OT Happy Birthday...

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:06:03 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

In article , Scott
Seidman wrote:



I'm often one of the first to criticize the cluster**** that Iraq has
become, but its hardly surprising when a journalist dies in a war zone,
accidentally or not. This is what makes war correspondents heroic. They
risk their lives to tell us what needs to be told.

This Lloyd guy knew the risks, and he assumed them. He was in the middle
of a bunch of 18 year olds in combat. I'm pretty sure that had he lived,
he'd be amongst the last to call this scenario a war crime.

Hi Scott

Your post is perfectly reasonable. I was filming in Afghanistan earlier
this year, and was threatened both by Taliban supporters and by US
military. (not by any brits but that was just happenstance.) I and all
my colleagues know the risks.

The trouble with Terry Lloyd is that he was not killed accidentally. He
was killed deliberately, with no excuse, by US marines, as he was being
rushed to hospital. Not my view - the view of the coroner at his
inquest.

And the view of his friend and cameraman, Daniel Demoustier, who was
there and survived:

" I think it was a tragic accident."

Was it? I don't know, but I'd offer the word of a "friendly witness"
carries more weight than that of a politically-motivated contract
coroner (and for those who don't know, Mr. - NOT Dr. - Webster, the
coroner, is a barrister, not a medical doctor).

He also managed to find that the evidence was clear that the US forces
"engaged" the RG forces first. Two points about that: 1) it would
hardly seem to matter who fired first in such a situation, but 2)
neither the British solders on the scene or Demoustier could say who
fired first, only that both sides were definitely firing - it was a
firefight.

Secondly, the marines who did it knew that they would not suffer any
comeback, and nor will they. They know that they may murder whomever
thy like with impunity.

That's pure bull****. Lloyd's group was traveling with an armed
Republican Guard vehicle (not by choice) and other enemy vehicles and
ran into US forces. A firefight broke out, and Lloyd's team wound up in
the middle of it. There is no way the US forces could have known Lloyd
or anyone else in particular was there, so any accusations of wanting to
"get" Lloyd or even to "get" unilateral reporters in general is
nonsense.


Of all countries, the US had, until recently, an impressive tradition
of free journalism, which has been an essential element of the American
consitution.

Yeah, it's time to hark back to more honest times when all reporters
were not only free, but encouraged to cover Roosevelt's incapacity,
Kennedy's womanizing, etc.

HTH,
R

In article ,
wrote:


And the view of his friend and cameraman, Daniel Demoustier, who was
there and survived:

" I think it was a tragic accident."

Was it? I don't know, but I'd offer the word of a "friendly witness"
carries more weight than that of a politically-motivated contract
coroner (and for those who don't know, Mr. - NOT Dr. - Webster, the
coroner, is a barrister, not a medical doctor).


Well at least, RDean, you've done your homework, which as far as I'm
concerned is 95% of the problem. On the whole, I'm happy to disagree
with anyone who's bothered to check the facts.

On the other hand - you're not a lawyer or anything, are you?

Cos that quote was very selective.

You quoted 'I think it was a tragic accident.'

The full quote is:

I think it was a tragic accident. But why weren¹t they (the Americans)
professional enough to hit the right cars? They kept firing at our car-
I¹m angry about that now. But they must have been able to see the TV
markings. We were visible the whole time, we were only a few hundred
metres away.
The French ambassador in Kuwait told me he thinks the Americans kept
shooting at me because they wanted to eliminate the evidence. That
could mean they have deliberately buried the bodies of the others if
they were hit too. .

Lazarus

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:22:57 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


And the view of his friend and cameraman, Daniel Demoustier, who was
there and survived:

" I think it was a tragic accident."

Was it? I don't know, but I'd offer the word of a "friendly witness"
carries more weight than that of a politically-motivated contract
coroner (and for those who don't know, Mr. - NOT Dr. - Webster, the
coroner, is a barrister, not a medical doctor).


Well at least, RDean, you've done your homework, which as far as I'm
concerned is 95% of the problem. On the whole, I'm happy to disagree
with anyone who's bothered to check the facts.

On the other hand - you're not a lawyer or anything, are you?

Cos that quote was very selective.

I wasn't trying to be "selective" and I think that is evidenced by my
also not including what is, if we are going to get in the minutiae of
the event, perhaps the most telling part: the u-turn information.

You quoted 'I think it was a tragic accident.'

