Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A secret video showing US air crew falsely claiming to have encountered a firefight in Baghdad and then laughing at the dead after launching an air strike that killed a dozen people, including two Iraqis working for Reuters news agency, was revealed by Wikileaks 5 April.

The worrying thing is that this is probably only the tip of the ice berg.
5rXPrfnU3G0

smoke 'em out

Well, Reuters is the enemy.

"It's their own fault for bringing their kids to a firefight."

Wow.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, Reuters is the enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Hotel
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/13/fmr_military_intelligence_officer_reveals_us

Originally posted by Bicnarok
A secret video showing US air crew falsely claiming to have encountered a firefight in Baghdad and then laughing at the dead after launching an air strike that killed a dozen people, including two Iraqis working for Reuters news agency, was revealed by Wikileaks 5 April.

The worrying thing is that this is probably only the tip of the ice berg.

yeah, its not the 1st time this sh#@ has happen.. my section prior to going to iraq were showed a cockpit pilot/spy video showing the crew laughing and commenting about a suspected insurgent... while having sex in the back of a car. this may not seem like much but we were given a paper to sign prior to viewing it b/c it had our ppl using heavy caliber rounds that are only suppose to be used on armored vehicles under our articles and rules of engagement. it was showed to us so that we would know that although we may not always follow rules that it may be necessary and best if not talked about.

the pilot was asking command if he could postpone the attack till the guy finished having sex since it would be his last act.. he was given the clear to fire whenever he was ready.. the pilot and his co pilot just laughed and commented on the nightvision video and once the guy finished they unloaded on the vehicle with machine gun fire killing the guy and the woman blowing up the car like it was tissue.

Now that's a lay.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Hotel
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/13/fmr_military_intelligence_officer_reveals_us

Might be missing something, but it's a war(a poorly planned and messy one too boot); those reporters knew they were in a war-zone.

Originally posted by Robtard
Might be missing something, but it's a war(a poorly planned and messy one too boot); those reporters knew they were in a war-zone.

yup

and the American army had the hotel they were staying in being surveiled, wire tapped, and on a list of potential military targets.

then it got attacked by the American military...

Originally posted by inimalist
yup

and the American army had the hotel they were staying in being surveiled, wire tapped, and on a list of potential military targets.

then it got attacked by the American military...

The military does not fight wars to loose. That's the job of the politicians.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The military does not fight wars to loose. That's the job of the politicians.

?

so we accept human rights abuses as part of warfare because "thats just the way it is"?

some sort of moral immunity because they are involved in murdering people in the first place?

Originally posted by inimalist
?

so we accept human rights abuses as part of warfare because "thats just the way it is"?

some sort of moral immunity because they are involved in murdering people in the first place?

No, we don't go to war for political (stupid) reasons, but when we do go to war, we do it according to the "Art of War". You have read that book, haven't you?

so it is ok to target non-combatants because it makes it easier?

Originally posted by inimalist
so it is ok to target non-combatants because it makes it easier?

So, you have not read the book.

does the book say that targeting non-combatants is ok?

sigh.... what specifically are you referring about the art of war?

also like to point out a lot of things that were considered standard tactics in ancient time during war is now considered criminal in many civilized nations.

anyways it is sad that the children were present, the problem really comes down to the military's intel and if they were aware of the children to begin with and why did they feel that was the appropriate time to strike.

sometimes innocent ppl can and will be hurt in such situation it happens it is sad and ppl should take great pains to make sure it does not happen. my only problem would be if i were to hear these men make a comment of collateral damage well aware of the situation and still proceed to fire.

in that vid i dont see them doing anything wrong other then a few off comments from the ground troops as being completely unprofessional..

i dont see this being too serious but should be handled by their command since it was overheard.. a page 11 should be enough toward the marine who made the inappropriate comment.

I'm not going to debate any moral issues here, but are there any more videos like this out there for public viewing? This one was apparently leaked, so my guess is not.

Originally posted by inimalist
does the book say that targeting non-combatants is ok?

Success is making the winning play. The quick win leads to less death, and a prolongs war only leads to destruction of both sides. Now tell me how non-combatants fit into that?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Success is making the winning play. The quick win leads to less death, and a prolongs war only leads to destruction of both sides. Now tell me how non-combatants fit into that?

they shouldn't

if you are using such words to justify the murder of innocent people, I disagree with you and Sun Tsu.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
sigh.... what specifically are you referring about the art of war?

also like to point out a lot of things that were considered standard tactics in ancient time during war is now considered criminal in many civilized nations.

anyways it is sad that the children were present, the problem really comes down to the military's intel and if they were aware of the children to begin with and why did they feel that was the appropriate time to strike.

sometimes innocent ppl can and will be hurt in such situation it happens it is sad and ppl should take great pains to make sure it does not happen. my only problem would be if i were to hear these men make a comment of collateral damage well aware of the situation and still proceed to fire.

i that vid i dont see them doing anything wrong other then a few off comments from the ground troops as being completely unprofessional..

i dont see this being to serious but should be handled by their command since it was overheard.. a page 11 should be enough toward the marine who made the inappropriate comment.

The Art of War was written by Sun Tzu thousands of years ago, and is still applicable today.

Originally posted by inimalist
they shouldn't

if you are using such words to justify the murder of innocent people, I disagree with you and Sun Tsu.

And if I am not?

then be less opaque so we can discuss the matter

Originally posted by inimalist
then be less opaque so we can discuss the matter

You can't point at one innocent person (or any number) who was killed because of war, and condemn an entire army. If you are to condemn anyone, then it is the politicians who tell the military to do their job.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can't point at one innocent person (or any number) who was killed because of war, and condemn an entire army. If you are to condemn anyone, then it is the politicians who tell the military to do their job.

actually, in the Palestinian hotel incident, many investigations have shown the issue is anything but black and white

I don't blame the entire military for this act, but rather only the relevant actors

i do not believe that American military has a policy which delibrately targets reporters, though they obviously dont take the care I would suggest they should to protect them

i agree otherwise

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Art of War was written by Sun Tzu thousands of years ago, and is still applicable today. sigh.. aspects of it are others are no longer viewed as a justifiable act in modern war,, i really think you of all ppl are being pretty arrogant to quote Sun tzu to someone who's life revolved around war and was part of one's military reading..

i have never wanted to slap anyone in my life as much as i want to slap you for ur comments and view of what you consider to be applicable in modern warfare.

i know how to win wars just as effectively as any ancient military person as i am sure that Hitler and Saddam knew as well... all using tactics form Sun tzu's book.

strike hard and fast..
killing civilians to demoralize a nation and make them sick of war.
leave nothing in your wake.

kill children and any who may one day raise a weapon against you in the future... etc etc..

these are military truths but we dont live in a world where we wish to commit genocide to win or sterilize a nation for our future occupation..

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, in the Palestinian hotel incident, many investigations have shown the issue is anything but black and white

I don't blame the entire military for this act, but rather only the relevant actors

i do not believe that American military has a policy which delibrately targets reporters, though they obviously dont take the care I would suggest they should to protect them

i agree otherwise

Then I was projection what I have heard form other people on to what you were writing. I apologize for that, but it is only natural. The military should take as much care as they can to protect the innocent, but not at the expense of the innocent. The individual solder who follows lawful orders, cannot be held to blame for the horrors of war.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then I was projection what I have heard form other people on to what you were writing. I apologize for that, but it is only natural. The military should take as much care as they can to protect the innocent, but not at the expense of the innocent.

killing the innocent to protect the innocent is absurd

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The individual solder who follows lawful orders, cannot be held to blame for the horrors of war.

one is responsible ONLY for their own actions

short of mind control, that soldier is accountable

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
these are military truths but we dont live in a world where we wish to commit genocide to win or sterilize a nation for our future occupation..

**** ya

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
sigh.. aspects of it are others are no longer viewed as a justifiable act in modern war,, i really think you of all ppl are being pretty arrogant to quote Sun tzu to someone who's life revolved around war and was part of one's military reading..

i have never wanted to slap anyone in my life as much as i want to slap you for ur comments and view of what you consider to be applicable in modern warfare.

i know how to win wars just as effectively as any ancient military person as i am sure that Hitler and Saddam knew as well... all using tactics form Sun tzu's book.

strike hard and fast..
killing civilians to demoralize a nation and make them sick of war.
leave nothing in your wake.

kill children and any who may one day raise a weapon against you in the future... etc etc..

these are military truths but we dont live in a world where we wish to commit genocide to win or sterilize a nation for our future occupation..

