dave742 on August 16, 2008 at 11:43 AM

What, no quotes from “well known reporters” from Al Jazeera, the Iranian news agency , or Fidel and Raul Havana Daily? They to have a long history of “fair and balanced” reporting as far America is concerned.
dave&42, why don’t you crawl back to the daily kooks, or democrats hiding underground, or whatever America bashing cesspool you came from!

leucanthemum:
If the Russian government said that “anyone transmitting signals from Georgia would be fired upon, including journalists,” and subsequently dozens of journalists were killed where it is clear they were targeted, you would be OK with it, right?

Look. I made my point. If you spent any time whatsoever looking at the evidence showing that the US deliberately kills journalists in Iraq, and compared that to you evidence of Russian targeting journalists, and were able to say that Russia is targeting journalists and the US is not, you are simply incredibly biased. Of course I know that is exactly what you think, and its hilarious.

One BBC reporter quoting an anonymous source does not change the anonymity of the source or establish credibility to a story. Your statement that reporters were deliberately targeted and killed is not evidence.

A detailed accounting of journalists killed by the US military under suspicious circumstances would take a while to compile, and I don’t want to spend the time right now.

Spoken like a true conspiracist. An MSM stalwart like Eason Jordan couldn’t get away with peddling it and you won’t on this site either.

Believe whatever anti-American, anti-military fantasy that you want. It’s a free country. Just don’t expect anyone outside the BDS fever swamps to take you seriously.

In the reality-based universe, I have kids to get to the pool. Enjoy.

And you believe that?”

Sorry. I guess I cannot trust RSF since they are based in France. How stupid of me.
Can I trust Freedom House? They are based in the US and can hardly be considered anti-American. They rank press freedom in the US as tied for 21st. I am still not impressed. Maybe I cannot believe them either. Maybe I should trust you. So where does the US rank? I think I need only one guess what your answer is.

Michael Kelly was an embed

Finding one, or a few, examples where a reporter that died in Iraq was an embed is a pathetic attempt (but a common technique used by apologists to ignore information) to ignore the fact that the vast majority of the 100-plus reporters killed in Iraq were independent. Kelly is not even an example of a reporter killed by the US military, since he died in an accident. I used the list I used since it was readily available. A detailed accounting of journalists killed by the US military under suspicious circumstances would take a while to compile, and I don’t want to spend the time right now. The number is in the dozens, and I doubt that any were embeds.

you just copied your list from some anti-American, fever swamp conspiracy site

As I noted, I copied my list of reporters killed in the first few weeks of the war from the AP. Your description of the AP as an “anti-American, fever swamp conspiracy site” is a little extreme, even from an extremist website.

ample clear evidence of targeted reporters

This is not clear evidence of targeting reporters in Georgia, and the only way for you to realize that this is so is to imagine a similar video from Iraq. In that case, an identical video would, in your opinion, constitute no evidence whatsoever of targeting the reporter. In that case, you could easily come up with alternate explanations.

from an anonymous source and no evidence

My evidence for the US admission comes from Kate Adie of the BBC. She quoted an anonymous source from the Pentagon saying that journalists would be targeted. Kate Adie is a well known BBC reporter that became chief news correspondent in 1989. She has won numerous awards. It is doubtful that she would risk her career by making up stories. Her account of the conversation with a Pentagon official is credible evidence of the US targeting reporters. This is supported by the fact that dozens of reporters were indeed killed by the US military in very suspicious circumstances. It is you that has no evidence.

The US did not want independent reporting from Iraq, and those were the reporters who were targeted.
dave742 on August 16, 2008 at 8:26 AM

Most of the reporters who were killed, were either reporting from an area from which our troops were recieving fire or they were approaching a check point at high speed and did not heed signals to stop. A war zone is extremely dangerous and if you put yourself in harms way the results could be fatal.

When comparing freedom of the press between Russia and the US, the US does seem to come out on top. When comparing all nations, the US comes in 31st place. Not that impressive.

dave742 on August 16, 2008 at 8:26 AM

And you believe that?

True to form, the Georgia situation provides ample clear evidence of targeted reporters and the left is stuck trying to manufacture a “we’re in Amerikka” conspiracy from an anonymous source and no evidence. Eason Jordan lost his job putting voice to this nonsense as well he should have.

