It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wikileaks Video Released!!

page: 67
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:25 PM

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Damian-007

You're a Moderator..

I hope you know that will not make a difference?

I love a good argument, too...

I know that, you're a normal human being, just like the rest of us..

Or are you?

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by jefwane

That's the thing.

Do the people who are flying around in choppers and jets, get to see the destruction they cause, first hand or do they just press some buttons then fly away?

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:48 PM
Wikileaks editor on Russia Today

A Wall Street reporter had access to the video, but it didnt come out, he says.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by conar]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:50 PM
reply to post by Kram09

Of course they don't. I didn't really want to come out and say that because I'm a bit sympathetically biased towards ground pounders because I used to be one.

Like I said I'm not at all concerned about the first engagement there were people there with weapons (and camera and tripod) I counted at least two ak type weapons in the hands of those around the journalists. It sucks for the Rueters guys, but they had to know the risks of trotting around a war zone with equipment that could be easily mistaken for a weapon. The follow up engagement against the van raises a myriad of concerns and runs directly in to my main concern the Pentagon's lack of an adequate investigation into the matter in a timely fashion.

I think that the gunner should probably be prosecuted for firing on unarmed people not posing an immediate threat to either the choppers or troops on the ground with the van engagement. Luckily for him if he is prosecuted (apache gunner would be either a Warrant or Commissioned Officer) he's got an Enlisted man on the ground to throw under the bus.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by jefwane]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:06 PM
Not sure if anyone has mentioned already.... but this has made the Mainstream News in the UK.

I just saw a clip on Channel 4 News and the full story is coming up.

This is good news.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:11 PM
Just to throw in my ten pence ...

Clearly there are errors in judgment in regards to this video. From what I saw I could point out one man who potentially had a weapon and he was not being threatening in any way.

Obviously the view from the helicopter was not very good. I am not sure if the shooter was seeing through the same camera that we are? I would appreciate someone confirming this.

There is no-one on this thread that noticed that there were children in the front seat of the van until their location was pointed out. We only knew that there were children in the van when we saw the soldiers carrying them away. I am not justifying any actions within the video but the shooter, if seeing what we are seeing (this needs confirming from above), could not have noticed children in the front seat. I would like to think, if there is any human in him, that his comments about "bringing children to a battle" were simply a knee jerk reaction to the horror that he had caused, a defense mechanism seeking justice or blame for his actions.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:36 PM
It's quite a detailed piece on Channel 4.

They basically said that the Pentagon had confirmed the authenticity of the video and then described what happened in it, For obvious reasons they stopped just as they started firing.

They said even harder to explain away was what happened next.... and then describe how the van comes to clear dead bodies away and then that too is fired upon.

They also say that the pentagon's response was to say that "This video shows what can happen in the heat of war and that mistakes can be made"
They also said "After troops cleared the area, weaponry including a rocket-launcher was found"

Yeah right... PLANTED more like.

I'd say it was a pretty unbiased and quite damning report actually.

It's not gonna change anything but at least this made the MSM.


posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by XyZeR

clearly a case of seeing what you want?
That goes both ways m8

I'm terribly sorry but.... The US military disagrees. From Salon:

According to U.S. officials, the pilots arrived at the scene to find a group of men approaching the fight with what looked to be AK-47s slung over their shoulders and at least one rocket-propelled grenade.

A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47.

You just proved my point with your own reference! The poster you responded to said:

"Clearly that's an RPG!"

You responded:

"Maybe you should visit an eye-doctor...
It's not an RPG, it's a camera Tripod! (which journalists tend to use...)"

Your source says:

"what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47"

So even your source doesn't agree agree with you about the camera. They had to scrutinize the photo and the background of the dead and the actions taken in the photo and COME TO THE CONCLUSION BASED on all that information that what Saeed held was, in fact a camera.

But your source relented and admitted "the camera LOOKED like an AK-47" which IS a weapon.

What you're not getting is that these chopper pilots don't have the luxury of looking up these guys backgrounds on the fly, getting super clear surveillance video (until tech improves) on the fly to help them avoid making mistakes. This whole incident was one big mistake. But I'll give you that it was compounded by the fact that these "kids" at the guns seemed trigger happy and seemed to take glee in killing other human beings. I'm not okay with that.

I believe that sometimes war is necessary. Capital punishment is sometimes necessary. This slaughter wasn't necessary and I do hope that instead of trying to cover it up further the military will take full responsibility and come away with lessons learned from the whole incident.

