Iraq: Journalist Killed by Apache Gunship on Live Television

http://metafilter.com/mefi/35561
from JoeUser Forums
From MetaFilter:
Yesterday, Mazen al-Tomasi, a reporter for Al-Arabiya, was broadcasting live from the scene of a carbombed Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which had attracted a crowd of locals. While making his report, a sudden noise came from behind Mazen.

Two Apache helicopters flew in overhead, and one of them started attacking the crowd, with their guns. The crowd, which included several small children, tried to run away. A helicopter launched a missile...

Mazen al-Tomasi was struck by shrapnel from the blast on live television. His cameraman, Seif Fouad, fell down from the force of the explosion. Mazen's blood spattered across the camera's lens and the screams of the dying and injured were heard. Mazen screamed to Seif for help: "Seif, Seif! I'm going to die. I'm going to die."

Seif grabbed Mazen and started to pull him out of harm's way. Suddenly, another missile was launched, and Seif was hit by shrapnel in the leg and abdomen. Seif, seriously wounded, watched his friend Mazen die soon afterwards. Twelve were killed, 61 wounded in the attack.

A US military spokesman said the helicopters opened fire after coming under attack from the crowd, and that they fired to prevent looters from stripping the vehicle. That said, the vehicle was burning too badly to be stripped, and the television footage showed no evidence of any shooting from the ground, or indeed, any armed Iraqis whatsoever. The full video of this is was seen by millions of Arabs and is apparently something that Reuters has the rights to -- Saif works for Reuters -- but something tells me that it will never make the evening news.
politics
11,699 views 31 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was shown on ABC TV here in Australia as well. It was a fairly terrible video, and the blood on the camera lens didn't make it any better. A sad indictment on the men and women crewing that helicopter.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Video Link
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have not seen the vid yet, but I did see the pictures from the “filter” website. I have a few questions:

How long between the time the Bradley was immobilized to the Apache appearance?

How long was the Bradley burning? Why was the Bradley burning?

Why was there a group of people near the Bradley?

What happened to the crew of the Bradley?

If the helicopter was heard on the tape, it must have been visible. How long from it’s appearance until the first missile strike?

Not enough details.

IG
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
Some more info on the subject from NBC San Diego Link
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Probably not a great idea to hang out in the middle of a battle.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
It's probably true the reporter was careless, maybe reckless, but why would the helicopters fire a missile into the crowd? I can see firing the machine gun in an open area as a warning shot, but...
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
**open EMPTY area
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Probably not a great idea to hang out in the middle of a battle.


I'll second that. Even if the crowd had gathered only for the "innocent" purpose of rubbernecking, they should not have been there. Parents need to stop letting their children roam around like that (and stop taking them to the scene of things like that). Further, when they saw the helicopter, they should have gotten the hell out of there.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
It's probably true the reporter was careless, maybe reckless, but why would the helicopters fire a missile into the crowd?


It was directed at the Bradley, supposedly, and it was to stop them from looting and taking weapons and muntions from the vehicle.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
why would the helicopters fire a missile into the crowd? I can see firing the machine gun in an open area as a warning shot


If I read the reports right, the Apache was shooting at the Bradley to destroy any weapons or sensative items that we would not want to fall into the wrong hands. The crowd was near or orund the Bradley when the missile was fired.

I do not know the blast diameter of an Apache missile. I would assume it is more than 10 feet. So even if it struck the Bradley, it would still take out the immediate area.

IG
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
The point is, this stuff gets sent out all over the Arab world, and trust me, they aren't deciding whether the crowd should have been "rubbernecking or not." Because so much of the world opposes this war, every little mistake the U.S. military makes, and in wars, mistakes are always made, gets magnified and scrutinized. Our government should have thought of how this war would play to the rest of the world. I for one (and I barely escaped with my life from the Marriott Hotel on the morning of September 11) do not feel this war is making us any safer.
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
This was an unfortunate mistake, but I'm sure al-Jazeera is delighted by it.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
People seem to forget that innocent people will always get hurt in a war/conflict, etc. or where ever there are two opposing sides shooting at each other.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
People seem to forget that innocent people will always get hurt in a war/conflict, etc. or where ever there are two opposing sides shooting at each other


Hmmm.... Now suppose some impoverished terrorist (who calls himself a "freedom fighter") offered this as a response to 9/11. I know I'd be outraged (as I think many would be). I am not trying to equate the two events; there are obviously significant differences. But I think we need to be careful about deploying the "innocents will suffer" (presumably for the greater good) argument too casually.

The problem is that, in an occupation, it is hard to tell the insurgents from the innocents. And after a while, the "break a few eggs" argument rings a little hollow, especially when there don't seem to be too many omelettes forthcoming.

"The people" who most seem to have forgotten about the hurting of innocents in conflict are the people who start wars without sufficient and compelling reasons or, for that matter, objectives. Lay that criticism on Al Quaida as well as, well...
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
You aren't comparing the US to al-Qaeda are you?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
You aren't comparing the US to al-Qaeda are you?


