Liberals read this.

[Johnno]

Mamie what the fuck are you on about? crying for the kurds and now the sunni's?

Coldharvest you strategic genious you. If only the CIA had hired you for direct cosultation all this death would have been averted. What top secret intel have you gotten to determine assasination was not only possible but would have 'sent a clear message to the UN, the fundamentalists and the rest of the world' where the invasion and toppling of saddam has not?

I didn't deny anything. Iraq did have an election before you got there and Saddam was elected, how could I deny a shining historical fact?

Yes, a fact. Just like the fact that it was a farce, but hey that doesnt stop you from comparing to a real election and a real democracy.

Mike, I appreciate your points and perspective. I still feel in the case of the insurgency that to roll with them like you did with US soldiers would be akin to documenting the 9/11 attacks and giving no warning. Its the old question 'does a photographer save life where possible or just film death' If you let a kid drown while you film him die you are immoral scum, so why if you let soldiers die while you film are you neutral? It all hinges on your belief that insurgents and soliders are both as legitimate as each other. But as I have said if you want to take that path then you need to admit that bin laden and his attack on America are OK too.

[kilroy]

But as I have said if you want to take that path then you need to admit that bin laden and his attack on America are OK too.

there is a big difference in attacking soldiers in your own country and attacking civilians in a different one.

[coldharvest]

that doesn't stop you from comparing to a real election and a real democracy.

Who's comparing?
You want me to say Saddam was a cunt and Iraq was a land of torture, fear and a breeding ground for anti-American terror networks.
Not a problem.
You want me to say The World should be more like pre-9/11 America and less like Saddam's Iraq.
You got it.
You want me to say you right-wingers are so clever for invading
Iraq and it's 'liberal attitudes' that prevent you from achieving victory then you can eat me like a Frenchmen.

What top secret intel have you gotten

Like I'd tell you Osama,
Loose lips sink ships.

ps;
got any pictures of you 'in country'? I bet not.

[Vincent]

I still feel in the case of the insurgency that to roll with them like you did with US soldiers would be akin to documenting the 9/11 attacks and giving no warning.

No, not at all. Bin Laden attacked civilians in a foreign country. The insugency is attacking soldiers FROM a foreign country. If you are talking about the insurgency attacking civilians, you have a point, but that's not an argument you've made.

so why if you let soldiers die while you film are you neutral?

Soldiers are there to fight, no? Isn't this a war? Are you one of those special soldiers who want to shoot at people, but thinks it unfair when people shoot back?

But as I have said if you want to take that path then you need to admit that bin laden and his attack on America are OK too.

Again, you are making a specious jump in your logic. Bin Laden was not right to attack America because again, he was attacking civilians in a foreign country. When you are attacking foreign military personnel in your own country, very different.

[Johnno]

If you are talking about the insurgency attacking civilians, you have a point, but that's not an argument you've made.

Yes I have, read my posts.

Your whole feeble argument rests on the assumption there are insurgents who differentiate between targets. I have already explained this is not the case. If you dont believe me do some research.

[kilroy]

yes, but the journalist wasn't filiming attacks on civilians. if you proved that he was, or that he was privy to that information, then you might have a point, but as it stands, you don't.

[Vincent]

There is nowhere in any of your posts where you talk about a journalist filming attacks on civilians. You talk about a journalist who had film of previous attacks on military convoys.

In fact, here is the quote from the article you posted:

"U.S. military officials said the man's camera held footage of a number of roadside bomb attacks against American troops, and they believe he was tipped off to those attacks. "

Your whole feeble argument rests on the assumption there are insurgents who differentiate between targets.

No, Johnno, not at all. My argument rests on the fact that insurgents DO attack military targets. When they do, it is legitimate. when they attack civilians, it is not. It's not the insurgents who differentiate, it is me.

[mamie]

johnno, those who crieth for the kurds and/or the sunnis knoweth who they are. you can't please all of the people all of the time.

well, i can't anyway.

and if i was an american who had foreknowledge of attacks that were to take place against americans and had the opportunity to film the attacks without notifying my countrymen, i would consider myself a traitor if the targets were soldiers or a criminal if the targets were civilians of any stripe, journo or no journo. therefore, i wouldn't. the key word here is "foreknowledge". if i'm going to have it, then i'd have to be on the side i was taking. and i guess i'd have to take whatever came down the pike as a result of that. that's how I feel about it, anyway.

[Johnno]

Well mamie it appears you and I are alone in that. It seems the rest of the people who have read this thread would happily set up a tripod to film their fellow countymen getting killed in front of them, all in the name of neutrality and the dollar (while of course considering themselves infinitely more moral than cheney and bush)

[Renard]

Well mamie it appears you and I are alone in that. It seems the rest of the people who have read this thread would happily set up a tripod to film their fellow countymen getting killed in front of them, all in the name of neutrality and the dollar (while of course considering themselves infinitely more moral than cheney and bush)

Congratulations. You've really captured the essence of the criticism directed against your post.

Still don't have a clue what all this has to do with liberalism, though.

[kilroy]

It seems the rest of the people who have read this thread would happily set up a tripod to film their fellow countymen getting killed in front of them, all in the name of neutrality and the dollar (while of course considering themselves infinitely more moral than cheney and bush)

it's not something i'd do myself. but i dont think it should be legal to arrest someone else for doing it.

[Johnno]

I explained that, just for you. I guess there is no need to read a whole post to comment, only the title.

[Mikethehack]

This is an old story. I have heard this situation plenty of times where guerillas set up an ambush and allow you to film it, Afghanistan being a good example in one case and plenty of situations in Africa or the Balkans or Israel, ad infitum.

If you expose the ambush, either by alerting the civilians of the possibility of the ambush then you will be shot because you are effectively betraying the guys you are with. Your conscience got you killed, but hey it's comforting to be a dead hero and your family will think you were cool too for going all the way out there and they will soon be broke because most freelancers don't have life insurance. So you walk away, you don't film but the attack goes ahead,people die,Catch-22.

Should have stayed at home,but then who is going to show what's really going on there, that the American/Arab (you decide) terrorists are killing innocent civilians. Guilty again.

Doesn't matter which side you are on because you are going to be guilty in someone's eyes, either because you were on the Coalition side in an ambush when civilans got killed (filming propaganda for them) or you were on the Insurgents' side (filming propaganda for them) or even because you decided to stay at home and are guilty of indifference to the plight of innocent civilians who are being killed in the fighting. Catch-22.

I have come across several car accidents and weighed up the situation as was. If no-one on scene had any first aid skills (I do) then I jumped in and went to work.
If there was paramedics on site then I would shoot the scene and hand over the tapes to the police or paramedics for forensic,medical or legal purposes and always for free (we work a lot of the same jobs anyway) because unless it was a mega pile-up then I wouldn't expect to get any money for it because there is no real market for that kind of stuff.

Any besides,how many people are killed every year on,for instance US roads (30,000?) or British roads where roadside IEDs claim no lives at all?

And it's not an issue of morality (I wish) it's just the simple fact of staying alive. It's not rocket science.

And as for drowing? Sorry,but I have no experience of that at all,so I can't comment.

[mamie]

that's why i wouldn't be able to "enbed" with the insurgents in Iraq because i know they're targeting americans and civilians. i understand what you're saying, though, about the importance of documenting history as it were. and you've said you accept the risks inherent in being with whatever group of people you're with and i respect that "no hard feelings" attitude.

i really can't imagine what it would be like to do what you do.