It has been a long time sense I read the book, but Sun Tzu goes into reasons not to go to war. If you follow those first, you will not have to do the rest. I was challenging inimalist for what I thought was judging the military for one bad act. Of all people I would think you would understand that.

Originally posted by inimalist
killing the innocent to protect the innocent is absurd



one is responsible ONLY for their own actions

short of mind control, that soldier is accountable



**** ya

War is absurd. Way would you try to get something not absurd form war?

Not a solder. On this we disagree. As long as the order is lawful.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then I was projection what I have heard form other people on to what you were writing. I apologize for that, but it is only natural. The military should take as much care as they can to protect the innocent, but not at the expense of the innocent. The individual solder who follows lawful orders, cannot be held to blame for the horrors of war.

Nazi's and world courts would argue against what would be considered lawful orders. also our US. military must follow all orders.. which i know ppl will say not unlawful orders. the think is we make an oath to obey all lawful orders but, that does not mean you get to choice which unlawful orders you will disobey.

for instance if you are given an order to fire on a family and you refuse you will still lose your rank and possibly go to the brig...

another is if you are aware of black ops units who regularly obey and carry out unlawful american and international laws...

who do we hold accountable in these situations? the command or the soldier or both..

even if you want to disobey or question the order we were train to follow the order and then once executed to question and informed your command why it is illegal or unlawful. it also depends on your command when one can question an order for instance in my command we were told if we wanted to question a command prior to execution we needed to have the regulation in our pocket and name specifically the article...

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
Nazi's and world courts would argue against what would be considered lawful orders. also our US. military must follow all orders.. ...

Not true. I was in the army for 7 years, and I know better. I wish i could enlighten you more, but I have to go. See ya.

well that is your experience mine were different i can only go by what i experience and how i executed my orders. i obeyed and followed my military oath as the best of my ability and how it was presented to me in the marines...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
War is absurd. Way would you try to get something not absurd form war?

by this logic, nothing is immoral if one is already engaged in an immoral act

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not a solder. On this we disagree. As long as the order is lawful.

on this we disagree

As someone mentioned on another forum: once you've trained people to suppress normal human behavior you shouldn't be surprised when they occasionally do something inhuman.

On another note, not to be unsympathetic, but why exactly did they have kids in the van?


I think this proves two things. One: the military needs better cameras. Two: the person who authorizes fire should be able to watch what the camera sees rather than rely on being told that there are people with AK-47 on the street.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As someone mentioned on another forum: once you've trained people to suppress normal human behavior you shouldn't be surprised when they occasionally do something inhuman.

On another note, not to be unsympathetic, but why exactly did they have kids in the van?

i still cant figure out what they were doing in the 1st place and how the military new who they were


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think this proves two things. One: the military needs better cameras. Two: the person who authorizes fire should be able to watch what the camera sees rather than rely on being told that there are people with AK-47 on the street. it wouldn't have mattered the pilot would more then likely fired even if he was aware of the situation and was ordered to fire.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
it wouldn't have mattered the pilot would more then likely fired even if he was aware of the situation and was ordered to fire.

The audio makes it sound like they saw them and asked to shoot not that their commander didn't understand and ordered them to. Besides wouldn't it stop some of the things like this if the guy watching could say confidently "that's a camera not an RPG"?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The audio makes it sound like they saw them and asked to shoot not that their commander didn't understand and ordered them to. Besides wouldn't it stop some of the things like this if the guy watching could say confidently "that's a camera not an RPG"? it dependents in the ppl not all soldiers/warriors have the courage to disobey or question an order.

he could if he could see it was a camera correct his command but it still falls on his command to to give him the firing order and for the pilot to obey...

it would be nice to think that the pilot would not engage but, i think that is just wishful thinking and it is not likely to happen.

morality in war is hard... sometimes the actions themselves are not the immoral conundrum but why one does it is...

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=depleted%20uranium%20deformities&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, I would deem murder immoral



indeed, the wholesale murder of a group of people for political reasons is immoral and should be avoided



the end justifies the means?



are you serious? of course it was

Therefore, you would agree that abortion is also murder?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Therefore, you would agree that abortion is also murder?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Therefore, you would agree that abortion is also murder?

that is a fairly inappropriate stretch of my words, but yes, abortion is murder

because I don't believe immorality is tied to absolute statements of good and evil in the universe, im not so blind that I think there is never immoral actions that must be done

the right to abortion is a pragmatic issue to me, as, like drug use, there is no way to effectively stop it. Society is improved pragmatically by brining it into a regulated mechanism

obviously I think all war is immoral, that being said, it was necessary to stop Hitler. I still think it is of the utmost importance to recognize that it took evil to defeat evil. War is not some knight in shining armor beating up a grotesque beast, it brings out the inhumanity of all participants, and even by becomming involved, we have blood on our hands

Originally posted by inimalist
that is a fairly inappropriate stretch of my words, but yes, abortion is murder

because I don't believe immorality is tied to absolute statements of good and evil in the universe, im not so blind that I think there is never immoral actions that must be done

the right to abortion is a pragmatic issue to me, as, like drug use, there is no way to effectively stop it. Society is improved pragmatically by brining it into a regulated mechanism

obviously I think all war is immoral, that being said, it was necessary to stop Hitler. I still think it is of the utmost importance to recognize that it took evil to defeat evil. War is not some knight in shining armor beating up a grotesque beast, it brings out the inhumanity of all participants, and even by becomming involved, we have blood on our hands

No more of an inappropriate stretch then you have made.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No more of an inappropriate stretch then you have made.

really? where?

and I guess it was less "inappropriate" and more, "I don't understand the relevance"

killing is wrong. period.

I'd kill someone if I had to, but the act is still wrong

Originally posted by inimalist
really? where?

and I guess it was less "inappropriate" and more, "I don't understand the relevance"

killing is wrong. period.

I'd kill someone if I had to, but the act is still wrong

Then there is no reason for it to be wrong. It is a black or white way of thinking that leads to this.

There are times when it is appropriate to kill, and times when it is not. We make the choice, and we have done so.

i knew a marine who lost a rank b/c he refused to open fire on a vehicle with a family in it when he was ordered to..

turned out the family weren't insurgents nor were they suicide bombers...

he was a sniper and he refused to ever follow orders blindly after his 1st incident when they open fire on a bus full of innocent ppl...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then there is no reason for it to be wrong. It is a black or white way of thinking that leads to this.

There are times when it is appropriate to kill, and times when it is not. We make the choice, and we have done so.

yes, there is a reason for it to be wrong

I am causing harm to a person against their will, that is, imho, the definition of immoral. Regardless of how much material reality may justify this, it does nothing to reduce the harm, and therefore, make it any more moral.

Also, I don't believe in black and white morality. Killing people is a fairly extreme example, especially given we are talking about the potential deliberate targeting of innocent non-combatants.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, there is a reason for it to be wrong

I am causing harm to a person against their will, that is, imho, the definition of immoral. Regardless of how much material reality may justify this, it does nothing to reduce the harm, and therefore, make it any more moral.

Also, I don't believe in black and white morality. Killing people is a fairly extreme example, especially given we are talking about the potential deliberate targeting of innocent non-combatants. are you a bible thumber?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
are you a bible thumber?

no, I don't believe in religion

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, there is a reason for it to be wrong

I am causing harm to a person against their will, that is, imho, the definition of immoral. Regardless of how much material reality may justify this, it does nothing to reduce the harm, and therefore, make it any more moral.

Also, I don't believe in black and white morality. Killing people is a fairly extreme example, especially given we are talking about the potential deliberate targeting of innocent non-combatants.

