Wikileaks Video Released!!

reply to post by racerzeke


wow you're so much in denial it's crazy, maybe you need to carefully watch the video again or something because you're just not making any sense. And you're saying you can clearly see them with AK47's and rpg's, all I can see is them with camera's and a tripod. And what about the video just posted above you? guess they had AK's and rpg's too.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by SpaceMonkeys]

Not sure if it has been mentioned in here but Huffington Post has picked it up

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by belial259

Originally posted by racerzeke
None of you have any proof that the people inside the van were innocents or not.

They're people. And they're in Iraq. That's all the proof of innocence I need.

WMD remember?

The new US mindset...
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT!

It seems to be pretty popular to just say that we should never even be there and therefore this should not have happened.

Well guess what? WE ARE THERE. This happened. Who cares where this is? Iraq? Afghanistan? China? Mexico? Where ever this took place, without the basis of the war in question, what these men did was RIGHT.

I guess it might be hard to understand since this video shows such a conspiracy. I'm sure the photographers had pictures of the supposed WMDs right?

On ATS everyone finds so much more than what happened. Can you just watch the video without any agenda? No

Originally posted by racerzeke
Insurgents riding around in their shiny new toyota pickups full of weapons. Who cares if it was new? If anyone has the money to buy one it would be the terrorists.

Oh goodie ... you squeezed in both of the war marketing nomenclatures (insurgents/terrorists) into one statement.

Very nice work, and quality foreshadowing of the pending spin by the ex-pentagonated talking headz on teh msm news ... consider us adequately placated.

reply to post by MajinRoshi


Justify shooting the van. That is the part of the video that truly disturbs me. Yes from a distance it looks like the men are carrying weapons, and yes I can understand how that mistake could have been made, but shooting up the van was just disturbing.

Originally posted by racerzeke
So it is a good idea to go outside at night pointing a lets say hairbrush at a police officer? If he thinks it's a gun he can shoot me. He doesnt have to wait until I shoot him first. Sure people would feel bad for me but it would be what I was asking for.

Do you know how far away the apache is? They probably couldnt even see it or hear it. They were wiped out rather quickly. How could they have time to react and shoot back at something they never saw?

And thanks, I'm glad you're not on the battlefield since you wouldnt have the heart to do your job.

Than how could the people on the ground be a threat to the Gunship. If they had no idea it was there?

If the gunship was 1000meters away what threat would a RPG or a AK-47 be?

The people on the ground weren't in a gunfight either. And there was no other US troops around except the gunship.

fox:
www.foxnews.com...

Had it not been set that they were carrying tripods or camera equipment beforehand you wouldnt be saying they were carrying cameras, come on. Just like whoever claims they can clearly see children. Had the video not been zoomed in x100 and you see grainy movement you probably would have never noticed.

I guess you cant just watch the video without the agenda of the video being impressed on your brain, and in that case wikileaks did their jobs.

Originally posted by racerzeke
Do you know how far away the apache is? They probably couldnt even see it or hear it. They were wiped out rather quickly. How could they have time to react and shoot back at something they never saw?

Please explain to us how the people on the ground represented a threat.

NO evidence of weapons anywhere, just a lot of guessing going on ie: "it looks like he's got an RPG"

"How could they shoot back at something they never saw"? yeah great point! In fact i'll take it one step further:

How could they shoot back at something they never saw, with weapons they never had!

reply to post by rufusdrak

In the middle of a battle? It said that raid occured a DAY AGO. How is that in the middle of the battle. You need to learn better comprehension skills. The battle was long over and the people were obviously not armed that were down there.

From the article:

Reuters stated that its photographer and his driver "had gone to the area after hearing of a military raid on a building around dawn that day

So yes, they were right in the middle of it. Especially if they were between the bad guys and a chopper set up to take them out. I don't know where you're getting "a day ago". How do you know "the battle was long over" ? What do you know about combat or this operation? Battles last all day and sometimes several days.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Oh goodie ... you squeezed in both of the war marketing nomenclatures (insurgents/terrorists) into one statement.

And Toyota. Has anyone else noticed Toyota seems to be the terrorists vehicle of choice? And this niche market association of terrorists and Toyota seems to happen in the media, especially CNN a real real lot?

It's always the terrorists and the Toyotas. They don't drive Citroens or Fords.

It's neuro linguistic programming.

reply to post by racerzeke


I agree with you here. I had a hard time seeing the children until I got a bit closer to the screen and those tripods look a heck of a lot like weapons if you lean back. Without the background noise and back story this event would have looked fairly normal until that van shows up.

I personally did not see anything that looked like a gun.

They kept saying someone had an RPG, but I didn't see it, or hear anything that sounded like it.

The camera, to me, looked like a camera. You wear them on straps. It looked like a camera bag to me.

Originally posted by belial259

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Oh goodie ... you squeezed in both of the war marketing nomenclatures (insurgents/terrorists) into one statement.

And Toyota. Has anyone else noticed Toyota seems to be the terrorists vehicle of choice? And this niche market association of terrorists and Toyota seems to happen in the media, especially CNN a real real lot?

It's always the terrorists and the Toyotas. They don't drive Citroens or Fords.

It's neuro linguistic programming.

Great... we've got the new buzzword "Hatriot" and now this....

"Toyotorists"

I wonder if i walked into PhotoDepot and asked for an RPG with all the bells and whistles, they would know what i'm talking about?

reply to post by MajinRoshi

So the reporters basically walked right in to the middle of battle. Those pilots were set up to kill Insurgents fleeing a raid. Given these facts, I don't see how you can call the soldier murderers by any stretch.

Well, that's easy figuring that they are mercenaries not soldiers.

Plus they are not working for you or me, or protecting any of us, they are working for a corporation and profit:

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

So calling them murderers is easy, they were not killing "insurgents" any more than you would be an "insurgent" if someone invaded your Country to steal your resources.

Like I said, oil and opium.

That was the only motivation for these occupations.

If it hasn't already, this video footage needs to be handed over to the relevant authorities and all those involved in this atrocity should stand trial & be brought to justice. Absolutely disgraceful.

reply to post by StealthKix


Thank you i will. More ppl should see the REAL face of war, instead of the dolled up version they get from the mainstream newsmedia.

reply to post by belial259


Actually not a bad marketing idea for Toyota. Kind of like the Kalishnikov, if terrorists use it you know it's idiot proof and will hold up to sand.

Am I the only person that finds if odd that Wikileaks and CollateralMurder.com (the site that was put up just for the video) are both offline. Currently the only way to access Wikileaks is through the use of a mirror site hosted overseas.