Iraq Worse Than Vietnam -- in Number of Journalists Killed

Paris - More journalists have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003 than during the 20 years of conflict in Vietnam, media rights group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said on Sunday.

Since U.S. forces and its allies launched their campaign in Iraq on March 20, 2003, 66 journalists and their assistants have been killed, RSF said.

The latest casualty was a Reuters Television soundman who was shot dead in Baghdad on Sunday while a cameraman with him was wounded and then detained by U.S. soldiers.

The death toll in Iraq compares with a total of 63 journalists in Vietnam, but which was over a period of 20 years from 1955 to 1975, the Paris-based organisation that campaigns to protect journalists said on its Web site.

During the fighting in the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 1995, 49 journalists were killed doing their job, while 57 journalists and 20 media assistants were killed during a civil war in Algeria from 1993 to 1996.

RSF listed Iraq as the world's most dangerous place for journalists. In addition to those killed, 22 have been kidnapped. All but one was released. Italian journalist Enzo Baldoni was executed by his captors.

The media was targeted from the first days of the fighting, when cameraman Paul Moran, of the Australian TV network ABC, was killed by a car bomb on March 22, 2003, it added.

Two other journalists have been missing since March 2003 and August 2004.

Source:
Editor & Publisher

Interesting that the Journalists are such Victims in this war.

But when I think again, I am not that Surprised, since this War on Terror is also a War on Media and War on Truth.

From one my previous posts In Bed with Pentagon:

He who's not with US, is against US!

He Who does not write what we want to, is sleeping with the enemy - sleeping with terrorists, Al-qaeda and Saddam loyalists. ERGO: because Qatar based Al-Jazeera is not in bed with us, they are sleeping with the enemy. What he wanted to say was 3 things:

1. That "War against Terror" is really "War against Media".

2. Why US forces must deal with these "hostile journalists".

3. Why the US forces are targeting "hostile journalists" in Iraq and Afganistan.


His statement sounded like a page from Mein Kampf, but then again even Hitler could not say it that well. That is the "Final Solution" to the journalist question in the Middle East. Nothing new; this final solution is in full motion from the year 2001 - right after US invasion in Afganistan, american airplanes attacked Al-Jazeera station in Kabul. Why? Because they critisized the american invasion in Afganistan.

Souljah I think that fact that the terrorists we are fighting don’t care if you're media, civilian or military might have something to do with it. Check that out before you go to your "blame the USA for everything” line.

Also the fact that journalists seem eager to report every second of the war and stick like white on rice to soldiers might also have something to do with it.


[edit on 29-8-2005 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Souljah I think that fact that the terrorists we are fighting don’t care if you're media, civilian or military might have something to do with it. Check that out before you go to your "blame the USA for everything” line.
[edit on 29-8-2005 by WestPoint23]

Of course one should always check it out before they say something.

But information control by the United States has often been more
violent. ITN correspondent Terry Lloyd and his crew were, according to
a British newspaper report, killed by the crew of a US helicopter as they
attempted to operate independently in Iraq early in the campaign, and,
learning the lesson, international broadcasters kept their independent
crews away from the advancing troops, preventing uncontrolled coverage
of civilian casualties or coalition failures.21

www.extenza-eps.com...

www.americanfreepress.net...

www.indybay.org...


It is sad that journalist have suffered so much during this conflict, but that's the risk. Up until now for whatever reason the media has enjoyed the benefits of an unspoken carte blanche that allows them to go into conflict zones and escaped unscathed. It would appear that day and age is over now, governments have no intention on objectively portraying ANY conflict that they might be involved in.

Aren't the information wars fun?

I would agree the 'insurgents' probably don't much care who gets blown up at this point.

But wasn't the Reuters soundman shot by the US troops? That is what is being reported.

Waleed Khaled, 35, was killed and cameraman Haider Khadem was wounded while driving to the scene of the clash in the western Baghdad district of Adil, said Alastair MacDonald, the news agency's chief correspondent in Baghdad.

The two appear to have been targeted by a sniper, and Khadem was detained by U.S. troops after being shot, MacDonald said.

Maj. Mousa Abdul Karim of the Ghazaliyah police said U.S. soldiers opened fire on the two men near Umm al-Qura mosque.

and

At a news conference, a Reuters correspondent asked U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad about the incident, saying U.S. soldiers shot the men.

