yorgos
17:03 Raj
16:54 yorgos
10:28 Shipman
10:20 yorgos
09:17 Mike Sylwester
08:40 longtime lurker
08:38 Mike Sylwester
08:37 longtime lurker
08:34 longtime lurker
06:14 Shipman