Iraq: Journalist Killed by Apache Gunship on Live Television

Published on September 13, 2004 By blogic In Politics

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.

Comments (Page 2)

TheFazz

on Sep 14, 2004

You aren't comparing the US to al-Qaeda are you?

Bungy32

on Sep 14, 2004

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).

TheFazz

on Sep 14, 2004

Alright. Sorry I mistook your point.

jonsaw

on Oct 02, 2004

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.

drmiler

on Oct 02, 2004

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*!

Don Bemont

on Oct 02, 2004

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.

sandy2

on Oct 02, 2004

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.

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 02, 2004

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

sandy2

on Oct 02, 2004

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.

Patriot_Flamethrower

on Oct 02, 2004

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!

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 02, 2004

Problem is it takes time for the Army to change to whatever new stuff is introduced. Like the Bradley for example, original concept was in the early 1960s, at that time it looked more like a Russian BMP than what it is today because it is a Armored Personnel Carrier. Bureaucrat Generals at the DOD had the design changed many times before it got into it's current form, which is taller than an Abrams, less armored than Abrams, but looks like a much more important target than Abrams but it is still only an APC.

So they started the prototypes in the 80s, tested them, found that the aluminum armor caused toxic fumes to kill everybody inside the vehicle, changed that, changed some other things, and eventually the Bradley got introduced during the 90s, still has problems but oh well the government spent money on it so they better use it. This is just one example; there are other programs like this as well.

Problem for your first question is to get the Bradley to blow up by itself it would have to destroy all equipment that means a huge blast, let alone someone could probably have enough time to grab stuff. Bradley spraying tear gas, well you would need a system in place that would still work even if the vehicle is disabled and partially destroyed not to mention the stuff could leak out whenever if a bullet hits it or the system malfunctions.

SOP is changed all the time as it reflects lessons learned from AARs (After Action Reports) if this situation happens again we will see what they have changed from it, but because they learned lessons does not mean this WILL happen again, after all part of the lessons learned are also meant to prevent the whole situation from happening, like an Abrams should have been there not a Bradley, it takes many a RPG to phase the Abrams.

Someone more versed on the bureaucracy of the Army could probably answer better than myself, for I may have missed something.

- GX

drmiler

on Oct 02, 2004

Reply #24 By: sandy2 - 10/2/2004 3:03:44 PM
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.

I'll try to answer this if I can GX. If I go wrong please feel free to correct. No the Bradley can't be made to blow up like the Apache. That would require putting armour plate on the vehicle, thereby severly *reducing* its capabilities. The plate would be *needed* to stop small arms fire from prematurly setting off the explosive charges. You *don't* *spray* tear gas. It's carried in the form of a grenade like fixture that is either fired from a weapon or thrown by hand. And the SOP you speak of has been SOP for probably longer than you've been alive. And it gets changed on a as needed basis. And just how do you know they were innocent lives? Were you there? Of course not your going on what the media tells you. Which boils down to what I said before about the media. You get the *what* but NEVER the *why*.

Texas Wahine

on Oct 02, 2004

Ummm . . . hows about lets have the Iraqi people get out of the damn way when they see the Apache Gunship coming? Hmmm . . . nobody dies and we don't have to spend any more money . . . "innocent" people don't gather around our vehicles and loot and rubberneck, and if "innocent" people did before, maybe they won't now.

Patriot_Flamethrower

on Oct 02, 2004

Gee Sandy2...............your concern for the terrorist-loving Al-Arabiya reporter and a bunch of civilian looters and rubber-neckers is commendable. I am just curious if you showed this much concern for the victims of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

I can just see your hysterical nonsense as it would translate to what happened on 9/11/01.
"Can't those hijacked planes be made to blow up at a certain time on their own at the flip of a switch with a warning to the hijackers and the passengers that the plane is going to blow up?
"How come the hijackers didn't give the people in the WTC and in the Pentagon a warning to evacuate those buildings before they rammed their planes into them?"
"Can't those plane cockpits spray teargas if the pilots get their throats slit and the plane is taken over by hijackers?"
"Can't Al Qaeda change their SOP so innocent people don't get killed?"

Do you see how RIDICULOUS and NAIVE you sound, Sandy2?

War is HELL. Innocent people DIE. Life's a BITCH.

sandy2

on Oct 02, 2004

See patriot, you are undermining the US. I love the US, but apparently you don't because you insist on comparing the US to Al Qaieda.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!