Hmmm....using journalists as human shields. Looks like a win/win to me.

A target rich area?

"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred."

I think the command is FIRE 1, Fire 2 Fire......

Just as they were about to launch on their target,Qadaffi's forces got in the way. One can still dream.

Sounds like a great target of opportunity to me!

Bombs away. With BO at the helm, CNN wouldn't dare complain about losing a couple of piker journalists.

Useless idiots!

Stupid is as stupid does. If these journos can't figure out that they are being used, then screw them. They are just a bunch of Rachel Corries'.

MSM clowns are there to protect and serve.
-

Many years ago I had an M-16 about 3 meters from Dan Rather's head and a magazine with a full clip.

to our MSM in Kdaffys land
-
(good night and good luck.)

The may not win Pulitzers, but they certainly qualify for the Darwins.

james, pissedoff, BillyHW, atric....

Yeah those thoughts occured as I read the initial post.....I guess I'm not that exceptional...I figured...BONUS....

BTW...It's Fox 1, Fox2, Fox3......

"Russia, which abstained from voting for harsh military actions against Libya in the UN Security Council, has sharply criticized the West for "staging a military intervention in a sovereign state.""

Fifty points if someone can guess why this is a laughable quote.

Georgia? Afghanistan?

Wanna pitch in for one-way tickets for Fife, Behar, Maddog and Schultz? We could let Rosie O'Donnell and Mikie Moore go along if they agree to pay the fuel surcharge for the extra weight.

bombs away!

If only I was a fighter pilot.................

What's a CNN?
It's a prophet's armageddon declaration in ebonics.

Isn't this what CNN did when, they worked secretly with Sadam Hussein during the Iraq invasion?

We need a new reality TV show. Next time the pilots ought to be allowed to hold a web poll, or phone in -- sorta like "So You Think You Can Dance": Launch/Don't Launch.
I can see it now --
"Dial 1 for our dashing and handsome pilot with the suave British accent risking life and limb for the oppressed of the world, just waiting to press the trigger. Remember, he needs your vote. Dial 2 for the sleazy, weasel-faced CNN reporter shilling for the murderous dictator."
"Ooooooh, the numbers aren't lookin' too good for CNN, Vanessa."
"Nope, and the polling is now closed Richard so . . . we'll see you back right after the break to see how close the missile landed and wether or not Lieutenant Cooper can score that elusive "ten" with our judges."

As much as I would snicker at some media bimbos getting cratered, I'm not buying the human shield angle. There are no shortage of Libyan civilians to be "volunteered" for this job. Western media only represent a headache for Ghaddafi, because he must curtail the casual executions in their presence while ensuring they only see what they are supposed to. What I'm saying is that human shields are cheap for him and not worth going through this song and dance - he's in it for the propaganda value.

Gleefully fantasizing about the violent deaths of American, British, and other civilians...pure class.

Max; you may be partly right with the propaganda angle, but having Westerners camped in your front yard with live coverage is way more effective than a bunch of locals with no media. The proof IS the pudding.

It falls in the same category as the darwin awards for me. I'm not fantasizing, or hoping this happens to reporters. But accepting an invite to tour a military compound from the Libyan ministry of information during active airstrikes is no different than playing hopscotch in a minefield. I reserve room for a macabre chuckle without scruples. Call it what you will.

US general tonight repeatedly stressing "we are not targeting Gadaffhi."

Kind of hard to imagine the allies in '45 saying they weren't trying to kill Hitler.

Jamie, I think Patton would have had a choice comment regarding "we are not targeting Gadaffhi".

What sasquatch said, "bonus".

The Mad Dog of the desert has brought this on himself, much to late though.

Gleefully fantasizing about the violent deaths of American, British, and other civilians...pure class.

Posted by: Davenport at March 21, 2011 9:22 PM

Really...these pond sucking scum need to be grouped in as "civilians". They are hardly that by any stretch. They are human beings though and all life is precious but don't pretend they are not there because they need to be. It's the story after all.

Seems to me every one is at the party except the Islamics. I don't blame them. Let the Kaffur die instead.

Davenport sneered: "Gleefully fantasizing about the violent deaths of American, British, and other civilians...pure class."

