why are not more media people shot by friendly fire ?
441238
Because they never go to where there is any fighting.\n\nLook at the media in Iraq - they stay in the hotels and bars of the Green Zone and read scripts written in New York.\n\nAny reporter that wants to embed is given the oppurtunity.  However no reporter wants to do this because they seem to think that seeing the same things we do will somehow contiminate them.
1075057
If I'm being shot at, I wont the best bullet money can buy, If you think using cheep bullets is a good Idle, then why don't you show them how great it is to get in a fire fight with a bullet that may or may not work.
92543
It is not that violence or misbehavior are the upswing, it is merely we are more aware, what with faster communications, that it happens than anytime in the past. You also have to realize bad news sells better than good news which means the good news rarely hits the front page.\n\nAs for your added info, yes a lot have died in wars, but how many people have died of influenza in the same time frame?
874236
90%.... most of them just pass along whatever they "heard".... and run in a "herd"..... \n\nWhy did only FOX broadcast the declassification of military and intelligence documents last June that said there were WMDs found in Iraq early on?  It was classified for security reasons originally.  Bush kept his mouth shut about them, even under terrible accusations about his actions.  But no other major news station even mentioned it.  Funny.... isn't it?\n\n\nSue
1074943
Because there are still idiot people on this planet. People that can't see beyond skin color or religion. \n\nAlso it is convenient for some groups to have an enemy to target. Good guys vs bad guys kinda thing.
745179
no, cos you would kill more of your own then the enemy, i mean look at the u.s military they killed more allied troops in friendly fire incidents then the enemy did, proof that short sighted ppl are a danger to your own side.
197265
The vast majority of countries are not targeted by terrorist organisations.  The best source of information is the World Factbook.  Please see the link below.
966305
I dont know how to take you with the range of questions but this is so true.  Could you imagine if our media was on omaha beach on DDay.  wow...\n\nthe simple answer is news has no business in wars.  people dont want to hear the truth they cant handle it.  Let the military do their job.  News is a business, Just like any other business it needs viewers and what people want is death and destruction so thats what they get.  this same thing is what lost us Vietnam.  is anyone really surprised this time?\n\n"war is hell.  PR isnt much better"  General Dwight D Eisnehower.\n\nfor all of you saying there is no positives thanks for proving the point.
900614
becouse the guns dont kill people, if you ask a gun to kill someone they would dont do anything but if you ask a ams to kill another  if he has a reason maybe he would kill the person
792932
95 per cent of people are idiots that switch on television when are tired cause their jobs.\n\nFew people look for informations in internet....\n\nI know that Gaza is strangled and thirsty.\nI've seen women killed few days ago by a soldier (it would be better to call him an assassin) and cannon shots on poor habitations (just few days ago)...
1044231
Vaguely, yes.  I'm not too old, nor too young.  I think what you are thinking about is not about the death toll, but rather how we stepped into jungle guerrilla warfare in Vietnam, totally unprepared for what was about to happen.  Then, we opened the jungle warfare school, and now we are awesome fighting in the jungle, but again the face of the enemy has changed and now we are fighting a bunch of terrorists, which like in Vietnam are difficult to differentiate between them and the civilian population.  We get burned in the press when we fight and burned when we don't, so it is a lose lose proposition and the soldiers are the ones with their back sides on the line.  The politicians? not so much.  Yes, we do have big guns, but if we blast the crap out of some building, inevitably, we kill someone unintended and it's a vicious press cycle.  The two "conflicts" are very different, but there are some vague similarities, that shouldn't be overlooked.  I hope one of the similarities doesn't turn out to be the length of time we stay there!
656335
Can you imagine how the media would have a field day if the military did that? Plus, they're doing the best they can do. Sending more people over there wouldn't help much.
685233
depends.  An AK would do some damage to the enemy, but if you could light the entire town on fire, there's more leathal potential there.  But I don't think flamethrowers were used so much as weopons against people as ways to destroy the enemies supplies.  And last I heard, they gave up on those because of the potential for the guys using the flame throwers catching on fire.  Not the kind of lethal they were going for, I suppose.
978370
Are we talking a friendly fire scenario?
901734
Probably the powerlessness.  the Palestinians for example can't fight the Israeli soldiers because they will die.  They would get killed if they tried to kill Israeli civilians too since many of them were in the military at some point.  Because they are so weak, they think they have no other way to defeat others than by blowing themselves up.  And they have people who manipulate them into thinking that they will be rewarded in Heaven.  Those murderers are also often admired in those communities.
983196
Because they are cowards.  Cowards die several times before their deaths.  You dont want to fight? go to Canada, cant promise that I wont shoot you in the back of the head while you are running for the border though.
889451
Israel is not to blame Muslims' assisted by most of the world press, will twist the story. Anyone who deliberately enters a battle zone to protect combatabants on 1 side is asking to get shot. I think they deserve Darwin awards.