Speaking from a castle, ironically, Bush and Blair announced formation of a new Arab TV station in Iraq, then within hours, Bush's soldiers bombed Al Jazeera to silence it. For those who doubt the intention, a US tank rolled up to the ruins of the Al Jazeera building one hour later and fired a shell into it, reports Robert Fisk. Al Jazeera posted their location in Baghdad to US military planners, who promised not to attack it--before the invasion began. The attack on the Hotel Palestine followed shortly.

Of course the US military likes to say that it stays out of politics. Gen. Ed Lansdale's presence in Dealey Plaza, plus the presence of the Army 113th Intelligence in Memphis for M. L. King's assassination, speak volumes otherwise. Has the "military-industrial complex" organized for an undeclared world war, a scheme to attack both Iran and Syria later as James Woolsey suggested in Los Angeles on April 3?

For a madman like Richard Perle to argue for the takeover of the MidEast and the expulsion of the Palestinians is one thing, but when even Clinton's former CIA chief argues the case for World War IV only a few years before oil production peaks--thus threatening Trilateral and Council on Foreign Affairs domination of corporate policy-making, a criminal round of attacks on an inquiring press must be looked at more closely.

Rather than trigger happy soldiers firing off a few rounds after weary hours of battle, the Al Jazeera attack appears to have been premeditated, a desperate act---not so much aimed at punishing reporters for what they've already done, but to intimidate them into not reporting events that are about to unfold.

that this incident makes reporters more aware of how important their job is, they really are the fourth branch of government. They have been attacked from within this time, and it is a civil war that the pentagon is asking for, a civil media war. The revolution, it's on the internet!!!!

...that this incident makes reporters realize that covering a war is a dagerous occupation, escpecially in a country ruled by a madman known to deliberately put civilians in jeopardy.

it's in your mind!

..that this incident will let the independent journalists of the world know that the US armed forces are not to be trusted nor be in bed with either.

Interesting piece of equipment.

What is it?

But it sure does look like one....

Doesn't it.

What is it?

The fucking reason Iraq was dangerous for the journalist is because it was invaded by a foreign army. Duh.....get a clue.

Daveman,

If reporters can't function in a country ruled by a dangerous madman known to put civilians in serious jeopardy I guess none of them will be reporting on events in the USA anymore.

It's a device allegedly sold to Iraq by the Russians

and has, allegedly, been used to disable several U.S. tanks.

What is it?

It's a device allegedly sold to Iraq by the Russians

and has, allegedly, been used to disable several U.S. tanks.

What is it?

Who do the reporters think they are? If you are in a place under attack with known enemy in the building, were would you be, on top of the building pointing something? It is a shame that friendly fire causes death to soldiers, civilians and yes reporters, but that is WAR. What is the pay of that reporter in harms way that does not HAVE to be there? What is the pay of the soldiers protecting the reporters freedom? What compensation will the family receive from the reporter dying in action? What is the compenation for the family of the soldier died in combat action? Now tell me what's fair...

I'll tell you what it is:

It is a Russian Kornet Anti-Tank missile.

From the front it looks very much from a TV camera.

It's got a big lens, and it is my understanding that it uses a range mechanism that functions much like the Auto-Focus mechanism found on many video and still cameras.

What would you do, if you were a tank gunner - and saw this device, or something you -though- was this device, pointed at you? You have 2 seconds to decide.

So, IMHO, the death of the journalist was the unfortunate result of mistaken identity, in a hostile, combat environment.

MadMaxim,

I don't know what those devices were, but I wish that the Russians had given them a lot more, as well as some good anti-aircraft weapons. That way they could have more effectively defended their country from the barbarian invasion. Although hoplessly outgunned, they fought heroically, just as the Poles did against the Germans in 1939. If the Iraqis had had the kind of hardware that the Israelis have, they would have won.

The thing that Israel has that Iraq lacks are real humans to operate all those fancy Russian made goodies. Turns out, the vaunted Iraqi forces couldn't change into street clothes quick enough.

Face it. One IDF soldier is equal to about a division of Republican Guards. Don't believe me? Ask Egypt. Or Jordan. Or Syria. Or Iraq.

I bet you really love the Nazis too - they were so much more effective than those racially inferior Poles and Frenchies. Say hello to the Feuher for me.

I like your style. :-)

Thank you.

It's a bad idea to point something that

looks a lot like an anti-tank weapon at a tank

in a combat zone.

Tanks don't like things that look like anti-tank weapons

being pointed at them and tend to shoot at them.

It's a bad idea to point something that

looks a lot like an anti-tank weapon at a tank

in a combat zone.

Tanks don't like things that look like anti-tank weapons

being pointed at them and tend to shoot at them.

Meyer London are you running for Mayor of idiot town?

The Iraqi army was a no-show in this conflict, or haven't you heard?

The casualties of the Coalition so far are around 200. They haven't even begun to count the Iraqi dead.

We have thousands of prisoners, many of whom didn't fire a shot. The Iraqis that did shoot did so with women and children in front of them like common criminals might.

You are a moral leper. You actually stated that you wish the Iraqis had more effective anti-aircraft and anti-tank capablities. This means you wish the Coalition to have suffered thousands more casualties and for Saddam Hussein to still be in power. You are a filthy cowardly little animal, and an apologist for fascists.

But you're 'anti-war', right?

MadMaxim: Nice try. But most of these folks don't believe a coalition soldier (AKA: Baby-Eating, Raping and Pillaging Killbot) has the right to defend himself.

Fresca: your equation is about right. 1 IDF = 10,000 RG.

Simon: You GO, guy!

And now to the alleged human being Meyer London:

"If reporters can't function in a country ruled by a dangerous madman known to put civilians in serious jeopardy I guess none of them will be reporting on events in the USA anymore." Ha ha! Think of that one all by yourself, or did you read it on an officially-licensed Sean Penn Thinks War is Bad, And He Should Know protest sign?

"I don't know what those devices were..." but as long as it kills American soldiers, you're all for it!

"Although hoplessly outgunned, they fought heroically..." from behind the backs of women and children.

Face it...you have backed the wrong horse, Skippy. History will record, if it bothers with your inconsequence at all, that you were supporters of an insane murderer, and your idealogy is failed and irrelevant.

You lose.