If you look at it from a personal point of view, I agree with you. I left the army because I realized that I could not kill. However, from a larger point of view, within the lawful aspect of war killing is not immoral. This may seem to be a contradiction, but it is no more of a contradiction then allowing abortion.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I don't believe in religion you seem to be very set in your concept of morality which is fine but it seems like it is also very black and white.

for example you think killing is wrong and immoral, i on the other hand think that killing is acceptable and also okay in certain situations especially doing war.

Originally posted by inimalist
they shouldn't

if you are using such words to justify the murder of innocent people, I disagree with you and Sun Tsu.

So I take it you don't agree with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan?

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
So I take it you don't agree with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan? i don't many scientist in the atomic project did not either..

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
you seem to be very set in your concept of morality which is fine but it seems like it is also very black and white.

for example you think killing is wrong and immoral, i on the other hand think that killing is acceptable and also okay in certain situations especially doing war.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
So I take it you don't agree with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan?

/sigh

morality is not the same as necessity

whether the bomb needed to be dropped or not is inconsequential to whether it was moral

this is not a black or white view of morality, but rather one that says we can at least talk about moral consequences to actions

americans are evil !

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
americans are evil ! how so?

i dont know. ask the people who are commenting on the video on youtube. their minds are pretty made up.

youtube is full of morons, i wouldn't take their comments for the majority as being well informed or thought out on such matters. most of the time it is ignorant, racist kids/adults or foreign nationals who dislike a country in general whose opinion is extremely bias.

agreed

I didn't see anything wrong with what happened in the vid. It was a mistake, yes, but not that "wrong" people from the wiki crap were trying to make it out to be.

It was VERY hard to tell whether or not those were shoulder fired rockets, or large cameras. That exact situation has occured more than once.


The pilot had to decide, quickly, because as soon as he started to raise the camera on his shoulder, looks absurdly like an RPG. If he didn't kill them, he would die as well as others in the helicopter. (I think he had one copilot.) What we really need to see is all the times they DID kill "the bad guys".

What would have solved this would be some MUCH better cameras. That would work until the "insurgents" disguise their RPGs as cameras.



I think the people who did the edit to the vid were a bunch of hyperventilating idiots. There was no way to tell that those were kids. Retarded to think that the vid was clear enough to tell that there were children.

Even if they COULD tell that they were children...we seem to quickly forget how many evil people strapped bombs to their children and sent them to soliders. Wrong people, I know. Just sayin'.

The point is they laughed, and the point is the entire Iraq war is bollocks. This is just like what happened in Vietnam, the "liberators" aren't liberating anything, they're butchering the lives of innocents in the name of corporate power.

I agree, this is only the tip of the iceburg, I'm surprised there hasn't been an influx of video of other murders caused at the hands of the soldiers.

People need to realise how worthless these wars are, especially this one. Hopefully this will be a wakeup call for people to take action, the myth of the caring government will soon be shown to everyone as utter bullshit.

I'm waiting for more leaks. Things like this really can't be ignored. If this was one little "mistake" how many other "mistakes" have been made? How many more innocents have been butchered and slain and pushed aside due to "misunderstanding/misinformation." I'm sorry but that excuse doesn't work anymore with the technology fascist militaries have at their hands now.

This is utterly disgusting.

Originally posted by Liberator
The point is they laughed,

how is that a bad thing? what were they supposed to do? cry? sit there silently and let it all sink in so that they could come home with PTD?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't see anything wrong with what happened in the vid. It was a mistake, yes, but not that "wrong" people from the wiki crap were trying to make it out to be.

It was VERY hard to tell whether or not those were shoulder fired rockets, or large cameras. That exact situation has occured more than once.


The pilot had to decide, quickly, because as soon as he started to raise the camera on his shoulder, looks absurdly like an RPG. If he didn't kill them, he would die as well as others in the helicopter. (I think he had one copilot.) What we really need to see is all the times they DID kill "the bad guys".

What would have solved this would be some MUCH better cameras. That would work until the "insurgents" disguise their RPGs as cameras.



I think the people who did the edit to the vid were a bunch of hyperventilating idiots. There was no way to tell that those were kids. Retarded to think that the vid was clear enough to tell that there were children.

Even if they COULD tell that they were children...we seem to quickly forget how many evil people strapped bombs to their children and sent them to soliders. Wrong people, I know. Just sayin'.
agreed 100%

Originally posted by Liberator
The point is they laughed,

how is that a bad thing? what were they supposed to do? cry? sit there silently and let it all sink in so that they could come home with PTD?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't see anything wrong with what happened in the vid. It was a mistake, yes, but not that "wrong" people from the wiki crap were trying to make it out to be.

It was VERY hard to tell whether or not those were shoulder fired rockets, or large cameras. That exact situation has occured more than once.


The pilot had to decide, quickly, because as soon as he started to raise the camera on his shoulder, looks absurdly like an RPG. If he didn't kill them, he would die as well as others in the helicopter. (I think he had one copilot.) What we really need to see is all the times they DID kill "the bad guys".

What would have solved this would be some MUCH better cameras. That would work until the "insurgents" disguise their RPGs as cameras.



I think the people who did the edit to the vid were a bunch of hyperventilating idiots. There was no way to tell that those were kids. Retarded to think that the vid was clear enough to tell that there were children.

Even if they COULD tell that they were children...we seem to quickly forget how many evil people strapped bombs to their children and sent them to soliders. Wrong people, I know. Just sayin'.

do you believe the American military takes sufficent and necessary precautions to prevent innocent people from being killed in this way?

Originally posted by inimalist
do you believe the American military takes sufficent and necessary precautions to prevent innocent people from being killed in this way?

NOPE! My post indicated that, too.



But with what they had, the rules they had, they didn't do anything wrong.

Originally posted by dadudemon
NOPE! My post indicated that, too.

sorry, must have skimmed that part

Originally posted by inimalist
sorry, must have skimmed that part


Clearly, they need to improve the camera resolution and stability. It's sad beacuse we've had mass commericialized hardware/software like that since the late 90s and we are still using late 80s technology in our heli-cams (sometimes). Scrap just one F-22 raptor and that would have paid for all of the camera and software upgrades for the deployed heli-units, and provide healthcare for hundreds (thousands, depending on the pool provided for) of Americans of those that don't have it. (lol)


It's like, we have the wrong priorities here.


That entire group could have been spared if they had a camera that could zoom in with a high res image, nice stability software to prevent shakiness, and then we could have clearly seen that it was a camera on his shoulder and at his side.


And most especially, those poor children could have been spared the trauma of watching everyone "smoked" right in front of them. To me, avoiding as many civilian casualties as possible should be our highest priroity, and military operations should come secondary to that. I'm fine with target bombing to a remote terrorist cell in the mountains, but not area bombing a village with insurgents that are probably there, but have civies occupying the same town. IMO, this just creates another generation of insurgents.


Edit - But, as it stands, they had a pretty d*mn good reason to suspect: gathering and items that appeared to be shoulder fired rockets/RPGs.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't see anything wrong with what happened in the vid. It was a mistake, yes, but not that "wrong" people from the wiki crap were trying to make it out to be.

It was VERY hard to tell whether or not those were shoulder fired rockets, or large cameras. That exact situation has occured more than once.


The pilot had to decide, quickly, because as soon as he started to raise the camera on his shoulder, looks absurdly like an RPG. If he didn't kill them, he would die as well as others in the helicopter. (I think he had one copilot.) What we really need to see is all the times they DID kill "the bad guys".

What would have solved this would be some MUCH better cameras. That would work until the "insurgents" disguise their RPGs as cameras.



I think the people who did the edit to the vid were a bunch of hyperventilating idiots. There was no way to tell that those were kids. Retarded to think that the vid was clear enough to tell that there were children.

Even if they COULD tell that they were children...we seem to quickly forget how many evil people strapped bombs to their children and sent them to soliders. Wrong people, I know. Just sayin'.

What the Apache units saw on their camera was much clearer, and Wikileaks said that. The footage that was released was compressed many times over to fit it on readable data. This blurred the images, but you can still make out in the video that the reporter had a camera not a RPG. You can also make out the kid's faces, albeit if you squint really hard.

I don't remember Sun Tzu saying anything about killing children. I do remember him saying you should capture enemy territory as intact as possible. Modern day urban fighting- heck, most of 20th century warfare- is alien to his principles in this regard.

