Wiki Leaks: Video Of Government Shooting Journalists

page: 20
479
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I stopped watching the video in the middle of it. I can't stand # like this!!!



Thanks wikileaks for the video. I think I just lost my appetite for the rest of the day.




posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Hideous video, omg does our military not train these soldiers?? How can the military justify ordering a kill shot if the viewers (helicopter) cannot see well enough to recognize a camera from a rpg. You cant tell me those pigs in the chopper did not see those babies!!!

And then the flippant comment about they shouldnt have brought those children with them.

Guess what? These soldiers will be coming home and living among all of us.

This is just ONE VIDEO.

What are we NOT seeing??????

My god, lots of these soldiers will come home and apply for jobs in prisons and with with law enforcement in some capacity. The eager to slaughter video game raised killing machines. No remorse, haha I think I ran over a body, haha. Bucket of laughs, Joe. Bucket of laughs there.

Im sick.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Looks like the BBC has picked up on this story...but what about American MSM?


news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I am not understanding the disgust here. i watched the full version of the film, and I clearly saw more than one man with an AK47 on the ground, and as the apache went around the back of \the building, there was clearly a man crouching with an rpg in his arms looking up at the apache. That was more than enough reason to engage.

The men who came in the van after, there were 3 who were outside, one clearly had a rifle in his hands. There was no way to see any children from the apache's POV.

what is it everyone is so disgusted by, the way they spoke? So what?? They did not just open fire on a group of innocent people here, reporters or not, they were with armed people- and they obviously should know that would lead to a problem!

And think me evil or not, but I agree with the voice on the tape- they SHOULD know better than to bring kids into a shooting spree!! What kind of parent does that? "Oh, these men just got shot, let's pack up the kids and go see what it looks like"...

And yes, it IS kill or be killed there- I have no issue with these soldiers actions.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cjcord
 



Hold it right there sir/madam; you are guilty of making too much sense. I mean, shouldn't our military be equipped with special cameras that can define the age of people through solid objects? And those couple guys with the rifles; they're A-OK, because they were with two journalists. /end sarcasm.

Children, this is called w-a-r. That spells war. If you don't think stuff like this happens constantly, you are beyond naive. Were the two kids in the Apache acting like douchebags? They sure were. Were they complicit in the witting assassination of a Reuter's reporter? Umm... no. And I'm sorry, but if you believe that for a second, you need to put down the bong and go get some fresh air.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by cjcord
 

Did anyone fire at the chopper? i use to be a CPO( close protection operative) and i have seen this video in slow motion, yes maybe two guys have assault rifles but as they didnt fire at the chopper i would think that they were CPO's part of a detail covering the journalists, as for the RPG, freeze the frame and magnify it and you will clearly see that it is a camera zoom. But believe what you want
Oh yes "shooting spree"? only the chopper was intent on shooting anything, the people in the van were trying to evacuate an injured journalist, shooting at unarmed people evacuating journalists is against the Geneva convention but i suppose youve never heard of that.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by cosmodromia tis parnasida]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by cosmodromia tis parnasida
 


In fact they were holding their guns casually at their sides. They were not firing at the chopper. I too think they were protection for the journalists.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by cjcord
 


This is a complete strawman. They did not pack up the kids to go "see what this looks like." They went in to rescue the wounded. They were heroes.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by cosmodromia tis parnasida
 


If you actually listened to the conversation the ground coordinator and the pilot were having, they were fired on by someone from the direction of the men that the Apache dispatched. Now, I don't know about you, but if ground troops are telling me they had been fired on, and I see a group of men carrying weapons in the general direction, it's safe to assume that they had some hand in it. Did they? Probably not but they are in a freaking war zone, unidentified, and armed. Nine times out of ten, this stupid situation plays out the same way.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by cosmodromia tis parnasida
 


Obviously there was a reason that apache was there in the first place. or are we to assume American soldiers wander around Baghdad looking for any stray person to shoot at?