The full quote is:

I think it was a tragic accident. But why weren¹t they (the Americans)
professional enough to hit the right cars? They kept firing at our car-
I¹m angry about that now. But they must have been able to see the TV
markings. We were visible the whole time, we were only a few hundred
metres away.
The French ambassador in Kuwait told me he thinks the Americans kept
shooting at me because they wanted to eliminate the evidence. That
could mean they have deliberately buried the bodies of the others if
they were hit too. .

The _full_ quote, huh? Er, no...

The _FULL_ quote is:

"I think it was a tragic accident. But why weren't they (the Americans)
professional enough to hit the right cars? They kept firing at our car-
I'm angry about that now. But they must have been able to see the TV
markings. We were visible the whole time, we were only a few hundred
metres away.
The French ambassador in Kuwait told me he thinks the Americans kept
shooting at me because they wanted to eliminate the evidence. That
could mean they have deliberately buried the bodies of the others if
they were hit too.
_Did we make any mistakes? The only thing I keep thinking about is that
we should not have made the U-turn. Maybe that was a mistake, but at the
time it seemed the sensible thing to do._" (Emp. add.)

IOW, these guys turned around with armed vehicles and not only appeared
to be, but actually were traveling right with enemy combatants openly
displaying and firing weapons. Moreover, they were doing it after
choosing to be unilateral rather than embedded, so no field troops, US,
UK, or otherwise knew anything about them being in the sector. Even if
the US forces could see the "TV markings," and he didn't say they
_could_, only that he thought "they must have been able to" do so. I'd
offer that under the circumstances, they certainly didn't appear to
legit journalists, especially considering that Saddam/Baathist forces
were even using Red Cross/Crescent markings in attempts to get to
coalition forces.

Simply put, his assessment that it was "a tragic accident" seems right
on the money. His speculation on what the US forces may or may not have
seen and what they should have done if they had, in fact, seen certain
things, while certainly worthy of consideration, doesn't offer a
complete view of the overall situation.

TC,
R



Lazarus

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:22:57 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


And the view of his friend and cameraman, Daniel Demoustier, who was
there and survived:

" I think it was a tragic accident."

Was it? I don't know, but I'd offer the word of a "friendly witness"
carries more weight than that of a politically-motivated contract
coroner (and for those who don't know, Mr. - NOT Dr. - Webster, the
coroner, is a barrister, not a medical doctor).


Well at least, RDean, you've done your homework, which as far as I'm
concerned is 95% of the problem. On the whole, I'm happy to disagree
with anyone who's bothered to check the facts.

On the other hand - you're not a lawyer or anything, are you?

Cos that quote was very selective.

I wasn't trying to be "selective" and I think that is evidenced by my
also not including what is, if we are going to get in the minutiae of
the event, perhaps the most telling part: the u-turn information.

You quoted 'I think it was a tragic accident.'

The full quote is:

I think it was a tragic accident. But why weren¹t they (the Americans)
professional enough to hit the right cars? They kept firing at our car-
I¹m angry about that now. But they must have been able to see the TV
markings. We were visible the whole time, we were only a few hundred
metres away.
The French ambassador in Kuwait told me he thinks the Americans kept
shooting at me because they wanted to eliminate the evidence. That
could mean they have deliberately buried the bodies of the others if
they were hit too. .

The _full_ quote, huh? Er, no...

The _FULL_ quote is:

"I think it was a tragic accident. But why weren't they (the Americans)
professional enough to hit the right cars? They kept firing at our car-
I'm angry about that now. But they must have been able to see the TV
markings. We were visible the whole time, we were only a few hundred
metres away.
The French ambassador in Kuwait told me he thinks the Americans kept
shooting at me because they wanted to eliminate the evidence. That
could mean they have deliberately buried the bodies of the others if
they were hit too.
_Did we make any mistakes? The only thing I keep thinking about is that
we should not have made the U-turn. Maybe that was a mistake, but at the
time it seemed the sensible thing to do._" (Emp. add.)

IOW, these guys turned around with armed vehicles and not only appeared
to be, but actually were traveling right with enemy combatants openly
displaying and firing weapons. Moreover, they were doing it after
choosing to be unilateral rather than embedded, so no field troops, US,
UK, or otherwise knew anything about them being in the sector. Even if
the US forces could see the "TV markings," and he didn't say they
_could_, only that he thought "they must have been able to" do so. I'd
offer that under the circumstances, they certainly didn't appear to
legit journalists, especially considering that Saddam/Baathist forces
were even using Red Cross/Crescent markings in attempts to get to
coalition forces.

