Wikileaks Video Released!!

Originally posted by MajinRoshi
reply to post by Kram09

 

I've been in the military and Iraq yes. Its so painfully obvious most of you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. You're just reacting the way the makers of this propaganda wanted you to.

Youve said it several times now, I would like to know why you think this is propaganda, since you have touted the video as such.

Oh and could you address my previous post about the ROE and its failures

reply to post by MajinRoshi


Unarmed people got shot. That is a screw up, whether accidental or deliberate. It should not have happened.

Cling to your Rules of Engagement as you will, it won't change the fact that unarmed people died.

reply to post by phishfriar

Seeing as you like to quote your precious ROE so much, here is a direct quote that seems to fit the tune of this video rather nicely

"Excessively loose ROE can facilitate the escalation of a conflict which, while being tactically effective, negates the political objectives that the use of force was meant to achieve. This is a Type II error or "escalatory" error. A common contemporary Type II error would be the use of excessive force, such as air-strikes, in an area with high numbers of noncombatants where such force would result in unintended collateral damage. Such action would most likely negate the trust of a local indigenous population who would then support the escalation of an insurgent force through protection, harboring of weapons, and recruitment."

Sure, if you just unloaded on a crowd. Thats not what happened here. It was a combat sittuation with armed men and the pilots REPEATEDLY asked for permission. Why cant you people deal with the facts and not what your imaginations have conjured up?

reply to post by MajinRoshi


Personally I haven't murdered anyone, unlike the troops in the video.

Nor have I been contemptuous and arrogant of other people's opinions.

reply to post by MajinRoshi


The more I read what you write the more I wonder just who you work for...

reply to post by phishfriar


For what it's worth Link

I will readily concede that I was not there and that all of the facts are not known to me. I will also concede that I have never been in a war and that my combat training has only been related to my work, which as I have said is a heck of a lot more cut and dry than a war zone. Initial engagement I can understand, floating around shooting injured essentially incapacitated persons is a war crime.

reply to post by loner007


They control the media, there is just no way they would let this be reported.

reply to post by Kram09

I'm ashamed and really disgusted that some people are trying to defend what this video shows or try to make excuses for it.

They need to have a good long look at themselves, and ask why they find it acceptable.

They say these things because they are paid to do so -- by whom? well take a pick, there are many possibilities.

I still don't know how they can look themselves in the mirror tho?

reply to post by seagull

Unarmed people got shot. That is a screw up, whether accidental or deliberate. It should not have happened.

Says who? You? It happens all the time! You think the brits or danes haven't killed innocent people while fighting an enemy that surrounds itself with civilians, for this very purpose? The bad guys do this, because they know there are a lot of folks like you that will go nuts over it.

Again, what makes you think you're so educated on this subject?

reply to post by wayno

They say these things because they are paid to do so -- by whom? well take a pick, there are many possibilities.

Wow, you guys really go to great lengths to explain away the fact you have no idea what you're talking about? Yeah, its the men in black! I'm off to my spaceship after this post.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by MajinRoshi]

reply to post by MajinRoshi


Create a thread about your experiences in combat and I'll gladly join and take part.

You haven't really given me anything to go on here, apart from that you were in combat.

So?

To me personally that video wasn't combat, as I don't remember the Americans being fired at. I didn't even see them carrying weapons. We seem to differ on what exactly constitutes the definition of combat.

Originally posted by MajinRoshi
reply to post by phishfriar

 

Seeing as you like to quote your precious ROE so much, here is a direct quote that seems to fit the tune of this video rather nicely

"Excessively loose ROE can facilitate the escalation of a conflict which, while being tactically effective, negates the political objectives that the use of force was meant to achieve. This is a Type II error or "escalatory" error. A common contemporary Type II error would be the use of excessive force, such as air-strikes, in an area with high numbers of noncombatants where such force would result in unintended collateral damage. Such action would most likely negate the trust of a local indigenous population who would then support the escalation of an insurgent force through protection, harboring of weapons, and recruitment."

Sure, if you just unloaded on a crowd. Thats not what happened here. It was a combat sittuation with armed men and the pilots REPEATEDLY asked for permission. Why cant you people deal with the facts and not what your imaginations have conjured up?

My imagination didnt conjure up the fact that the gunman's camera was able to ZOOM, (check the video at 9:13) but that would be too convenient for them to actually CONFIRM a situation before engaging.

reply to post by MajinRoshi


So if you saw a man in the street carrying a gun or any other weapons you would immediately shoot him then call it combat.

Then if someone came to help the injured man you would kill them too and still call it combat? Even though you wern't fired on?