Nope. I'm also not defending al-Qaida and its terrorist actions in any way. But then, I also don't defend the current administration's war in Iraq. And I really don't defend (in this particular case) the argument that you have to take some innocent lives in the process of pursuing the greater good, especially when that "greater good" is so ill-defined (as in the case of our war in Iraq).
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
Alright. Sorry I mistook your point.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I feel the crew of the Apache helicopter that fired the missile shouldn't have valued the items in the Bradley more than they did the lives of the people they could see around the Bradley, though if there were usable weapons in the Bradley, it seems the Apache crew felt that the Americans that might be killed by those weapons were to be defended in advance. One could argue that the Iraqi insurgents have plenty of weapons already, and that a few more wouldn't have made any difference, but I suppose the crew of the Apache felt differently. This one isn't as easy to call as it seems.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #19 By: jonsaw (Anonymous) - 10/2/2004 12:51:57 PM
I feel the crew of the Apache helicopter that fired the missile shouldn't have valued the items in the Bradley more than they did the lives of the people they could see around the Bradley, though if there were usable weapons in the Bradley, it seems the Apache crew felt that the Americans that might be killed by those weapons were to be defended in advance. One could argue that the Iraqi insurgents have plenty of weapons already, and that a few more wouldn't have made any difference, but I suppose the crew of the Apache felt differently. This one isn't as easy to call as it seems.


Weapons aren't the *only* things in the Bradley. The comm and electronic gear is potentially way MORE dangerous than the weapons! With the comm gear they could listen in on troop movements and such not! This is why I say that the media don't need to report "everything". Because your only getting the *what* from them and NOT the *why*!
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
This is why I say that the media don't need to report "everything".
You know, it is comments like this that make me boil. Maybe you really don't get it, but it seems like you are willfully not getting it.

The problem is not that the American press covered this event and used it to mislead the American public. The problem is that nuetral and enemy press has it on film, and our opponents can use it for their own purposes -- and it is no stretch to believe that American lives will be lost as a result.

We have ourselves in one heck of a mess, where we are now damned no matter what we do. Only an idiot wants the equipment from that Bradley falling into insurgent hands, and only an idiot wants footage of splattered children and/or reporters on newscasts throughout the region or the world.

Regardless of who voted for it or led it, our country has made a colossal mistake, and while our leaders are busy putting their favorite spin on it, America's interests are down the toilet. This time, the spin will be that it was the helicopter crew's fault, another infuriating page in the story.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is the helicopter's crews fault, but they are being supported by the leaders in Iraq. Yes, we need to keep the bradley's equipment out of the hands of enimies, but they couldn't have for example emp'ed the bradley instead of blowing it up? They couldnt have sprayed tear gas below to disperse the crowd and then blow up the bradley? The problem is that the army is acting with haste, and not even accounting for loss of life. They care more about going with the most efficient or the cheaperst method, even if it means a few dozen lives.
Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
It is the helicopter's crews fault, but they are being supported by the leaders in Iraq. Yes, we need to keep the bradley's equipment out of the hands of enimies, but they couldn't have for example emp'ed the bradley instead of blowing it up? They couldnt have sprayed tear gas below to disperse the crowd and then blow up the bradley? The problem is that the army is acting with haste, and not even accounting for loss of life. They care more about going with the most efficient or the cheaperst method, even if it means a few dozen lives.


SOP for an unrecoverable vehicle that has been damaged and one cannot access the vehicle to destroy equipment with Incendiary grenades is for it to be blown up with Close Air Support, after all besides the weapons, communication equipment, there are also sensitive items and possibly bodies of US Soldiers that we don't want falling into the hands of any opposition forces no matter who is around the tank, they would have opened fire on the tank, excuse me vehicle since the thing is not armored like a true tank, even if the Pope was standing on it with the Dalai Lama singing a song of unification. I guess the lives of all the soldiers of the US in Iraq don't mean spit if you wanted them to wait to fire on that Bradley. When I am talking sensitive items I mean documents like what code to use when, and other little stuff along with a map that is marked with whatever military data they put on it.

Spray tear gas, ha, I did not know the Apache carried tear gas dispensers, let alone to dispense the tear gas more Soldiers would have been put in harm's way, but don't worry the Army did an AAR as always taking the lessons of what they did right and what they did wrong into account and training and preparing for next time.

Any military person can tell you, you must destroy all sensitive items and equipment so that it does not fall in enemy hands, which is why if an Apache goes down they flip a switch that frys all the electronics in the bird.

- GX
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I didn't say they shouldn't blow up the vehicle, or destroy it, but arent there other ways to do it? Can the bradley be made to blow up after a certain time on it's own after the flip of a switch, with a warning to those in the area the vehicle would blow up in x minutes? Can't the bradley spray tear gas? Can't SOP be changed to include measures that don't kill people? I don't work for the military, but it seems to me that with a few changes, it would not be that hard to prevent the slaughter of innocent lives. Even if it cost a billion dollars, it would be worth it.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Give me a BREAK, all of you left wing peaceniks out there! What the hell is WRONG with you people? War is HELL. Innocent people, like civilians and relief workers and news reporters who put themselves IN HARM'S WAY, sometimes have to suffer the consequences for their RECKLESS ACTIONS.

The fact that it was an Al-Arabiya propagandist who got killed at least makes this whole thing justifiable. Too bad it wasn't Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings!

The lesson learned by this incident is that if you see something that looks like an combat engagement of some kind, STAY OUT OF THE WAY. Stupid ass arabs..........

So just WHERE is this OUTRAGE when innocent AMERICAN civilians are being kidnapped and viciously beheaded in front of the TV cameras? HYPOCRITS! You all make me PUKE!