Accepting invitation from insane dictator during shooting war, on day three of international air strikes, to visit his fortified compound... pure genius.

You're an arts major, right Davenport? There's a word they use to describe a guy who actively aids and abets an enemy in time of war, starts with a "t", can't quite seem to remember...

Oh and by the way, aren't these air strikes going on because MooMoo has been saying he's going to de-populate the whole frickin' country? Something about "No mercy!" wasn't it? And mustard gas. Lots of it. All primed and ready to be deployed... against civilians? Ringing a bell here?

Still feel the same about CNN turning the jets off a guy who's been threatening to kill several -million- people, Davenport?

Do you even think before you type, or is it strictly hormone driven with you?

Try weighing the deaths of several million Libyans against a couple of friggin' imbecile news crews who went someplace they bloody well knew would be on the blow-it-up list, in the hope thay might get some footage of it blowing up, and maybe a nice fresh body or two, so they could SELL IT to the highest bidder. How's that math stack up for ya?

And you wonder why people mock you and your dipstick peacenik friends. Gawd.

I have to ask, why are they targetting Qadaffi's compound? Seems to me that has less to do with a no-fly zone than an attack on the Mad Dog himself. They've intervened and taken sides.

I expect we'll come to regret this action.

>I have to ask, why are they targetting Qadaffi's compound?

I'm gonna guess Ghaddafi has more than a couple compounds. I expect we'll come to regret not nuking the whole region about 40 years ago.

And because this "no fly zone" status authorizes attacks against air defenses, any structure with a fence around it that has ever emitted RF of any kind is a potential missile magnet.

And why, pray tell, is attacking Godaffey OK when attacking Sodaminsane was the crime of the century?
I remember, it was all about oil, Bush and Haliberton. It was an illegal war. There were no WMD's; gasp wheeze.
But now everything is just OK? Do tell! Only in the MSM; you say?

daven it damnport...er...damnit davenport...we're in a goddamn war damnit ....we're under siege from without and within ....our fourth column is a fifth eatate davenit damnport can't you see?...well, nearly as bad as all that i dessay....

so finally we have an opportunity....we've got a chance to really 'stir the pot ' as it were among and within our woggy 'friends' heh heh heh 'commonweal'.....and YOU think a few delta plus intellect talking heads should delay furthering the imminentizing of the eschaton?

Here's a link to the Michael Savage radio show. Fast forward to 5:50 and listen until 7:00, and then again from 8:28 on. It's relevant.

(I caught him speaking about this on another occasion, and he said something like "you don't how these New York Times lefties think. To them, the life of a white trash soldier has no value compared to the life of a wonderful, important liberal journalist.")

Funny that ..."To them, the life of a white trash soldier has no value compared to the life of a wonderful, important liberal journalist."
We soldiers feel the exact same way about scum sucking parasitic leftist journalists. Except we are capable of exercising restraint in the execution of our profession... wish they could say the same.

bvewey: "Really...these pond sucking scum need to be grouped in as "civilians". They are hardly that by any stretch."

You really should look up the actual definition of "civilian" sometime.

The Phantom: "Accepting invitation from insane dictator during shooting war, on day three of international air strikes, to visit his fortified compound... pure genius."

As war correspondents, they were doing their jobs. The alternative is to report from a hotel, or even State-side, in which case, why bother?

By the way, the RAF aborted the attack not because SAS spotters identified Nic Robertson in the target area, but because SAS spotters identified a significant number of civilians (mostly Libyans, as well as Nic Robertson) in the target area. A British airstrike that kills scores of Libyan civilians would have been a propaganda coup for Qaddafi. As it stands, aborting the RAF strike in order to avoid civilian casualties is turning into a propaganda coup for the Brits and her allies.

As Con Coughling writes in the Telegraph: "The humanity displayed by the fighter pilots from 9 Squadron was in stark contrast to the brutality regularly meted out by Gaddafi's forces to antigovernment rebels...In a conflict that has been launched primarily on humanitarian grounds — to protect the rebels from Gaddafi's murderous assaults — it is crucial that the coalition maintains the moral high ground by taking every measure to avoid killing civilians. That will inevitably lead to claims that coalition forces are prosecuting the military campaign with their arms tied behind their backs, but if this creates difficulties for the coalition's military planners, then so be it. There is already enough suspicion throughout the Arab world about the West's ultimate objectives in launching military action against Gaddafi...Arab support remains crucial if the coalition is to achieve its ultimate objective of removing Gaddafi. All it would take is for one stray bomb to kill a large number of civilians for that support to disappear into the sands of the Libyan Desert."