Simply put, his assessment that it was "a tragic accident" seems right
on the money. His speculation on what the US forces may or may not have
seen and what they should have done if they had, in fact, seen certain
things, while certainly worthy of consideration, doesn't offer a
complete view of the overall situation.

I'm sure I speak for everyone in this group (and, oh that it were the rest
of the world as well!) in reaffirming that we have come to rely so heavily
on you for the complete view of EVERY overall situation, that we can hardly
remember a time when we muddled through on our own.......or how.

Moron.

Wolfgang

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:26:27 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:22:57 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


And the view of his friend and cameraman, Daniel Demoustier, who was
there and survived:

" I think it was a tragic accident."

Was it? I don't know, but I'd offer the word of a "friendly witness"
carries more weight than that of a politically-motivated contract
coroner (and for those who don't know, Mr. - NOT Dr. - Webster, the
coroner, is a barrister, not a medical doctor).


Well at least, RDean, you've done your homework, which as far as I'm
concerned is 95% of the problem. On the whole, I'm happy to disagree
with anyone who's bothered to check the facts.

On the other hand - you're not a lawyer or anything, are you?

Cos that quote was very selective.

I wasn't trying to be "selective" and I think that is evidenced by my
also not including what is, if we are going to get in the minutiae of
the event, perhaps the most telling part: the u-turn information.

You quoted 'I think it was a tragic accident.'

The full quote is:

I think it was a tragic accident. But why weren¹t they (the Americans)
professional enough to hit the right cars? They kept firing at our car-
I¹m angry about that now. But they must have been able to see the TV
markings. We were visible the whole time, we were only a few hundred
metres away.
The French ambassador in Kuwait told me he thinks the Americans kept
shooting at me because they wanted to eliminate the evidence. That
could mean they have deliberately buried the bodies of the others if
they were hit too. .

The _full_ quote, huh? Er, no...

The _FULL_ quote is:

"I think it was a tragic accident. But why weren't they (the Americans)
professional enough to hit the right cars? They kept firing at our car-
I'm angry about that now. But they must have been able to see the TV
markings. We were visible the whole time, we were only a few hundred
metres away.
The French ambassador in Kuwait told me he thinks the Americans kept
shooting at me because they wanted to eliminate the evidence. That
could mean they have deliberately buried the bodies of the others if
they were hit too.
_Did we make any mistakes? The only thing I keep thinking about is that
we should not have made the U-turn. Maybe that was a mistake, but at the
time it seemed the sensible thing to do._" (Emp. add.)

IOW, these guys turned around with armed vehicles and not only appeared
to be, but actually were traveling right with enemy combatants openly
displaying and firing weapons. Moreover, they were doing it after
choosing to be unilateral rather than embedded, so no field troops, US,
UK, or otherwise knew anything about them being in the sector. Even if
the US forces could see the "TV markings," and he didn't say they
_could_, only that he thought "they must have been able to" do so. I'd
offer that under the circumstances, they certainly didn't appear to
legit journalists, especially considering that Saddam/Baathist forces
were even using Red Cross/Crescent markings in attempts to get to
coalition forces.

Simply put, his assessment that it was "a tragic accident" seems right
on the money. His speculation on what the US forces may or may not have
seen and what they should have done if they had, in fact, seen certain
things, while certainly worthy of consideration, doesn't offer a
complete view of the overall situation.

I'm sure I speak for everyone in this group (and, oh that it were the rest
of the world as well!) in reaffirming that we have come to rely so heavily
on you for the complete view of EVERY overall situation, that we can hardly
remember a time when we muddled through on our own.......or how.

Moron.

And here's the remaining 5%...Shih Tzus on an estrogen overload...well,
be careful, lil' pup, or you'll get a broomstick up your ass and be used
as a floor duster...

SNICKER
R

Wolfgang

wrote in message
...


SNICKER

Uh huh.

Wolfgang

"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
news:131120070022579289%lazaruscooke@britishlibrar y.invalid...

On the whole, I'm happy to disagree
with anyone who's bothered to check the facts.

And what better motto and raison d'etre could you or ROFF* possibly ask for?

Wolfgang
*or usenet, for that matter.