Lessons like:

The military needs far better surveillance equipment and/or technology, including clearer pictures, high definition zoom-in capabilities, color surveillance - to make accurate judgments on potential combat scenarios so that the cost of innocent lives is minimized or reduced to 0

We need combat-neutral men and women in combat, not kill-loving, hateful soldiers who would delight in body counts or roll over the bodies of the fallen (assuming that was done on purpose but I could be mistaken)

[edit on 6-4-2010 by sos37]

[edit on 6-4-2010 by sos37]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:38 PM
From Wikileaks on twitter: has blocked outgoing links to (but not as yet,.com)

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:57 PM
I want so bad to HATE the soldiers who did this, but it is them who I truelly feel sorry for... The people in the van didn't even have weapons! Could you imagine being shot and your fellow man coming to help you only to die in the attempt? If the People of the world, and especially America, knew this or paid attention to it would they feel the same? The people who commited this crime, and the people who commanded it deserve the worst things to happen to them. I hope their lives are filled with images of the dead, and I hope their wives dovorce them, take their children, and all of there property, I wish for them to have psychological torture to the core of their black dark hearts. One of my freinds who was in Iraq always brings up the argument " They want to kill you". WELL DUH!!! I'd want to kill anyone who funded the murder of my family, freinds, and neighbors too! IF any one of US was in that situation we would fight. NO more excuses people; the time is coming and we better stand up or we are as bad as the oppressors!

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:02 PM
the wikileaks video just hit the danish media (tv)...

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:09 PM
Looks like CNN US is about to cover it in the next few. I saw the brief piece they did yesterday was very lacking.

Just a heads up.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:14 PM

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Alright, the last several pages of this thread are providing a classic example of the ridiculousness of non-soldiers attempting to analyze the actions of soldiers in a theater of battle.

I'm seeing comments like:
"If you slow the video down, you can see..."
"If you magnify the video, it becomes apparent..."
"If you pause the video here, then clearly..."

We are enjoying the luxury of reviewing a video at our leisure, no risk of being blown out of the sky, no concerns of having a handfull of steel jackets turn our skull into a cheese grater, and no worries over having to hear the pilot say that the fuel line has just been hit, brace for crash. HINDSIGHT IS ALWAYS 20/20. There is a reason for that... in hindsight, you can overanalyze to your heart's content, but in real time you have to make snap judgements and therein lies a little thing called risk. Hell, I was writing this video off to begin with when I thought it was plausible that the troops realized there was a likelihood that they were firing on civilians. Now I'm thinking I made an error in judgement on that and the soldiers had absolutely no reason not to believe they were firing on combatants.

If you have to drastically alter the magnification and play speed on a video to make the reality of the situation visible and plausible to the viewer, then it is completely inappropriate to expect anyone making a snap call in real time to see what you're seeing. Again, IT'S WAR. Would you expect the soldiers jump on a PA system if there's any ambiguity and say "Uhm, we're not sure what you're carrying down there. Mind holding it up so we can see it clearly and then stand there while we analyze what we've seen as if we were browsing the footage on the internet? Thank you!" Another question, would you rather they had erred on the side of caution, made a mistake, and then been killed themselves?

I agree 100%, they didn't have the luxury of stopping the footage, analyzing it, etc.

There is always going to be 2 sides to this type of event, those who have no military experience and can never justify this sort of thing and those who do have the military experience who can plainly see they would have to do the same thing in battle...

As an ex Military pilot, I have to tell you I would have done the same thing.
To those who claim they were just cameras, they were not just cameras, it is perfectly clear some of those individuals did have small arms, AKs, etc. whatever.

Just because someone is in or has been the military please done assume they are just a bunch of ruthless killers who don't care, it's simply not true, this is being blown up to be a big deal, yes its sad they got killed and we all wish it didn't happen but in the end this was justified
[edit on 6-4-2010 by clownsroundhere]

[edit on 6-4-2010 by clownsroundhere]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:16 PM
This is an amazing strike against the powers that be, and wikileaks say they have more.....

but I fear what the counter-strike will be....

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:16 PM
The brother of the dead reporter speaks:

Poor guy, it's a shame he had to say allah akbar in the beggining

please nobody be offended by that, to each his own. But i feel his message would have been more efficient if that part wasn't said.

I can't even imagine being born in that type of the world where God is brought up ALL THE TIME no matter the topic, and I was born in a hindu family too and my mom is very religious.
Still too much is too much.

Why am I saying this?