Oh, and talk to Mark Steyn and Ezra Lavant about our umimpressive freedom of the press.

Right, that’s why the were doing live remotes from the top of APCs and Tanks you moron.

Embedded reporters of course were not targeted, because their reports were vetted in order to reflect the party line. The US did not want independent reporting from Iraq, and those were the reporters who were targeted.
rockhauler:

Didn’t you forget something? Or did you deliberately leave it out? Why is your list so short?

As I said, my list was from the first three weeks of the war. The lists of total journalists killed in Iraq that I have seen are over 100.

Just straight up, honest post, what is your point?

My point is that the US military deliberately targeted journalists, and said to a BBC journalist that this would be their goal. This thread is about an incident where Russians may possibly have targeted one journalist, but this is unknown. My point is that the US military admitted that they would target independent journalists, and over 100 have since died. In light of that, I find this thread ironic.
MadisonConservative:

comparing a country where freedom of the press is fiercely defended

When comparing freedom of the press between Russia and the US, the US does seem to come out on top. When comparing all nations, the US comes in 31st place. Not that impressive.

Really? Before the Iraq war Kate Adie of the BBC was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon that anyone transmitting signals from Iraq would be fired upon, even if they were journalists. The US made good on their threats.

dave742 on August 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM

In other words, ground rules were clearly defined and the journalists were made clear of the rules?

I’m sure the exact same thing was done by Russia, and that the drunk Russian thugs don’t target them based on opportunity or bad moods. /sarc

This might be kinda mean but I thought it would be funny if after they started yelling “press” the gunfire intensified.

Darth Executor on August 15, 2008 at 8:15 PM

I recently went to an interactive shooting range. One of the scenarios was where a group of armed criminals had taken over a courthouse with many civilians being held captive. The idea was to shoot the bad guys without hitting innocent folks. As the scene opens a lawyer jumps up and yells, don’t shoot, I’m just a lawyer. The gun range attendent says everyone shoots the lawyer.

Welcome to COMBAT.

dave742 on August 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM

I was going to ignore your post since I think it is a troll, but I was hoping someone else would refute your implication.

Since it hasn’t yet happened I’ll ask the question:
Didn’t you forget something? Or did you deliberately leave it out? Why is your list so short? According to Michael Hammerschlag, 61 reporters have been killed in Iraq. (He cites ‘Committee to Protect Journalists’)

What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make, no sarcasm, no implications, no innuendo. Just straight up, honest post, what is your point?

dave742 on August 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM

Right, that’s why the were doing live remotes from the top of APCs and Tanks you moron.

Why should journalists be immune from war? Russia does not play the stupid touchy-feelie games that America does. It makes sense to silence the press. It’s the only sensible way to go.

Maybe the Russians let this clip out to let others know to keep out. This is how you invade a country and crush the enemy. I wish American leaders still had a pair of balls like that. I don’t think they are catering to the feminists.

Patton: We’re going to have to fight the Russians eventually anyway. It might as well be now while we’ve already got the army here to do it.

Ronald Reagan: “My fellow Americans, I’ve just signed legislation outlawing Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

I’m with these guys. Can we just stop being such pantywaists and do what has to be done while we have the means to do it… Even if means crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war.

Iraqi incidents are given the benefit of the doubt because actual targeting of the press is rare.

Really? Before the Iraq war Kate Adie of the BBC was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon that anyone transmitting signals from Iraq would be fired upon, even if they were journalists. The US made good on their threats. According to the AP, as of April 8, 2003 (less than three weeks after the war started), these were the journalists that had already been killed:
Tareq Ayoub
Kaveh olestan
Michael Kelly
Christian Liebig
Terry Lloyd
Paul Moran
Kamaran Muhamed
Julio Parrado
Taras Protsyuk

But I am sure they were all accidents.

I agree with every single post here. Well done everyone. Well done indeed. No hysteria, no hyperbole, just thoughtful analysis of the limited data we have.

a capella on August 15, 2008 at 10:01 PM

That’s what the Ruskies are just trying to do, Free freevillage(s) because Inside every Georgian is a Russian Communist trying to get out.

Russian rules of Engagement:
Anyone who runs is a Georgian Anyone who stands still is a well-disciplined Georgian.