SOMETHING I DON'T UNDERSTAND

Why journalists in a war zone are surprised when they get caught in the crossfire and then "demand" something be done about it.

Foreign journalists based in Southern Asia have condemned U.S. forces for allegedly shooting two journalists from the Dubai-based Al Arabia satellite channel.

The story of what happened can be found here.

According to Al-Arabiya, the two journalists were filming outside their car when the American soldiers opened fire at another vehicle that sped toward a checkpoint and slammed into a Humvee near the Burj al-Hayat hotel in Baghdad. Officials with the Dubai-based network said that as the two journalists tried to flee the scene, fearing the driver was a suicide bomber, coalition troops opened fired.

"There were many cars in the area. One of them rammed an American Bradley fighting vehicle. American soldiers fired at random, killing Ali Abdel-Aziz and critically wounding Ali al-Khatib," Mohammed Ibrahim, the station's editing supervisor in Baghdad, said on Thursday.

I note with some scepticism this individual contends the Soldiers were firing "at random". I suppose when one is under attack, as these Soldiers were, one man's random may be another man's reasoned response.

If I were to choose to go to Iraq and hang around military check points, I must accept that being caught in the crossfire is a risk I'm taking. And the last thing I'm going to count on is a Soldier in the midst of a firefight being able to tell me from the non-uniformed enemy.

So, why is it that journalists have different expectations?