Because the powers that be want him to say allah akbar, it helps further alienate them. Sometimes it angers me that they have to bring god into absolutely everything, but once again to each his own.

Sooner or later they have to realize, oil or not, they were the perfect target for a war on the mind. Leave god at the door, he hasn't helped you now he wont' help you tomorrow. Help yourselves and adapt, adapt to the war on the mind, bullets and missiles also come in the form of propoganda.

Anyhow, my condolences to him and is family.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:20 PM
Nine soldiers were convicted for crimes they commited against prisoners of war (enemy combatants). Why did they get punished for obeying orders when the guys shooting unarmed civilians in the video get medals?
Here are the nine from
Is there anyplace where I can find a list of soldiers convicted of war crimes? When do the leaders get punished?

Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr., 372nd M.P. Co.

Convicted by a general court-martial in January 2005 on five counts of assault, maltreatment and conspiracy.

The charges against Graner stemmed from a number of incidents at Abu Ghraib in November 2003. Among the charges were striking a detainee with a metal baton, stomping on detainees' hands and bare feet, and hitting a detainee "with a means or force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm." He was also charged with photographing detainees he had ordered to strip and masturbate, as well as a pair of detainees whom he had ordered to simulate fellatio.

Graner received a 10-year prison sentence and a dishonorable discharge from the Army, and was reduced in rank to private.

Pfc. Lynndie England, 372nd M.P. Co.

Convicted by a general court-martial in September 2005 on one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act.

England was photographed holding a leash tied to a detainee's neck, smiling while pointing at hooded and naked detainees, and giving a thumbs-up sign next to a group of naked detainees bound and stacked in a pyramid.

England was sentenced to three years in prison and received a dishonorable discharge.

Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick II, 372nd M.P. Co.

Pleaded guilty before a general court-martial in October 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act.

The charges against Frederick included arranging naked detainees in a human pyramid, ordering detainees to strip and masturbate, forcing two detainees into a position simulating fellatio and posing for a photograph while sitting on top of a bound detainee. He was also charged with participating in an incident in which a hooded detainee was placed on a box with wires attached to his hands and told that if he fell off, he would be electrocuted.

Frederick was sentenced to eight years in prison and the forfeiture of pay. He also received a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.

Spc. Jeremy Sivits, 372nd M.P. Co.

Pleaded guilty before a special court-martial in May 2004 to four counts of taking photographs of detainee abuse in November 2003.

The charges against Sivits included escorting detainees to be abused by other soldiers and taking photographs of detainees forced into a human pyramid.

Sivits was sentenced to one year in military prison, was educed in rank and received a bad-conduct discharge from the military.

Spc. Sabrina Harman, 372nd M.P. Co.

Convicted by a general court-martial in May 2005 of conspiracy, maltreating detainees and dereliction of duty.

The charges against Harman included posing in a photograph giving a thumbs-up next to a dead detainee, photographing and videotaping detainees while they were forced to masturbate, writing "rapeist" (sic) on a detainee's leg, and participating in an incident in which a hooded detainee was placed on a box with wires attached to his hands and told that if he fell off, he would be electrocuted.

She was sentenced to six months in prison and received a bad-conduct discharge.

Sgt. Javal S. Davis, 372nd M.P. Co.

Pleaded guilty before a general court-martial in February 2005 to assault, dereliction of duty and lying to investigators.

The charges against Davis included arranging detainees on the floor to be abused by other soldiers, stomping on detainees' hands and bare feet, striking at least one detainee and jumping on a pile of detainees.

Davis was reduced in rank, was sentenced to six months in prison and received a ba

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:21 PM
I imagine, right about now, there are some very furious people within the Pentagon.

Well good! I'm glad! Serves you right for trying to cover it up in the first place!

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by earthdude

The nine were enlisted... not commissioned officers.. THAT'S why they are in jail and the chopper pilots and crew are not.

Officers seem to never get charged unless they are totally 'cut loose' by their commanders. Enlisted are treated many times as 'expendable.'

Perhaps that's bias and a certain degree of anti-authoritarianism on my part, but I've seen it too many times to not draw the inference.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Maxmars]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:32 PM

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Poor guy, it's a shame he had to say allah akbar in the beggining

Why is this a shame?
All he is saying is "god/allah is great", wheres the shame in that...
I am not a religious man but i respect other peoples faiths....

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:52 PM
Wasn't the Space Shuttle supposed to have blown up today so that this news got buried .........

new topics

top topics

<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in