Khalilzad responded that military operations were not an exact science and "sometimes mistakes are made."

In urban warfare when the insurgents are clashing with US soldiers people get shot if they are in the cross fire. If you’re dumb enough to stand up and hold a shoulder camera which could very easily be mistaken for something else you’re probably getting shot. So these were not targeted assassinations just accidents in the fog of war.

yeah i remember where insurgents carry video cams to record their glorious attacks on infidels either American or Iraqi so u pretty much sums it up that anibody recording an attack could possibly an insurgent or terrorists. maybe we should have international law where to ban all recordings by terrorists or insurgents so it does not endanger journalists.

maybe we should have international law where to ban all recordings by terrorists or insurgents so it does not endanger journalists.

Hahaha yes that would certainly solve the problem

May I ask both WP and Delta - how old are you guys? Have you ever served? What is the highest education you have? And have you ever been outside of the US?

Thanks.

P.S - Not that it has anything to do with this discussion but your attitudes towards conflict are interesting.

I shall Quote myself in order to explain how the number of journalists killed by US Troops in the Iraq War is probably higher then those killed by the "Other" side:

US Army did not just target Al-Jazeera. Far from it. As said before, a spanish and ukrainian journalists have died in hotel Palestina. On the 18th March 2003 US soldiers killed reporters from the network Al-Arabia: Ali Al Khatub and Ali Abdel Aziz. They have recorded a US rocket attack on a hotel. On the 17th August, a cameraman from Ruters agency named Mazen Dana was shot dead in front of Abu Gharib prison. Pentagon said: "If the journalists wont censor for themselves, we are going to do it for them!"

22nd of March 2003, soon after then start of the invasion in Iraq, american tanks killed Terry Llyod, 50-year old british journalist. He and his 3 friends were trying to get to the city of Basra, but US Army tanks opened fire on them. Ofcourse US and the GB claim that Lloyd was a victim of "friendly fire". They saw a military convoy. You know how it is this "fog of war"! An accident. Belgian cameraman Fred Nerac and lebanon translator Husein Osman, who were in the jeep with Lloyd were never found. Terry Lloyd and his friends were not "in bed with Pentagon", or emBEDded with the US forces in Iraq. Pentagon's message to all reporters: He who is not under our control, he who is not with us, he who is not embedded with us is in real danger! And that is how it was. Or better. Pentagon has granted safty and security only to those embedded journalists, which sign a pact with them. Those that will obey 50 pages of rules and regulaions, which say that reporter can NOT publish any story, news or report, that would "endanger american army or their operations"!

Source:
In Bed with Pentagon

Originally posted by Passer By
May I ask both WP and Delta - how old are you guys? Have you ever served? What is the highest education you have? And have you ever been outside of the US?

Thanks.

P.S - Not that it has anything to do with this discussion but your attitudes towards conflict are interesting.

wat is this 20 questions? is that the best u can do against me in response to my post? age, serving in the military or wat is the highest education is pretty much trying to bait me.

War is a dangerous place. But the only entity deliberatly targeting media in Iraq are the insurgents and terrorists. Any other interpetation of that is idiotic.


Another thing the haters arent taking into account here are the numbers. I dont know, but it doesnt take a genious to say that the media coverage of this conflict is many times more than any other to date. So from a percentage stand point I bet the mortality rate of media in Iraq is perportional to other conflicts.

Add these two conditions up and its not suprising at all.

Now all we need to do is kill all the insurgents and terrorists so the media wont be targetted for assinations anymore.



[edit on 29-8-2005 by skippytjc]

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Passer By
May I ask both WP and Delta - how old are you guys? Have you ever served? What is the highest education you have? And have you ever been outside of the US?

Thanks.

P.S - Not that it has anything to do with this discussion but your attitudes towards conflict are interesting.

wat is this 20 questions? is that the best u can do against me in response to my post? age, serving in the military or wat is the highest education is pretty much trying to bait me.

Not at all it was a simple question, one that would speak to your mental age towards life and that would explain why you see things the way you do. At least for me. If you feel to shy or silly explaining it that is cool. No offense intended.

As for what I can do against you, I am fairly sure I can do anything I wanted to against you but that isn't the point of a message board is it? I always figured the point of a message board was the free exchange of idea's , both those you agree with and those you don't.