In any case, hold back on the physical threats, wild shadow.

Originally posted by Moscow
What the Apache units saw on their camera was much clearer, and Wikileaks said that. The footage that was released was compressed many times over to fit it on readable data. This blurred the images, but you can still make out in the video that the reporter had a camera not a RPG. You can also make out the kid's faces, albeit if you squint really hard.


1. You'd have to prove that. (I assure you, it's even worse than what you and I were seeing.)

2. Their image was no very clear: the "HADSS/HMS" they have is a far crappier screen than the 24inch, WUXGA, dual-screen monitor setup that I have at work. Not to mention the increased stress and "sensory" input of the situation removing a bit of the attention placed on the targets: they do train for these scenarios, but it isn't a cut and dry thing. (They are still using monocrhome HMS....that's just pitiful.)

3. The resolution was not much better than the vid. And, the "faces" you were seeing was an enhanced slow-mo section on the vid. In the mere seconds that that image took place in, the pilot is looking at far more than just the passenger seat on a blurry, distorted, shaky, image.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. You'd have to prove that. (I assure you, it's even worse than what you and I were seeing.)

2. Their image was no very clear: the "HADSS/HMS" they have is a far crappier screen than the 24inch, WUXGA, dual-screen monitor setup that I have at work. Not to mention the increased stress and "sensory" input of the situation removing a bit of the attention placed on the targets: they do train for these scenarios, but it isn't a cut and dry thing.

3. The resolution was not much better than the vid. And, the "faces" you were seeing was an enhanced slow-mo section on the vid. In the mere seconds that that image took place in, the pilot is looking at far more than just the passenger seat on a blurry, distorted, shaky, image.

1. We cannot prove that, because the military will suppress that information. Yes, I'm sure it's worse in color.

2 and 3. The Apaches had been patrolling that area for a while because they got alerted to a possible firefight breaking out somewhere in the vicinity. They know full well what's on that ground there, and their responses to their superiors and their general responses throughout the vid are ones of relaxed composure (a feeling that this happens quite a bit in Iraq and Afghanistan). They saw the kids there, they saw the medics there. They saw it was a camera (when they bothered to look). They were given the orders to fire and they did. Then they poked fun at the people they shot and even laughed when a tank appeared to roll over a corpse.

Originally posted by Moscow
This blurred the images, but you can still make out in the video that the reporter had a camera not a RPG.

this might be true of models of the RPG and some other rocket launcher models, however, and I can't freaking remember the model, there are some that are nearly indistinguishable from large media cameras.

Additionally, I don't know about the iraqi insurgency, but Hamas has used the cover of media to make rocket attacks.

EDIT: ok, ya, its the 9k115 metis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-7_Saxhorn

or many other tripod mounted launchers (which can, I assume, also be shoulder fired)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/in0546/lsn2.htm

EDIT 2: I know there aren't any more active stingers being used by the Muj, but just check this baby out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

Originally posted by Moscow
1. We cannot prove that, because the military will suppress that information. Yes, I'm sure it's worse in color.

No, the image is blown up and put on a larger screen. Making it slightly easier to discern what's going on, on the screen. It's much better on the monitors, I assure you.

And, no, it's no supressed. You can look up info on it. heck, the specs my be out there somewhere.

Originally posted by Moscow
2 and 3. The Apaches had been patrolling that area for a while because they got alerted to a possible firefight breaking out somewhere in the vicinity. They know full well what's on that ground there, and their responses to their superiors and their general responses throughout the vid are ones of relaxed composure (a feeling that this happens quite a bit in Iraq and Afghanistan). They saw the kids there, they saw the medics there. They saw it was a camera (when they bothered to look). They were given the orders to fire and they did. Then they poked fun at the people they shot and even laughed when a tank appeared to roll over a corpse.

No, they weren't relaxed and calm. The pilot was sharting bricks. He though they were about to be "smoked" with an RPG, right out of the sky. He was remaing as calm as he could be...he was trained to be.

They didn't know very much at all, actually. All they had to go by was that they were gathering, a major no-no in a war-zone as that is a profiled "behavior", and they had things that looked like shoulder fired rockets or RPGs. Not only should the Reuters press peeps known better, they should have been carrying their cameras a tad less suspiciously. You don't walk up to a police checkpoint with an open bottle in your car that looks just like a beer bottle, from a distance. If an idiot like me knows about the dangers of a video camera appearing like a shoulder fired rocket, the why wouldn't vetern cameramen, that had been shooting for quite some time, know better? They got complacent, too relaxed, and were too busy focusing on getting footage in a combat zone. It cost them their lives. Granted, both sides may have been able to prevent the problem.

Joking during a highly stressful situation is common among humans. They may have seen the kids there, but they could not discern that they were kids, by any stretch of the imagination. The ground units were the ones that discovered that.

Definitely the original mis-identifcation of a threat is just one of those things that happens in war, harsh as it is. Hesitate to engage when it is the real thing, and it is you that is killed. That being so, there are always, ALWAYS going to be people getting killed in such a fashion.

The rest raises some questions, but the opening fire was just a mistake. I exceptionally doubt whether any of us in the same situation would have said it was definitely a camera.

And yes, obviously they didn't see any kids. I am somewhat more fuzzy on what the pretext was for engaging the van though. There may well be a reason to fire on vehicles evacuating bodies; seemed a bit aggressive though. Clearly no threat was identified.

On that point, though, I think we should also note that the people involved always waited for permission before engaging, and were clearly following rules as they were waiting for the wounded person to pick up a gun (which he never would, of course) before firing. He sounded very keen to fire, which is disturbing, but that's the life of a soldier. He was still disciplined enough to wait. This isn't about some trigger happy murder squad- there was effort being made to follow rules.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Definitely the original mis-identifcation of a threat is just one of those things that happens in war, harsh as it is. Hesitate to engage when it is the real thing, and it is you that is killed. That being so, there are always, ALWAYS going to be people getting killed in such a fashion.

The rest raises some questions, but the opening fire was just a mistake. I exceptionally doubt whether any of us in the same situation would have said it was definitely a camera.

Exactly. Apache pilots are filtered out of a bunch of people until they arrive at the best people. There's still going to be eff-ups that may be avoided, but are inevitable.

Originally posted by dadudemon

No, the image is blown up and put on a larger screen. Making it slightly easier to discern what's going on, on the screen. It's much better on the monitors, I assure you.

And, no, it's no supressed. You can look up info on it. heck, the specs my be out there somewhere.

I was talking about the original feed, the military whistleblower who leaked the video out, and any other such information that the Pentagon would want to keep secret.


Originally posted by dadudemon

No, they weren't relaxed and calm. The pilot was sharting bricks. He though they were about to be "smoked" with an RPG, right out of the sky. He was remaing as calm as he could be...he was trained to be.

They didn't know very much at all, actually. All they had to go by was that they were gathering, a major no-no in a war-zone as that is a profiled "behavior", and they had things that looked like shoulder fired rockets or RPGs. Not only should the Reuters press peeps known better, they should have been carrying their cameras a tad less suspiciously. You don't walk up to a police checkpoint with an open bottle in your car that looks just like a beer bottle, from a distance. If an idiot like me knows about the dangers of a video camera appearing like a shoulder fired rocket, the why wouldn't vetern cameramen, that had been shooting for quite some time, know better? They got complacent, too relaxed, and were too busy focusing on getting footage in a combat zone. It cost them their lives. Granted, both sides may have been able to prevent the problem.

Joking during a highly stressful situation is common among humans. They may have seen the kids there, but they could not discern that they were kids, by any stretch of the imagination. The ground units were the ones that discovered that.

That whole response makes me sick to my stomach. Journalists and medics deserve the fullest support, and I an untrained person in anything technical or mechanical could discern that that was a camera the guy was holding. The pilots sharting bricks? Bologna. I watched the whole 20 minute video. They were doing standard operating procedure, it was just another day at work. This isn't some glorified decision-making like BS movies like Black Hawk Down show. This is real-life events here.

