http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_on_re_eu/britain_reporter_inquest
As a former service member I can add to this story and add light.
First of all under the Geneva Convention any vehicle being used as an ambulance must be identified with a red cross.....
Second... The procedure would have been to challenge the vehicle and give it every opportunity to identify itself as a non combatant... If the vehicle did not adhere to the challenge then yes they lit it up....
That is called collateral damage....
I may not be in favor of this war but the bloody Brits can go **** themselves here....
2006-10-13 01:10:02 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"Terry Lloyd died following a gunshot wound to the head. The evidence this bullet was fired by the Americans is overwhelming," Walker said. "There is no doubt that the minibus presented no threat to the American forces. There is no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire."...LOL!
Good for the soldiers and I would buy beers for the guys who did the shooting...
2006-10-13 01:52:09 · answer #1 · answered by juandos 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The Brits are the US allies - one of the few - so your last comment is uncalled for.
Having said that, the reporter knew he was in a war zone. People die in wars - sometimes good people die under strange circumstances. For the deputy coroner to seek "justice" for the killed reporter is nuts. When the Americans found out the vehicles occupants were reporters they were obviously upset.
It was an unfortunate accident. It is not the first time to happen & unfortunately will not be the last time either.
2006-10-13 08:37:53 · answer #2 · answered by hungryhart 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Sounds like a running gun battle with civilians caught in the middle .
Iraqi troops frequently used civilian vehicles , any vehicle, to get out of the path of battle .
In the future maybe the PRESS should drive cars painted "BLAZE ORANGE" and fly a "SHOCKING PINK " flag and not depend on loggos painted on car doors .
2006-10-13 08:31:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe his cause of death was being a civilian in an extremely dangerous profession during a time extreme risk. It's a shame but when firefighters die we don't point fingers at the family who lived at the house that was on fire. Being a reporter during a war against insurgency is a virtual death warrent.
2006-10-13 08:15:47 · answer #4 · answered by W0LF 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I have to say yes! This is another example of Bush's misguided and incompetent decision to engage into an illegal combat in Iraq. And that's the end result of this mess he made there. My thoughts go out to the dead British reporter's family and colleagues.
2006-10-13 09:07:14 · answer #5 · answered by brian 2010 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Sick and to think the Us and Britain are supposed to be allies, maybe the Brits should pull out and leave the Yanks to their own devices at least then the 'collateral damge' will just be of their own.
2006-10-13 09:04:29 · answer #6 · answered by adosullivan2003 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well... The article says he was shot in the back by Iraqis, and THEN they were shot at by US forces...
I thought HALT was a English word?
2006-10-13 08:27:09 · answer #7 · answered by smitty031 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
he might had been a Muslim
if less than 599,999 Muslim are kill than it is not a crime yet.
It is only a crime when the numbers reach 600,000
2006-10-13 08:13:13 · answer #8 · answered by Taco 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Trigger happy morons...
2006-10-13 08:17:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
its war...people die... too bad it was a brit though...should have been that socialist italian moonbat we had to rescue....
2006-10-13 08:12:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