"Still feel the same about CNN turning the jets off a guy who's been threatening to kill several -million- people, Davenport?"

FYI - your singular focus on CNN kinda betrays your real motive here. After all, a Fox staffer was also part of the press convoy that went to the site. And the News Corp-owned Times of London was also there. Funny, though, how nobody here is kvetching about "...CNN and Times of London turning the jets off..." or "What's a 'FoxNews'?". Wonder why that is?

bvewey: "Really...these pond sucking scum need to be grouped in as "civilians". They are hardly that by any stretch."

You really should look up the actual definition of "civilian" sometime.

The Phantom: "Accepting invitation from insane dictator during shooting war, on day three of international air strikes, to visit his fortified compound... pure genius."

As war correspondents, they were doing their jobs. The alternative is to report from a hotel, or even State-side, in which case, why bother?

By the way, the RAF aborted the attack not because SAS spotters identified Nic Robertson in the target area, but because SAS spotters identified a significant number of civilians (mostly Libyans, as well as Nic Robertson) in the target area. A British airstrike that kills scores of Libyan civilians would have been a propaganda coup for Qaddafi. As it stands, aborting the RAF strike in order to avoid civilian casualties is turning into a propaganda coup for the Brits and her allies.

As Con Coughling writes in the Telegraph: "The humanity displayed by the fighter pilots from 9 Squadron was in stark contrast to the brutality regularly meted out by Gaddafi's forces to antigovernment rebels...In a conflict that has been launched primarily on humanitarian grounds — to protect the rebels from Gaddafi's murderous assaults — it is crucial that the coalition maintains the moral high ground by taking every measure to avoid killing civilians. That will inevitably lead to claims that coalition forces are prosecuting the military campaign with their arms tied behind their backs, but if this creates difficulties for the coalition's military planners, then so be it. There is already enough suspicion throughout the Arab world about the West's ultimate objectives in launching military action against Gaddafi...Arab support remains crucial if the coalition is to achieve its ultimate objective of removing Gaddafi. All it would take is for one stray bomb to kill a large number of civilians for that support to disappear into the sands of the Libyan Desert."

-telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8397233/Libya-abortive-raid-lets-Allies-keep-moral-high-ground.html

"Still feel the same about CNN turning the jets off a guy who's been threatening to kill several -million- people, Davenport?"

FYI - your singular focus on CNN kinda betrays your real motive here. After all, a Fox staffer was also part of the press convoy that went to the site. And the News Corp-owned Times of London was also there. Funny, though, how nobody here is kvetching about "...CNN and Times of London turning the jets off..." or "What's a 'FoxNews'?". Wonder why that is?

Daven it, Damnenport (heh), I would feel exactly the same way journalists from any network endangering soldiers and compromising military operations (why we are having military operations in Libya I don't know, but that's something else). The only ideological component here is that Fox is less likely to be openly contemptuous of the military than a left-leaning network is.

The reporters' behaviour in this instance was appallingly irresponsible and you know it. They are lucky to be alive. I think it should be made very clear to all journalists from all networks that military operations will not be compromised in the future to accomodate this kind of recklessness.

"The reporters' behaviour in this instance was appallingly irresponsible and you know it. They are lucky to be alive. I think it should be made very clear to all journalists from all networks that military operations will not be compromised in the future to accomodate this kind of recklessness."

There are indeed lucky to be alive, but that's true of any proper war correspondent, even the most non-reckless ones.

There's nothing to suggest that they were being irresponsible or reckless here. If they were being intentionally used as human shields, why would their government handlers have hustled them in and out in under 30 minutes? Why wouldn't their Libyan minders have kept them there longer?