So...there was something up. They identify a group of person, some armed. Are we to assume our policy should be "get knocked out of the air or killed first, then shoot back?" No! That would be silly. Kill or be killed. Remember this, it will be important later on.

So we knock down the armed people and their friends. great- but wait, here comes a van. It's not one of our troops, what's going on? Hey, they're going to rescue this person, who we have reason to believe may be an insurgent. Why would they do this? Oh look, one of them has a gun! They are probably NOT our friends, should we do our job and take preventative measures so they don;t scurry back to their dens and make new plans to kill us?

no no, can't do that! We have to go down and inquire politely whether or not these people are enemies, or if they are simply innocent fellows out for a picnic in a war zone with their kids! What kids? oh, well, aren't rules of engagement saying we assume that all vehicles have kids in them? ohhhh right! I forgot that bit!




Really? This is what you think should have gone down? But next time, let's try reality, k? War is bad. people die. Sometimes civilians get killed or injured. War is not diplomat balls. War is ugly. I kill you before you kill me, because I guarantee that someone with you wants me dead.


Everyone getting all teary eyed and indignant really needs a large dose of the real world.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by cjcord
 


This is a complete strawman. They did not pack up the kids to go "see what this looks like." They went in to rescue the wounded. They were heroes.


Hm, then maybe, just maybe, the kids didn't belong in a battle-zone to begin with. How the hell is it a strawman argument to assert that these idiots in the van put their kids in the line of fire?



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
So wait, is this video important or not? From some of the replies I'm seeing in this thread, some posters are trying to justify every single action taken in the video as "war" and that Wikileaks hasn't released anything special. This video, the 7.2 earthquake, the shuttle launch, and unemployment benefits being lost to millions, and what do I see on CNN?

Tiger Woods returns to golf.




posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
So wait, is this video important or not? From some of the replies I'm seeing in this thread, some posters are trying to justify every single action taken in the video as "war" and that Wikileaks hasn't released anything special. This video, the 7.2 earthquake, the shuttle launch, and unemployment benefits being lost to millions, and what do I see on CNN?

Tiger Woods returns to golf.



It isn't getting attention, and I'm not saying it shouldn't, because wikileaks is already approaching the subject with a clear-cut agenda. There is actually proof via their own subtitles that the military thought they were armed and believed them to be hostile enemy combatants. Wikileaks has trumped this as some kind of conspiracy. When you watch the video with an unbiased mind however, you come to see it as more of a "wrong place, wrong time" scenario.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hungrydirt

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by cjcord
 


This is a complete strawman. They did not pack up the kids to go "see what this looks like." They went in to rescue the wounded. They were heroes.


Hm, then maybe, just maybe, the kids didn't belong in a battle-zone to begin with. How the hell is it a strawman argument to assert that these idiots in the van put their kids in the line of fire?


Did the children have their own input? How do you know it was battle? The "AK's" also look like camera stands. The "RPG's", which i cannot find evidence of, are likely cameras. What makes us believe that ANY of those people were terrorists or anything other than law abiding citizens?

The only word we have is that of Uncle Sam, who is not known for being forthcoming with truth. Other than that, we have what we can all see in that video...and that, to me, is only conclusive in showing that we likely acted wrongly.

Are you saying that Iraqi's should not be in Iraq? It wasn't a battle zone until the US made it so (for right or wrong). Should the people of Iraq just pick up and move until we decide to stop shooting them?

[edit on 5-4-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by cjcord
 
We all have a right to our own opinions, Ill keep mine, and leave you to yours. I find it disgusting, if it wasnt disgusting do you really think Wikileaks wouldve gone through all the # they have been through to release it. Anyway im not here to argue. I dont agree with what you say, but i will defend to the death youre right to say it ~Voltaire~



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by hungrydirt

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by cjcord
 


This is a complete strawman. They did not pack up the kids to go "see what this looks like." They went in to rescue the wounded. They were heroes.


Hm, then maybe, just maybe, the kids didn't belong in a battle-zone to begin with. How the hell is it a strawman argument to assert that these idiots in the van put their kids in the line of fire?


