I read it. She said, and I quote her exact words:
"there's not more outrage about the number and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq"

No. She did not say the US military was targeting journalists. She didn't say I was targeting journalists either, but she made a very specific point about mentioning the US military, and it is clear that she feels they should be responsible. She either means "they are killing journalists and have a cavalier attitude about it" which is a serious allegation that she cannot prove, or she means "journalists are being killed by (others) and the US military has a cavalier attitude about it (Good. It's NOT THEIR JOB). In either case, she is specifically denegrating the US military. She could just as well have said "there's not more outrage about the number and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of Smurfs toward the killing of journalists in Iraq"

because smurfs are just as responsible. Instead, she specifically chose to cast aspersions.

No, I don't think she's accusing the US military of killing journalists. I also don't think she has clue one as to what the US military is SUPPOSED to be doing, and it is certainly NOT babysitting journalists.

I agree that it isn't the military's sole purpose to look after journalists. I also think when a journalist goes into a war zone, that's the risk they take. But to automatically make that leap is presumptuous at best.

And of course I know you're not being argumentative. You know we try to encourage healthy debate amid the porn over here.

Donkey punch.

Dix

it is completely outside the purpose of the military to protect journalists. It's not their "sole" purpose, it's not their purpose, at all.

I'd say that if a journalist is embedded it's the military's job to look after them and save their asses... even if they are Geraldo. After all, "leave no man behind" and all that.

However, if an independent journalist goes looking for trouble and finds it, should it be the responsibility of the military to risk more lives to save them? Og and I seem to agree the answer is "no", but the human equation often countermands logic.

I've heard of instances where hikers and climbers have had to pay for their rescues and was recently informed that the Coast Guard is no longer towing in boats that have run out of gas but calling towing services instead. Goodwill only goes so far.

(I could tangent here about my feelings about Klan rallies in black communities and suggest that the problem could be quickly solved by NOT providing additional security or instead requiring all such rallies to take place in East Compton... but I digress)

Anyway, the matter at hand. It would seem to me that Foley is genuinely accusing the US military (read: Pentagon, not Private Pyle) of targeting and killing journalists with impunity.

Now, the al Jazeera station thing, I have no outside info on that, but you can bet the military was very interested in getting them off the air, especially the Iraq branch.

However, the reporters in the Palestine Hotel were in just as much danger as any other guest of that hotel... the difference being that any other guest with half a brain would have headed for Mecca as soon as war was announced. Seriously, I seem to remember that that's one of the taller structures around... it's kinda like ducking for cover on a hockey rink. Quite easy to hit something that large, even on accident.

And given the proclivity of the enemy to hide in schools, hospitals, and places of worship, don't you think that a large building with a large contingent of international journalists would be a logical option for them to use as a temporary base?

There's a reason the contractors and security personnel in Iraq are being paid bank to work there... the pay has to make the risks worthwhile. Likewise, the potential for a Pulitzer if you're a journalist makes the risk worthwhile. Warzones make for much better news opportunities than the front lawn of a scandaled celebrity.

If Foley can prove that the US is targeting journalists, then I think that the military should be taken down a peg. But, as inhumane as it may sound, there's a big difference between targeting and killing. One's assassination, the other is collateral damage.

The Devil in the details,
Dix

I love this quote:

"They bombed it knowing it was the Al Jazeera station. Absent any independent inquiry that tells the world otherwise, that is what I believe."

Logic is a beautiful thing. Foley's basically saying that because nobody can prove something isn't true, she's content to believe it is true without any proof that it is.

Kinda like saying that nobody can prove that god doesn't exist, so people are content to believe that he does even though there's no proof for that either (outside of artificial proof created by man-made religions).

That kinda sounds like the logic of "the right" to me.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes,
Dix

I don't hear anyone on "the right" saying anything like that about God, or anything at all. I do hear a lot of it from newsweek, the new york times, etc. etc. etc.

Dan Rather: I believe this is true, so even if my facts were all wrong, it still must be true!

Anything that comes at me from any media, I inherently distrust.

OK, maybe not the broad.