Have the journalists know better? Have the civilians know better? This is their homeland we're destroying. Look at the city they're living in. It's a bombed-out ghetto from decades of war, abuse and sanctions. I absolutely hate the excuses given to the military when this kind of s*it happens.

Sorry, Moscow. You do not come across as at all credible about the camera.

Originally posted by Moscow
and I an untrained person in anything technical or mechanical could discern that that was a camera the guy was holding.

unfortunatly, while you might know a camera when you see one, I think you are underestimating how similar personal surface-to-air-missile systems can look to a camera, especially from the proper angle. Many are, in fact, a camera with a tube coming out the back, if that tube is obscured, such as by pointing it at a target, it is inditinguishable from a camera. So, unfortunatly, weapons do exist and are used by muj groups which look like cameras, especially when pointed at something.

Originally posted by Moscow
I an untrained person in anything technical or mechanical could discern that that was a camera the guy was holding.

But you aren't a valid comparison. Before you started watching you were told that none of these people had RPGs or AK-47 and were in fact a group of reporters. You're also in essentially zero danger of being killed if you make the wrong judgment.

"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight!" Sun Tzu said that, and i'd say he knew a little more about fighting then you do, pal, cause he invented it! then he perfected it so no living being could best him in the ring of honor!

And then he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth. Then he hearded them onto a boat,

and then he beat the crap out of every single one.

Originally posted by Moscow
That whole response makes me sick to my stomach. Journalists and medics deserve the fullest support, and I an untrained person in anything technical or mechanical could discern that that was a camera the guy was holding. The pilots sharting bricks? Bologna. I watched the whole 20 minute video. They were doing standard operating procedure, it was just another day at work. This isn't some glorified decision-making like BS movies like Black Hawk Down show. This is real-life events here.

Have the journalists know better? Have the civilians know better? This is their homeland we're destroying. Look at the city they're living in. It's a bombed-out ghetto from decades of war, abuse and sanctions. I absolutely hate the excuses given to the military when this kind of s*it happens.

Everyone has addressed what you said except the part about sharting himself: he really was, there. They are trained to be calm and handle situations, really well. With the van scenario, he was getting agitated, irritable, and snappy. Rewatch both firing periods and you'll see what I mean.


His thoughts are, "I've smoked a squad of RPG weilders and backup has arrive to gather their wounded and possibly finish the job. Any second, someone is going to pop out of the van and take me out with an SA7 or HN5."

Originally posted by One Free Man
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight!" Sun Tzu said that, and i'd say he knew a little more about fighting then you do, pal, cause he invented it! then he perfected it so no living being could best him in the ring of honor!

And then he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth. Then he hearded them onto a boat,

and then he beat the crap out of every single one.

I don't remember that in the Art of War, nor coincidentally in the Bible...

admittedly, I haven't read either...

i don't see how a military trained personal not be able to tell the difference between a camera and a RPG unless their are more modern RPG's that i haven't seen that now look like a camera and as small and compact.

the problem isn't accidentally killing civilians which that in itself is sad but it is covering it up which is the problem and it stops becoming death by friendly fire to now murder and obstruction of justice. i dont see the pilots being held accountable for murder but i would charge them with lack of professionalism and not following rules of engagement as well as the ground soldiers who are snickering and laughing making off comments... i would charge the officers who blatantly lied for murder, obstruction and various criminal acts that would be justifiable and a chargeable offense in a criminal case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-FvRngn81Y&feature=related
HvA6hGjttdw&feature=related

what rules of engagement did the pilots themselves break? they asked for authorization it fire; it was granted, they fired.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i don't see how a military trained personal not be able to tell the difference between a camera and a RPG unless their are more modern RPG's that i haven't seen that now look like a camera and as small and compact.


anti-tank missiles totally are, though it may only be in tripod mounted versions (Hamas is known to use some, the 9K115 Matis I mentioned before).

However, most personal SAM launchers could be mistaken for a camera if one didn't get a clear view. That people are in a potential combat situation might bias them to see something more threatening than normal.

An RPG, no, anyone who mistook an RPG for a camera is too blind to fly a helocopter

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
what rules of engagement did the pilots themselves break? they asked for authorization it fire; it was granted, they fired.

in order for a military person to use deadly force their has to be three steps which has to be met, which we were using during 2006 - 2008..

none of those camera men met them.

i cant recall them all and i cant find my old military card with them on it.

basically they have to be hostile and a a thread.. approaching you, screaming flailing etc etc...

have a weapon on their person and finally feel that they intent to do harm which means you can fire when he makes a hostile action like gripping his gun handle.... and about to aim it at you..

all those actions must be followed and if not when filing a report make sure you include them in it anyways...

also you must also take an active role when confronting a hostile person which is to tell them to stop, get on the ground, turn around basically make an effort to diffuse the situation b4 it gets out of hand.

also in that video it is plainly obvious that those pilots were in no immediate harm even if by the weird chance that it appeared those guys were carrying RPG's... not only did they continue to fire on the wounded when they were no longer a threat but they open fired on those who were giving aid which in itself are all military crimes even when given a command by ur chain of command.. i think a lot of ppl dont see how criminal and out of the norm that video really was. if you show it to a good marine Nco and officer i am sure they would tell you all the violations committed and how criminal it was.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
in order for a military person to use deadly force their has to be three steps which has to be met, which we were using during 2006 - 2008..

none of those camera men met them.

i cant recall them all and i cant find my old military card with them on it.

basically they have to be hostile and a a thread.. approaching you, screaming flailing etc etc...

have a weapon on their person and finally feel that they intent to do harm which means you can fire when he makes a hostile action like gripping his gun handle.... and about to aim it at you..

all those actions must be followed and if not when filing a report make sure you include them in it anyways...

also you must also take an active role when confronting a hostile person which is to tell them to stop, get on the ground, turn around basically make an effort to diffuse the situation b4 it gets out of hand.

also in that video it is plainly obvious that those pilots were in no immediate harm even if by the weird chance that it appeared those guys were carrying RPG's... not only did they continue to fire on the wounded when they were no longer a threat but they open fired on those who were giving aid which in itself are all military crimes even when given a command by ur chain of command.. i think a lot of ppl dont see how criminal and out of the norm that video really was. if you show it to a good marine Nco and officer i am sure they would tell you all the violations committed and how criminal it was.


I did hear about that, today.

The justification was, "they are gathering weapons and wounded. ..."


And from there, the auth to fire was granted.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I did hear about that, today.

The justification was, "they are gathering weapons and wounded. ..."


And from there, the auth to fire was granted. yeah.. i know, feeling justified does not make once actions less suspect..

one of the reasons we were given escalation of force cards were b/c Iraqi's unlike americans are allowed to carry wpns like AK47's. it was to make sure we didn't kill random non hostile ppl out of paranoia as soon as we saw a ak47 so even if they thought they were carrying ak47 it isnt reason to fire... the RPG is a different story i am still shaking my head at the incompetence of these men..

Fog of war is only an excuse for ground troops in immediate danger and lack of sleep not for a pilot that is well over a mile away watching on cam and gets his standard obligated rest and sleep prior to flying and after..

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
yeah.. i know, feeling justified does not make once actions less suspect..

That's almost unrelated to what I was talking about.




Originally posted by Wild Shadow
one of the reasons we were given escalation of force cards were b/c Iraqi's unlike americans are allowed to carry wpns like AK47's. it was to make sure we didn't kill random non hostile ppl out of paranoia as soon as we saw a ak47 so even if they thought they were carrying ak47 it isnt reason to fire... the RPG is a different story i am still shaking my head at the incompetence of these men..

There isn't some sort of rule about "battle zones", though? I thought that in that area, (during that time) there was recently some fighting with insurgents and that heli was a follow up to that?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
how is that a bad thing? what were they supposed to do? cry? sit there silently and let it all sink in so that they could come home with PTD?

Yes let us laugh at the inhumanities of war!

And the dialogue between the pilots was utterly disgusting.

One day all these ****ers will get whats coming to them when their capitalist regimes come crushing down upon them.

Originally posted by Liberator
One day all these ****ers will get whats coming to them when their capitalist regimes come crushing down upon them.


K.


But, one day, I'll be president and I'll save America.