Did the children have their own input? How do you know it was battle? The "AK's" also look like camera stands. The "RPG's", which i cannot find evidence of, are likely cameras. What makes us believe that ANY of those people were terrorists or anything other than law abiding citizens?

The only word we have is that of Uncle Sam, who is not known for being forthcoming with truth. Other than that, we have what we can all see in that video...and that, to me, is only conclusive in showing that we likely acted wrongly.

Are you saying that Iraqi's should not be in Iraq? It wasn't a battle zone until the US made it so (for right or wrong). Should the people of Iraq just pick up and move until we decide to stop shooting them?

[edit on 5-4-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]


I see; you must have missed the part where the ground forces confirm an undetonated rpg underneath one of the KIA's. I advise you to watch/listen/read again. Unless you simply just completely buy into the fact that it was all a cover up, then I'm sure the ground soldiers corroboration with the Apache team that there was indeed an rpg on the ground won't matter to you at all.

As far as the kids? It's a disgusting tragedy. One of the van occupants though, was visibly sporting a weapon. How the hell can you blame the Apache occupants for not knowing these morons had brought their kids with them?

To add; I actually watched the entire video a couple of times looking for some egregious human rights disaster. This is nothing but piss-poor timing by all parties involved.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by hungrydirt]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hungrydirt
 


The kids are in a war zone because it is their home. If the people were driving by and saw wounded, were they supposed to keep going? Would you?



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hungrydirt
 


I am not saying that the soldier on the ground is a liar. But i am saying that, given all the obvioius misidentifications in this video so far, perhaps they misidentified a piece of the camera as an RPG shell? I can imagine that there are LOTS of pieces of flotsam in the area after we laid waste to it.

All of this requires the word of people that you don't know. The only FACTS are what we see. I saw no RPG's.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Did the children have their own input? How do you know it was battle? The "AK's" also look like camera stands. The "RPG's", which i cannot find evidence of, are likely cameras. What makes us believe that ANY of those people were terrorists or anything other than law abiding citizens?

The only word we have is that of Uncle Sam, who is not known for being forthcoming with truth. Other than that, we have what we can all see in that video...and that, to me, is only conclusive in showing that we likely acted wrongly.

Are you saying that Iraqi's should not be in Iraq? It wasn't a battle zone until the US made it so (for right or wrong). Should the people of Iraq just pick up and move until we decide to stop shooting them?

[edit on 5-4-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]


Hm, just noticed some other things that you may not be aware of. Wikileaks is claiming that they received this video unadulterated and actually had to "decrypt" it. So, this isn't Uncle Sam speaking, these are the uncensored words of the American soldiers involved, not some Pentagon mouthpiece. I mean, unless Wikileaks is totally full of crap. And that can't be, right?

I don't think you're actually paying attention to anything that is being discussed and recorded in the comm system. There were shots fired from the direction of the Iraqis that were killed. They were possibly armed. Apaches destroy said Iraqis. More Iraqis come on to the scene, armed, and start trying to transport out a wounded man. The Apache fires on the van, and kills all of targets, as well as children that are hidden from their HUD that were moronically brought to the scene.
If you notice, these Apache pilots did not fire on the injured Iraqi until the attempted rescue by the armed individual(s).



Are you saying that Iraqi's should not be in Iraq? It wasn't a battle zone until the US made it so (for right or wrong). Should the people of Iraq just pick up and move until we decide to stop shooting them?


As for this statement, I really have no idea what you even mean. The US is, sadly, stuck there for the time being. So if people don't want to get shot, they probably shouldn't tote weapons in the general vicinity of the American security forces there. Hopefully the DoD gets those journalist sensing cameras out pronto.






posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


So your observations are pertinent how? A trained soldier in the air, then a trained soldier on the ground, and you have a better understanding of who was carrying what in that video? I mean, we have no evidence to really support any side in this, and nearly everyone is in a frenzy over how wrong the pilots were in this situation.





new topics
top topics
 
479
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join