Personally in my book that's murder.

reply to post by Kram09

To me personally that video wasn't combat, as I don't remember the Americans being fired at. I didn't even see them carrying weapons. We seem to differ on what exactly constitutes the definition of combat.

You think you know everything that was going on, because you watched a video on yuotube? Cripes, enjoy living in ignorance. I'm done going back and forth with you children.

Personally in my book that's murder.

Yes, but we've established you don't know what you're talking about. I can make blanket statements about stuff I don't know about to.

reply to post by phishfriar

My imagination didnt conjure up the fact that the gunman's camera was able to ZOOM, (check the video at 9:13) but that would be too convenient for them to actually CONFIRM a situation before engaging.

They did confirm, hence the repeated and then acknowledged request to engage. This wasn't just a chopper out, that happened on to these people. It was an apace in a kill zone, waiting for fleeing insurgents.




[edit on 6-4-2010 by MajinRoshi]

reply to post by wayno


This 'ol boy has irritated me a bit but saying he's a 'disinfo' agent just because he signed up yesterday to comment on this thread is incredibly naive. He should have his opinion heard, just as you should. Let him speak. I do agree that the film is a bit propaganda-y and I'm glad someone else has the character to state their beliefs.

Originally posted by MajinRoshi
reply to post by Raustin

 

Shooting someone who is injured and poses no threat is a war crime. There is no refuting war crimes were committed.

Not true. Again showing that most of you have no idea what you're talking about. Like saying its normal for Iraqis to walk around with AKs. You're full of it if you beleive that. The ROE states that if you come across an Iraq brandishing a weapon, you're cleared to engage. They are allowed to own them yes, but not walk around with them!

The fact is, they asked permission for engagement and got it, but besides that:

Under the laws of Land Warfare you can shoot at someone running away even unarmed. References are :

FM27-10 (The Law of Land Warfare.)
TC 27-10-1 (Selected Problems in the Law of Land Warfare)
DA Pam 27-1(TREATIES GOVERNING LAND WARFARE. ), P. 12 (HR art 23 (c))

The original story reeks of BS. The language used (murdered? - professional journalists would say "killed"), tall tales of the State Dept following people and a complete lack of named sources means it's got all the credibility of a story I could whip up over a bowl of cornflakes.

This is nowhere near as cut and dry as you anti-soldier folks want it to be. Most of you are talking out of your asses and don't know the first thing about this subject. You're just jumping on the popular, ignorance ATS bandwagon.

reply to post by seagull

 

My friend, I'm about as unleft as it gets around here...but neither am I blind. The military, in this case, screwed up. Plain and simple. Then they compounded the issue by attempting, so far as is known, to cover it up... Accidents happen. But you don't cover it up.

Could you outline where you get your knowledge of the ROE from and how you KNOW for a fact that "the military messed up"?

No, the insurgents don't play by the Geneva conventions. Never have. Does that mean that we shouldn't, too? Two wrongs will never equate to a right.

Thats a nice excuse for your completely inconsistent reactions.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by MajinRoshi]

If this was never a crime why did they have cover this up by putting a different story to this than the images actually show us?

I understand why you don't see the mishap that happened in that clip. i have seen this with other soldiers as well. And its based on how they are thought to not use their judgment according to what the engagement roles apply. Engagement roles are a set of roles that you are not allowed to go beyond. But you are allowed to use your own judgment as you see fit to see if engagement is needed. This pilot drew a conclusion without making the proper identification of a threat. Its more like he encouraged his sector superior to give him the go a head to engage the targets.

He got the go a head because he confirmed something that he had no clear ID of at all. That pilot made a assumption that these people were armed. And by the way he called it in. Of course he is going to get the go a head to engage the target.

reply to post by MajinRoshi


As I said, I will gladly read about your experiences in Iraq, if you are willing to post about them and inform us.

All you've done is make vague statements without backing them up.

Yes I watched a youtube video? And? Is there something wrong with that?

Although it's enraged me and made feel disgusted, I haven't tarred all Americans or American soldiers with the same brush.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Well , apparently you only read every other post I make.

I'm from ICELAND ....and I had a hand in REMOVING my government.

What have you done lately ?

reply to post by MajinRoshi


Yes you've clearly been making blanket statements that's all you've done, when i've constantly asked you to elaborate.

reply to post by janon

The more I read what you write the more I wonder just who you work for...

I'm a freelance video editor.

Seriously, the paranoia that you people display should be a clue to the rational ones that maybe they should take all of this with a grain of salt.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by MajinRoshi]

reply to post by spy66

He got the go a head because he confirmed something that he had no clear ID of at all. That pilot made a assumption that these people were armed. And by the way he called it in. Of course he is going to get the go a head to engage the target.

Sigh.... They were armed. This isn't up for debate. Even the wikileaks article admits that.