Thread
Is the US targeting journalists in Baghdad?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by macvillage.net: How is it quite clearly that it's not happening? |
You saw how the Iraqi military was decimated; if a bunch of unarmed journalists were targets, they'd have been wiped out long ago.
It's just simply ridiculous to claim that the US military actively targets journalists. Provide proof if you believe it to be the case, you're the one making the accusation.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by moki: You saw how the Iraqi military was decimated; if a bunch of unarmed journalists were targets, they'd have been wiped out long ago. It's just simply ridiculous to claim that the US military actively targets journalists. Provide proof if you believe it to be the case, you're the one making the accusation. |
They weren't targets as of yet beacuse the US has been targeting the infrustructure they use to communicate (radio towers, switching stations, uplinks etc.)... that's easier to attack, then individual people (who can hide)... and much more ethical.
Armed or unarmed isn't the point. We could wipe out the country... yes we have the firepower to get rid of them day one... but didn't want to... we had other means.
Now Saddam is on the run, or dead (I honestly don't know what to believe)....
His leadership is all over.
The last thing blocking us fromt he citizens of Baghdad is the media. Just like during 9/11, America sat infront of TV's... Iraqi's are sitting in front of Radio's... trying to find out what's going on .
Now if they are being told by Iraq funded media that "the Americans here to kill your babies"... guess what that does? (granted it would be something less dramatic, but it's just to make the point).
Now if their radio is out... the only radio station is coalliton controlled. SO we can inform and warn civilians to stay indoors, that we will arrest looters, etc.
It's basically a ratings are gone crazy. We are ensuring that we are their media now.
Iraq needs to forget about what was past, and focus on the future.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by macvillage.net: They weren't targets as of yet beacuse the US has been targeting the infrustructure they use to communicate (radio towers, switching stations, uplinks etc.)... that's easier to attack, then individual people (who can hide)... and much more ethical. Armed or unarmed isn't the point. We could wipe out the country... yes we have the firepower to get rid of them day one... but didn't want to... we had other means. |
right, right. Following that logic, we also targeted UK soldiers (since we accidentally killed some of them), and we even targeted American soldiers (since we accidentally killed some of them too).
Take a few deep breaths, and step away from the shiny object.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by moki: right, right. Following that logic, we also targeted UK soldiers (since we accidentally killed some of them), and we even targeted American soldiers (since we accidentally killed some of them too). Take a few deep breaths, and step away from the shiny object.
|
There is a difference between taking down a target *we said* we were going to take out (the US made clear Iraqi media was a target, since it's was a propiganda machine)... and an accident.
The US takes out a target by any means necessary... the easy way didn't work.
You kill the reporters... there is no news reported... the beast is silenced.
The US Said they were a target. The US said they were attempting to take out the media there. The US tried to defang it by removing the radio towers etc.... then they moved to plan B.