Does anyone know the exact context and reason why their was an Apache in the area? Making a routine mission/patrol?

Originally posted by Liberator
Does anyone know the exact context and reason why their was an Apache in the area? Making a routine mission/patrol?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought that in that area, (during that time) there was recently some fighting with insurgents and that heli was a follow up to that?

fJmhjq8Tz1k

i wish someone would leak the marine air strike video during a funeral, no way in hell could the pentagon claim that it was a legal and within the articles of war.. especially when the pilots and the command talk about wanting to kill a single individual among the other ppl attending the funeral.

i hate PR @$$holes... who lie mislead the public.

i just realize that Aljazeera news isnt even close to what the american media has led americans to believe about them being a middle east propaganda machine with ties to terrorism and insurgents.

they seem to be an honest foreign news media and i am starting to see why the US is claiming the worst they broadcast things US. dont want known. i am really getting annoyed with our politicians and head of government personal.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i just realize that Aljazeera news isnt even close to what the american media has led americans to believe about them being a middle east propaganda machine with ties to terrorism and insurgents.

they seem to be an honest foreign news media and i am starting to see why the US is claiming the worst they broadcast things US. dont want known. i am really getting annoyed with our politicians and head of government personal.

I've found Al Jazeera's english coverage to be fantastic. They are certainly willing to tackle issues western media outlets dont, at least from the perspective they take.

Originally posted by Liberator
Yes let us laugh at the inhumanities of war!

And the dialogue between the pilots was utterly disgusting.

One day all these ****ers will get whats coming to them when their capitalist regimes come crushing down upon them.

you didnt answer my question.

Originally posted by inimalist
fJmhjq8Tz1k

I liked Mr. Greenwald's comments about regardless of the solider's actions being right or wrong, in accordance with the rules of engagement, it's quite obvious that it was counterproductive to the "hearts and minds" campaign to win over the Iraqi people. It's like giving a startving person an apple, then kicking them in the face while pissing on them (that's gotta be tough to do.)

this is how some win hearts and minds of the Iraqi ppl..

6F8KuLFtD1Q

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
this is how some win hearts and minds of the Iraqi ppl..

6F8KuLFtD1Q

I'm not sure why, but I thought that was hilarious. They were acting like assholes, but I still laughed.

Although to be honest I'd probably get sick of Iraq rather quickly myself.

that was pretty great

I've re-watched the video at least a dozen times. When he first cites that the guy is wielding an "RPG" (4:15-17) I want you all to take a nice hard look at that RPG, rather short isn't it?

They had a guy shooting? I saw none of that. Shooting photography maybe.

They didn't even assess them at all, they just opened fire on them and butchered them.

"All you gotta do is pick up a weapon" These "soldiers" aren't looking for anything than a blood bath.

They aren't even thinking, the insurgents aren't idiots if they were just blown apart by a helicoptor they wouldn't have sent a ****ing van to pick them up. Trigger happy morons like this, shoot first ask questions later eh?

There was never any sign of threat to the helicoptor pilots themselves, I'm not even sure the camera crew knew they were there, and if they were didn't really seem to care. Funny, I thought insurgents would take cover and shoot at such targets, not walk about in the open and laugh.

This wasn't some innocent mistake, there was no sign of threat, there was what, three or four AK-47s? That automatically qualifies someone as an insurgent? This is utterly disgusting, a fine example of the true colours of war. There is no honour, no glory, nothing to gain but the blood and tears of innocents.

Liberator: Not that I dsagree that more could have been done to prevent the shooting of the news reporter, and especially of the unarmed man in the van, there are some realities of this situation that I think you aren't appreciating.

One of the main reasons I posted the Al Jazeera video is for some of the context their guests give. For instance, what you can't see in the Apache video are the American troops who are less than 2 blocks away, currently engaged in a firefight with individuals who were in fact targeting them with RPG fire.

The streets were empty, as a battle was onging, save for US forces, insurgent forces, and a small group of reporters with none of the typical "press" gear that is worn on the battleground. For instance, reporters in Palestine are never without bright blue helmets and vests that clearly say PRESS on them.

There is a good reason for this too, as insurgents will dress up like the press to stage attacks. From this point of view, anybody on the battlefield is unfortunatly a potential target. This isn't just an unfortunate coincidence, insurget groups, dating back to the Zealots of Rome, want such military reactions as are depicted in this video in order to garner support for their cause.

Like, watch the video. The pilot never identifies targets themself, they are told where the targets are by people currently engaged in a firefight. Sure, that doesn't justify the action, but if you think it is "trigger happy" to light up a target you are being told has an RPG and might use it to kill your fellow troops, you are mistaken. The context makes it almost negligent not to open fire, but I don't accept that either really.

This clearly isn't a case of black and white morality. Sure it is tragic, but think of all the lives that have been lost already because insurgent fighters will make themselves appear to be civilians or the press. Issues like these are symptomatic of the ridiculous context of this war, not from soldiers being crazy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Art of War was written by Sun Tzu thousands of years ago, and is still applicable today.

honestly In my opinion, it seems mostly applicable among business/corporate types who "fight" their battles with posturing and semantics.

Sounds to me like with you are 'the ends justify the means' sorta guy. Not judging you..just sounds like it.

Also, If anyone cares, check out The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi. The originally translated one is the the most accurate, unless you read Japanese. Its not as "douchie" as the above, and just as powerful.

""All you gotta do is pick up a weapon" These "soldiers" aren't looking for anything than a blood bath."

See, your logic is self-contradictory there. If he was just looking for a blood bath, he would have opened fire regardless of the guy carrying a weapon or not. The very fact he was waiting for the acceptable circumstance and would not fire before that basically counters your blood bath argument.

Maybe they made a mistake, yes. Maybe soldiers being that enthusiastic to fire is always uncomfortable, yes. But this was not a death squad firing at anything they wanted without limits. He was working to the rules.

I also think it is very important indeed that we bear in mind that the group WAS carrying weapons, including an RPG. Some of you are implying there were no weapons at all.

My query is about what rule made the van a legitimate target. The original shooting is actually looking more justifiable under analysis, and critics are now moving onto the other two incidents- the shooting of the van, and the missile strike on the building, which certainly seems possibly to be reckless overkill.

As for the kids- what the hell WERE they doing in the van? Even if we start with the assumption that the Americans were in the wrong here- disputable- they had no idea kids were in the van. The people in the van knew the area was under fire. Why did they bring the kids with them?!

Originally posted by inimalist
Liberator: Not that I dsagree that more could have been done to prevent the shooting of the news reporter, and especially of the unarmed man in the van, there are some realities of this situation that I think you aren't appreciating.

One of the main reasons I posted the Al Jazeera video is for some of the context their guests give. For instance, what you can't see in the Apache video are the American troops who are less than 2 blocks away, currently engaged in a firefight with individuals who were in fact targeting them with RPG fire.

The streets were empty, as a battle was onging, save for US forces, insurgent forces, and a small group of reporters with none of the typical "press" gear that is worn on the battleground. For instance, reporters in Palestine are never without bright blue helmets and vests that clearly say PRESS on them.

There is a good reason for this too, as insurgents will dress up like the press to stage attacks. From this point of view, anybody on the battlefield is unfortunatly a potential target. This isn't just an unfortunate coincidence, insurget groups, dating back to the Zealots of Rome, want such military reactions as are depicted in this video in order to garner support for their cause.

Like, watch the video. The pilot never identifies targets themself, they are told where the targets are by people currently engaged in a firefight. Sure, that doesn't justify the action, but if you think it is "trigger happy" to light up a target you are being told has an RPG and might use it to kill your fellow troops, you are mistaken. The context makes it almost negligent not to open fire, but I don't accept that either really.

This clearly isn't a case of black and white morality. Sure it is tragic, but think of all the lives that have been lost already because insurgent fighters will make themselves appear to be civilians or the press. Issues like these are symptomatic of the ridiculous context of this war, not from soldiers being crazy.

no inimalist, you dont understand. these soldiers are capitalist demons. they wanted to kill them all.

i think you need to wake up and accept the fact that the western based NWO is taking over.

also, liberator. you never answered my question

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Why did they bring the kids with them?!

