Nonsense. If your munition’s lethality radius includes a civilian, you are targeting that civilian.

Your link is from 2023, so it cannot be evidence that this journalist knew the area was about to be bombed.

Look, I think at this point you’re just a shill for Zionists, and that means it’s not worth talking to you any more. So I’m not going to go point by point because it’s a waste of my time.

You’ve abandoned reason before you came to discuss anything, and I can only explain things to you, I cannot understand them on your behalf.

Bye

How incredibly disheartening that was to read

If that was a bullshit Fox news “journalist” doing this to Iran would you cry foul?

Yes, I absolutely would. I don’t wish Fox news journalists dead, as disgraceful as they are. Though I doubt any of them would have the courage to report from a war zone.

Any journalist worth their salt, isn’t going to areas that have been stated will be bombed. They don’t because they’re not idiots.

That’s not how it works in the Geneva conventions, though. The reason it doesn’t work like that is because then any aggressor state can simply designate an area for bombing if they want to keep the press away from it, then they can commit any and all kinds of crimes against humanity there with zero civil oversight. Also, let’s say Mugabe had killed journalists in an area because he had warned he was going to attack there, we all would’ve cried foul. So that’s not the rule.
The rule is really simple and clear: don’t target noncombatants.

Edit: another thing, can you show me any evidence that this journalist knows the bridge was about to be bombed? I find that incredibly difficult to believe, so I can’t just take that on faith sorry.

Yes, I think that is not ok. Do you think it’s ok? To kill an unarmed video team using a guided bomb?
Where do you get that moral code from? You’re surely not claiming to be religious or rational?

By the way, most states are engaged in terrorism in one way or another. The US most certainly is a terrorist state. So you’re saying anyone should be able to bomb journalists from any country? Which countries are exempt?

I think it was a paveway according to other comments here. Big and heavy, not accurate to the meter, not modern. Targeting is less important than the weapons technology. Incredibly advanced targeting algorithms still won’t steer a big dumb jobbie from the 1970s any faster under changing wind conditions, for example.

To a degree it is, but target selection is (or should be - there are reports of the IDF using AI to designate targets, which is a whole nother omnishambles) done by human hand. If there is a group of people inside the lethality radius of your bomb, then you are designating them as targets.
Not sure I understood exactly what you’re asking?

☝️

Irrelevant. The point is that you believe you get to decide, based on some convenient criteria of your own choosing,which news outlets can call their workers journalists, and which ones will be classed as propagandists and therefore lose the right to safety from military strikes.
Effectively you think you should get the power of life and death over people who are putting their lives at risk to report from war zones.
You are a coward, decreeing all this from behind an anonymous profile on the Internet.

Ok, so double standards it is, then. You like the BBC, so you ignore all the shady shit they do, but you don’t like RT so you highlight their problems, and hold both to different standards.
You need to read about critical thinking. It will make your world a much less confusing place.

No, he isn’t. That would be the IDF. They don’t have the right to bomb journalists, regardless of legitimacy.

I doubt anyone is convinced that I’m a dumb shit.

You don’t care he was bombed because he’s “the mouthpiece of a terrorist state”.

Seems like a pretty fair paraphrasing of

A terrorist state bombing the mouthpiece of another terrorist state. Can’t say I’m overwhelmed with emotion.

Or is there some hidden meaning you think should be obvious?

I doubt anyone is convinced that I’m hateful or illiterate.

You don’t care he was bombed because he’s “the mouthpiece of a terrorist state”.

Seems like a pretty fair paraphrasing of

A terrorist state bombing the mouthpiece of another terrorist state. Can’t say I’m overwhelmed with emotion.

Or is there some hidden meaning you think should be obvious?

Your first comment.
You don’t care he was bombed because he’s “the mouthpiece of a terrorist state”.

You may not realize this, but being a journalist provides him with protections. As a journalist he should not be a target, same as a medic. No matter whose side he is on, he is not a target. By attempting to strip him of this title, you would also be stripping him of his legal protection from military targeting.
Most people agree that journalists (even “enemy” journalists) should not be targeted by weapons, for what should be fairly obvious moral reasons.
I hope you understand now why you are experiencing such a huge level of disagreement here.

You’ve justified the murder of journalists, whether this one was murdered or not. It was attempted murder, which carries all of the intent of a successful murder. And we’re seeing the video precisely because of survivorship bias. The 300 or so other journalists the IDF have murdered in the last 2 years were not so lucky.

Give your head a wobble mate, you’re literally out here justifying the murder of press in war zones.

It’s in the exact same spot as a previous strike. It’s called a “double tap” attack, and it’s a war crime.
The guy only survived because the bomb went off inside the crater from a previous strike, he would’ve been turned into powder if that had exploded in the surface.

It’s ok guys, the missile just happened to safely “land” in the area, by chance, “next to” the guy, who is only a “presenter”, not a journalist . There’s definitely no war crime to see here.

If he had been working for the British state-controlled media organization the British Broadcasting Corporation, would you still call him a journalist?