There have been numerous examples of how the US is careless underfire, numerous cases of friendly fire and such, so isn't hard to see how this would effect the journalists embedded in the war zone. Which, incidently incase you weren't just being childish(or maybe you are one? Not knowing your age or anything ) the world needs those embedded journalists to provide an unbaised report of what both sides are doing. It is obvious that beleiving only one side eventually leads into a insoluated position whereby anything that doesn't go with the viewpoint held is immediately dismissed.

However, he, nice semi-chatting with ya.

well gee if we hate journalists we be killing all the journalists who are embedded with the American troops i dont believe ani journalists have been intentionally killed or accidentally killed. however one American journalist from NBC 5 died from i dont know blood clotting in one of his legs. however since journalists do wander off they do get mistakened and killed by both sides both American and insurgents. but we dont kill jounalists intentionally while insurgents kidnapped and interrogate and usually kill them and justified they were Jewish or CIA agents which makes me laugh since its so old. but in anicase wen u have a journalist with a video cam, it could be mistakened for an insurgent trying to record an attack as we have seen in recent article were an Iraqi cameraman was shot and wounded. and from a distance camermans are mistakened for holding an rpg or some anti tank weapon. so dont expect to think that journalists are safe in a warzone. and dont expect to complain to the American military about safety of journalists and cameramen and women who wander of to get exclusive news. i seen journalists who get killed even wen they have body guards that are no match for experiened insurgents who are good in ambushes.

I remember journalists riding on top of tanks into Iraq and I continue to watch embedded journalists report from the front lines. So you see no one is denying them the right to report. However they must know that if they venture out on their own for their 15 seconds of fame they are taking their lives into their own hands.

All deaths caused by the US military on journalists I am fairly sure is accidental. If anyone can provide me anything more than just speculation and theories then I would think otherwise.

DELTA:

I am fully aware fo the risks these fine men and women put themselfs in when covering a war for the unbaised reporting to the rest of the world. What I found so disarming was the speil about a media free war between you and WR(Which brought this whole thing on). A little too Orwiellian for my tastes, but it seems to fall in line with the recent M.O of this admin.

Obviously a war zone is a dangerous place to be for anyone. That is why the Middle East is not on my top ten list of vacation spots.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If you’re dumb enough to stand up and hold a shoulder camera which could very easily be mistaken for something else you’re probably getting shot.

This soundman was just doing his job, like any American soldier. Calling him dumb shows a distinct lack of respect for the dead. You would get very upset if I said that about a US soldier killed in the line of duty. Just because he is not American does not make his life worth less.

I make no claim that he was targeted on purpose. I really should have stuck to my promise to myself to stay out of this forum.

I suppose the way that the insurgents co-ordinate attacks, anyone is liable to become a victim, media or not.

The indiscriminate killing by suicide bombings is bound to have some effect on the figures quoted.

Also the media are getting up close on a lot of things. They know the risks involved by doing that. Maybe the Army should stop the media getting in too close for their own protection? But that would only provoke people into thinking that the Army has something to hide.

If the media wants to get close, then fine, as i said before, they know the risks. They are there reporting whats happening and i would imagine they are well payed for it, hence the risks they take. Money is a good incentive in anyones language.

Its a no win situation if you ask me.

This soundman was just doing his job, like any American soldier. Calling him dumb shows a distinct lack of respect for the dead. You would get very upset if I said that about a US soldier killed in the line of duty. Just because he is not American does not make his life worth less.

I did not say anyone's life was worthless. I was merely point out how easy it was for them to get killed, without any big conspiracy involved. I was not trying to dishonor anyone, just tying to make a point.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by WestPoint23]

Barf!!

Some of you seem to forget that the journalists are all briefed as to the threat that is out there and are allowed to go with on a voluntary basis. They know the risks, it is part of their job.

You cannot sit there and blame the US military, or any other for that matter, for what happens to those people. Most times they put themselves in harms way in order to get the best pictures/view of what is going on.

They also stress the military units that they are operating with. They carry no weapons, and must rely on the unit they are with to protect them. This not like in Vietnam where the journalists carry weapons and defend themselves.

So, to sum up, they know the risks and they choose to accept them. Stop trying to place blame where there is none.

[edit on 29/8/05 by COOL HAND]

Originally posted by COOL HAND
So, to sum up, they know the risks and they choose to accpept them. Stop trying to place blame where there is none.

This echos roughly what i said above.