And remember: had the press convoy not been at the compound, the RAF still would have aborted the attack after Libyan civilians were spotted in the area (and by "aborted", I mean "postponed" -- the compound was bombed again last night: news24.com/Africa/News/Gaddafis-complex-bombed-again-20110322). So contrary to what Fox News would have you think, the presence of CNN, Reuters, etc. ultimately had zero effect on the RAF decision.

The job of a war correspondent is to cover a conflict zone first-hand. The members of the press convoy were doing their jobs. It's a vital one -- without independent journalists on the ground, all we are left with are official government-issued statements. (When's the last time you trusted something the government told you? What if it's concerning a military mission you disagree with?) It's also a dangerous job, one in which many members are killed each year.

Do you really agree with the tone of the comments here? They're not just saying that Western reporters inadvertently killed by a British airstrike would only have themselves to blame. Some are actually rooting for their deaths ("Looks like a win/win to me." "Sounds like a great target of opportunity to me!"). Pure class, indeed.

One of the things that came out AFTER Gulf I was that the live link CNN coverage from Baghdad, which Saddam allowed for propaganda purposes was exploited as the intelligence asset it really was by the coalition.
I recall the spooks just couldn't believe their luck at having real time TV from a tall building in Baghdad....
Saddam didn't do it during Gulf II........

"So contrary to what Fox News would have you think, the presence of CNN, Reuters, etc. ultimately had zero effect on the RAF decision." Ultimately, perhaps, although I'd like it if you'd cite a source (and for the "30 minutes" thing). But if there had happened to be no Libyan civilians in the area the same thing would have happened, wouldn't it? Because of the journalists? Who were there, right?

"The job of a war correspondent is to cover a conflict zone first-hand". Yes, but not to act as human shields. Anyway, if danger's what they want, then let them get killed. I thought one of the "first rules" of journalism was "don't become the story". How about a military "no wasting resources rescuing journalists who put themselves in harm's way" rule?

As for this "tone" thing, no, I can't say it bugs me too much. No journalists were killed in this instance, so a little black humour along the lines of "win/win" doesn't push my indignation buttons. But your mileage may vary. (Teddy Kennedy asking everyone he ran into if they'd heard any good Chappaquiddick jokes lately: That grosses me out.)

BTW, ever read Scoop? Not that Evelyn Waugh strikes me as being your cup of tea.

"Ultimately, perhaps, although I'd like it if you'd cite a source (and for the "30 minutes" thing).

Re: presence of Libyan and foreign civilians: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368626/Libya-RAF-abort-attack-SAS-spot-Gaddafi-using-human-shields.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Here's a free one indicating NATO's unwillingness to risk civilian casualties, unrelated to the Gaddafi compound/journalists-as-human-shields story: theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadians-abort-libya-attack-fearing-casualties/article1951735/

Re: 30 minutes thing: cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/21/robertson-this-allegation-is-outrageous-and-its-absolutely-hypocritical/

"I thought one of the "first rules" of journalism was "don't become the story"."

And they weren't in this case, until Fox News decided to make them so.

So... Fox news... shouldn't have reported on what happened when the reporters inserted themselves into the story, or were inserted there by the Libyan MOI? Anyway, I consider the Daily Mail a frightfully low-market sort of rag, don't you? :-)

Anyway, I gots to go.

K-Daffy and CNN "journalists" with one strike!!! Holy Cr*p!! That could've been a TWO-FER !!!

Posted by: Davenport at March 22, 2011 10:18 AM

DaveIbinInPort....please if you are going to quote a post at least attribute it to the proper author if you want to be taken seriously...or read the foucking thing and then do a cut'n'paste to get it right.

I don't understand the whole, "Let's storm Libya'11", that dog had his nuts clipped decades ago, by the US and UK. With this internal struggle, there is no genocide...just an internal struggle. Do we remove the ol'dog, so a new one can take his place & support the Taliban?
As far as the media goes, I personally have no sympathy...these garbage diggers want to be the next top anchor & would probably sell their souls for the job. They sell sensationalism more than facts, then when one gets killed, all of a sudden they are heros....my ass. Really what have they done for their fellow man, a soldier lays wounded on the front and they stay safely behind and film him bleeding out!!! Really what heroism is that? Pick up a rifle, stand BESIDE a hero in uniform and then you've done something for your country.