Two most likely reasons:

1) So if they were killed, there would be the "America kills children on purpose" rants you see on this very thread. It's a clever (though disgusting) tactic, Hezbullah does it to Israel, hiding weapon caches in schools and whatnot.

2) They were being trained to be future combatants.

Edit: Could also just be REALLY bad parenting.

Originally posted by Liberator
There is no honour, no glory, nothing to gain but the blood and tears of innocents.

LoL, dude. Think you maybe overdid it there a bit?

he probably lives on the hate, like hes one of those guys who hangs out outside escape from new york and yells about the war and writes america sucks haikus.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I also think it is very important indeed that we bear in mind that the group WAS carrying weapons, including an RPG. Some of you are implying there were no weapons at all.

Huh? When did we learn that?

Err, read around a bit. Most analysis is accepting they had weapons. Even the head of wikileaks who posted the footage says they had weapons. The question isn't about them being armed (as the wikileaks founder says, just about everyone in Iraq is armed), the question is whether they were a threat.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
he probably lives on the hate, like hes one of those guys who hangs out outside escape from new york and yells about the war and writes america sucks haikus.

Blindly hating America is so 2006-8, time for a new hobby, me thinks.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, read around a bit. Most analysis is accepting they had weapons. Even the head of wikileaks who posted the footage says they had weapons. The question isn't about them being armed (as the wikileaks founder says, just about everyone in Iraq is armed), the question is whether they were a threat.

I'm sure everyone in Iraq is armed (explaining their low crime rate!) but who had the RPG?

See, this is part of the thing that makes me rather contemptuous of some claims in this thread that you can definitely tell that there was no such weaponry- when even the people posting the footage think an RPG was there (and, as it turns out, early drafts of their video even had this captioned).

Keep looking until you find it, I guess. Some people say it might be a camera tripod. But as I say, general feeling is coming to the point where it is felt the group was definitely armed.

Originally posted by Robtard
Blindly hating America is so 2006-8, time for a new hobby, me thinks.

escape from new york never goes out of fashion though.

ohhh my gawd... i wish they had an escape from new york out here.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
escape from new york never goes out of fashion though.

ohhh my gawd... i wish they had an escape from new york out here.

Good movie.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
See, this is part of the thing that makes me rather contemptuous of some claims in this thread that you can definitely tell that there was no such weaponry- when even the people posting the footage think an RPG was there (and, as it turns out, early drafts of their video even had this captioned).

Keep looking until you find it, I guess. Some people say it might be a camera tripod. But as I say, general feeling is coming to the point where it is felt the group was definitely armed.

Early drafts? So the video's been edited?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Good movie.

great pizza too

Originally posted by Robtard
Early drafts? So the video's been edited?

Of course it has! The raw footage is some 40 minutes long, and obviously you can see the annotations they added. The video has been slowed and zoomed at some points to make clear that the cameramen were... well, cameramen.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm sure everyone in Iraq is armed (explaining their low crime rate!) but who had the RPG?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
See, this is part of the thing that makes me rather contemptuous of some claims in this thread that you can definitely tell that there was no such weaponry- when even the people posting the footage think an RPG was there (and, as it turns out, early drafts of their video even had this captioned).

Keep looking until you find it, I guess. Some people say it might be a camera tripod. But as I say, general feeling is coming to the point where it is felt the group was definitely armed.

from my interpretation it is that the camera men had rifles (bodyguards), but that the RPG was found among the insurgent combatants.

However, going by the testimony of American soldiers who participated in the "winter soldier" demonstrations, there was at least a policy of some regiments to drop AK-47s on the bodies of unarmed victims so they could be described as enemy combatants.

As to what, if any, weapons were being carried by the press, we will probably have to wait for additional investigations. I personally don't believe the US military is a reliable source on this issue.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
great pizza too

A bit greasy, imo. Also, that Berkeley smell permeates the place, so it's hard to enjoy food.

Originally posted by Robtard
Early drafts? So the video's been edited?

zYTxuW2vmzk

Al Jazeera English posted this to their youtube site, it appears to be unedited.

The zooming is, afaik, the gunner zooming in on the target.

It is also important to note that the man who was in the van (the man with the children) was the only car on the streets for blocks, and was identified right at the beginning as a potential target driving around potential insurgents.

EDIT: also, there is CLEARLY at least a second gunship firing further down the street (to the left from the camera's perspective) from the one we are describing... it also opens fire on the van...

EDIT 2: god, should have watched it again before commenting, but listen to the chatter, the forces who had to move south to the bodies were incapable because they had engaged AK47 and RPG fire.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
no inimalist, you dont understand. these soldiers are capitalist demons. they wanted to kill them all.

i think you need to wake up and accept the fact that the western based NWO is taking over.

My cheque from Haliburton shows up on Monday

Originally posted by inimalist
My cheque from Haliburton shows up on Monday


It's endorsed with Cheney's semen.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
how is that a bad thing? what were they supposed to do? cry? sit there silently and let it all sink in so that they could come home with PTD?

It is most certaintly a bad thing. You join the army you sign up to kill other human beings, like a hit man only made legalised, so I have no pity for soldiers they get what they deserve.

I think its sickening to see people laugh at the killing of others, especially innocents, thats why I think its a bad thing. The dialogue between the soldiers is horrific, they are butchering the common man in the name of western imperialism how is that NOT bad?

Now that Ush and others have provided more information I can sort of see the other point of view.

And don't judge me because I hate war, I apologise for believing in peace and humanity i didn't know those were considered bad things to strive for.

Originally posted by Liberator
Now that Ush and others have provided more information I can sort of see the other point of view.

And don't judge me because I hate war, I apologise for believing in peace and humanity i didn't know those were considered bad things to strive for.

maybe do the research before stringing together the most creative insults you can come up with

it makes others who might wish to oppose war look infantile

lol, something I had to learn myself

Originally posted by Robtard
It's endorsed with Cheney's semen.

delicious

Originally posted by Liberator
You join the army you sign up to kill other human beings

Only a small minority of soldiers join the army just so that they can murder people. People who casually buck the social norm of "killing should be avoided" don't handle military structure well. You can argue that soldiers are mislead about what the army does but their not the inhuman monsters you act like they are.

Originally posted by Liberator
like a hit man only made legalised, so I have no pity for soldiers they get what they deserve.

That's a poor analogy. As you can plainly see in the video soldier are not authorized to slaughter people willy-nilly. In fact their dialogue makes it seem that they weren't going to do anything until they saw a weapon that could destroy the helicopter.

Originally posted by Liberator
It is most certaintly a bad thing. You join the army you sign up to kill other human beings, like a hit man only made legalised, so I have no pity for soldiers they get what they deserve.

I think its sickening to see people laugh at the killing of others, especially innocents, thats why I think its a bad thing. The dialogue between the soldiers is horrific, they are butchering the common man in the name of western imperialism how is that NOT bad?

Now that Ush and others have provided more information I can sort of see the other point of view.

And don't judge me because I hate war, I apologise for believing in peace and humanity i didn't know those were considered bad things to strive for.

It is like you're a walking mouthpiece for some annoying teenage anarchist rebel that runs around and spouts stock Bakunin (or Marxist) phrases about the evils of Imperialistic Capitalism and then somehow tie that into the reactions of the soldiers. Apparently because they weren't weeping and in tears they must be callous imperialistic douchebags.

They are soldiers and shit happens in war, get over it.

Originally posted by Liberator
I've re-watched the video at least a dozen times.

Dude....That means you've spent at least 3 hours and 36 minutes watching that same damn vid.

If you did that, you've got waaaaaay too much time on your hands.

Originally posted by Liberator
They had a guy shooting? I saw none of that. Shooting photography maybe.

Watch this vid from 1:37 till 1:47.

fJmhjq8Tz1k

Dude was an idiot to do shit like that. I had to double take to see if I could make out what he was doing...looked very suspicious, to me. You do know that this was the same area that a ground battle had just been fought in, right? That's why they had the apache, circling the area.

Again, those two journalists made very stupid mistakes, that day.

Originally posted by Liberator
They didn't even assess them at all, they just opened fire on them and butchered them.

