The inquest of a British TV journalist, killed in the Iraq invasion, has concluded that he was unlawfully killed by American troops.
The journalist was injured by Iraqi fire, and was then transferred into a Red Crescent minibus. A tank then opened fire on the ambulance and killed him. The film that accompanied this news story showed American troops firing on another Red Crescent minibus.
The Pentagon has rejected the verdict.
I wonder whether this news has been shown on the American media.
2006-10-13 06:33:04 · 23 answers · asked by langdonrjones 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yes, it has been disseminated in a variety of news media here.
I withhold judgment because I don't know enough of the details. But I'm puzzled by the antagonism shown toward journalists in this thread. Surely we expect journalists to cover wars? It's their job. How else are we to get an objective view of what happens there?
2006-10-13 08:06:52 · answer #1 · answered by keepsondancing 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I saw this in the news and it is truly very sad. The one thing i wonder about is that the Americans didn't go to testify but sent in statements that were not allowed as evidence. How could they get both sides of the story or what happen. I think that should be introduce before anyone draws a conclusion.
2006-10-13 13:39:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why would an American tank open fire on a Red Crecent Ambulance. They, like Red Cross Ambulances are protected under the Geneva Convention. Regardless of who was in the ambulance, the attack on it was illegal.
How stupid of me to use the word American in the same paragraph as Geneva Convention. Sorry to have bothered you folks.
IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT HE WAS A JOURNALIST OR A SICK CHILD, WHY WAS AN AMBULANCE ATTACKED?
2006-10-13 14:50:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
! that guy had no bussines being in the middle of a war zone friendly fire accidents happen all the time he knew the risk when he went over American troops can not be held accoutable they have a job to do and that job does not consist of baby sitting brittish journalist.
2006-10-13 13:40:13 · answer #4 · answered by josh h 2 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Well, why was he in Iraq? He is a journalist, not a soldier!
I, for one, do not think the journalists should be allowed in Iraq. They just get in the way, and every soldier I have talked to says they are sick of them.
And no, it has not been on the news. I am very suprised, considering how anti-war our TV networks are.
2006-10-13 13:35:22 · answer #5 · answered by ihatehippies 3 · 10⤊ 1⤋
I wonder if the American media knows how much they get played by the middle easter reporters...
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
2006-10-13 13:39:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I read about it. Also read he was taken into the red mini-van and shot in the head before arriving to the hospital. They suspect in the mini-van.
2006-10-13 13:43:15 · answer #7 · answered by Gettin_by 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I've noticed that when American troops are court martialed for war crimes, the facts fail to support the charges...
2006-10-13 13:41:27 · answer #8 · answered by kapute2 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
It has been on the Fox News and a few others.
2006-10-13 14:57:49 · answer #9 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Can you imagine if it was the other way around ? A Brit shooting one of theirs , the guys would be hung ,drawn and quartered to apease the f*cking yanks !
2006-10-14 07:14:50 · answer #10 · answered by uk expat 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