Not only is that incorrect, you obviously didn't watch the videos 12+ times like you claimed.

Originally posted by Liberator
"All you gotta do is pick up a weapon" These "soldiers" aren't looking for anything than a blood bath.

Then there's the other side: because they were sending in their ground forces and didn't want them to get shot to pieces by a man on the ground with an AK-47.




Originally posted by Liberator
They aren't even thinking, the insurgents aren't idiots if they were just blown apart by a helicoptor they wouldn't have sent a ****ing van to pick them up. Trigger happy morons like this, shoot first ask questions later eh?

Oh, you mean that same van that was circling the area before the events of the vid, during the events of the vid, and right up to the point where they start picking up "insurgents?" Why were those idiots even doing that?

Originally posted by Liberator
There was never any sign of threat to the helicoptor pilots themselves, I'm not even sure the camera crew knew they were there, and if they were didn't really seem to care. Funny, I thought insurgents would take cover and shoot at such targets, not walk about in the open and laugh.

Watch this vid from 1:37 till 1:47.

fJmhjq8Tz1k


Originally posted by Liberator
This wasn't some innocent mistake,

You're right: there was intel before the vid even started that indicated insurgents were meeting up. Then some idiot bozos start pointing their cameras in odd ways, gathering as groups (both major no-nos that journalists should know better on...especially in a fresh battle zone....and where was their friggin' body armor?) making for a weird situation that was gray, at worst, and very indicative of offensive activities, at best.


Originally posted by Liberator
there was no sign of threat, there was what, three or four AK-47s? That automatically qualifies someone as an insurgent? This is utterly disgusting, a fine example of the true colours of war. There is no honour, no glory, nothing to gain but the blood and tears of innocents.

Yeah, there was a sign of threat. Had I been in the same situation, I would have quickly piloted the heli out of the firing sights of what appeared to be prep to launch a shoulder fired rocket or at least an RPG.


And, I agree with that last part.


I'd like to blame it on poor video stability/resolution, and the poor decisions of the two reporters.




Edit -

Originally posted by inimalist
Liberator: Not that I dsagree that more could have been done to prevent the shooting of the news reporter, and especially of the unarmed man in the van, there are some realities of this situation that I think you aren't appreciating.

One of the main reasons I posted the Al Jazeera video is for some of the context their guests give. For instance, what you can't see in the Apache video are the American troops who are less than 2 blocks away, currently engaged in a firefight with individuals who were in fact targeting them with RPG fire.

The streets were empty, as a battle was onging, save for US forces, insurgent forces, and a small group of reporters with none of the typical "press" gear that is worn on the battleground. For instance, reporters in Palestine are never without bright blue helmets and vests that clearly say PRESS on them.

There is a good reason for this too, as insurgents will dress up like the press to stage attacks. From this point of view, anybody on the battlefield is unfortunatly a potential target. This isn't just an unfortunate coincidence, insurget groups, dating back to the Zealots of Rome, want such military reactions as are depicted in this video in order to garner support for their cause.

Like, watch the video. The pilot never identifies targets themself, they are told where the targets are by people currently engaged in a firefight. Sure, that doesn't justify the action, but if you think it is "trigger happy" to light up a target you are being told has an RPG and might use it to kill your fellow troops, you are mistaken. The context makes it almost negligent not to open fire, but I don't accept that either really.

This clearly isn't a case of black and white morality. Sure it is tragic, but think of all the lives that have been lost already because insurgent fighters will make themselves appear to be civilians or the press. Issues like these are symptomatic of the ridiculous context of this war, not from soldiers being crazy.


Inimalist did a much better job of explaining shit than I did.

I still don't like the fact that innocents were killed and I really detest US occupation anywhere, but it's not a case of US soliders going ape shit and being trigger happy.

Originally posted by Autokrat
It is like you're a walking mouthpiece for some annoying teenage anarchist rebel that runs around and spouts stock Bakunin (or Marxist) phrases about the evils of Imperialistic Capitalism and then somehow tie that into the reactions of the soldiers. Apparently because they weren't weeping and in tears they must be callous imperialistic douchebags.

They are soldiers and shit happens in war, get over it.

Well what else are they? Its common knowledge the US is an imperialist nation, its common knowledge the military is the sword of the country sent out to do the politicians dirty work...

War should be avoided at all costs, this war specifically is a war for Empire whether you'd like to believe it or not.

Originally posted by Liberator
War should be avoided at all costs, this war specifically is a war for Empire whether you'd like to believe it or not.

That begs the question, what's wrong with an empire?

Originally posted by Robtard
It's endorsed with Cheney's semen.




WTF?




Originally posted by Robtard
That begs the question, what's wrong with an empire?

Indeed. Many experts believe that the sting of hte Yuuzhan Vong would have been almost negligble with the Empire still around. So that makes you point a FACT!

Originally posted by Robtard
That begs the question, what's wrong with an empire?

Space stations that can destroy worlds, dark siders hell bent on destruction, emotionless killing machines in white armor.......

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. Many experts believe that the sting of hte Yuuzhan Vong would have been almost negligble with the Empire still around. So that makes you point a FACT!

Nah, they didn't need the Empire. It's really just that the Republic just should have put more work into capturing those neat designs.

Originally posted by dadudemon



WTF?






Indeed. Many experts believe that the sting of hte Yuuzhan Vong would have been almost negligble with the Empire still around. So that makes you point a FACT! Horseshit. The Vong woulda tore through the Empire with ease. You need to read the books, holmes.

Originally posted by Liberator
Well what else are they? Its common knowledge the US is an imperialist nation, its common knowledge the military is the sword of the country sent out to do the politicians dirty work...

War should be avoided at all costs, this war specifically is a war for Empire whether you'd like to believe it or not.

so, to you, there is value in comparing the Colonial practices of empires to the modern war on terror?

Might you consider that things have changed enough that anti-colonial rhetoric might not be the most appropriate?

Also, I'd sort of like you to expand on what you think of individual soldiers, because I get the impression that you don't think American soldiers are normal people, who joined the military due to a lack of employment or educational opportunities where they were from...

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Horseshit. The Vong woulda tore through the Empire with ease. You need to read the books, holmes.

dude its stated within the books themselves that the vong took as long as they did to attack because they were scared shitless of sideous and his empire.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
dude its stated within the books themselves that the vong took as long as they did to attack because they were scared shitless of sideous and his empire.

Dude how is a group of stormtroopers gonna contend with Vong warriors? How is the Empire gonna do a Jedi mind meld thing? Also, the Republic had the help of the Hapes consortium and the Chiss. Along with Galleon and the remnants of the Empire, if I recall correctly.

The Republic won because of the Jedi, plain and simple.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Dude how is a group of stormtroopers gonna contend with Vong warriors?

Sun Crusher.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
How is the Empire gonna do a Jedi mind meld thing?

Another Sun Crusher.

the empire kicked the jedi's ass. so.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sun Crusher.



Another Sun Crusher.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sun Crusher.



Another Sun Crusher. Ah, the Sun crusher. And where was the Sun crusher during the Vong war?

Death Star
Sun Crusher
Galaxy Gun
25,000 Star Destroyers
Millions of other ships.
An industrial framework capable of pumping out thousands of more ships.
Super Star Destroyers with power plants that make our sun look puny...

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
the empire kicked the jedi's ass. so.



It wasn't the Empire yet Let's not go down that road K? Cuz in the end, I can say One unaccomplished Jedi defeated the Empire.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Death Star
Sun Crusher
Galaxy Gun
25,000 Star Destroyers
Millions of other ships.
An industrial framework capable of pumping out thousands of more ships.

The Death Star would be taken out first, and quite easily.

Again, where was the Sun Crusher during the Vong war?

The Vong had easily that many ships, and they grew theirs faster than the Empire could produce them. Destroy the shipyards and there ya go.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
The Death Star would be taken out first, and quite easily.

Again, where was the Sun Crusher during the Vong war?

The Vong had easily that many ships, and they grew theirs faster than the Empire could produce them. Destroy the shipyards and there ya go.

I realize that you don't frequent the SW EU forum, but it is an established canon fact that Vong themselves knew they couldn't take on the Empire.