It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 69
600
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
How is this friendly fire? The helicopter was clearly there for a reason which is left out in the video. There appears to be weapons in the hands of the guys other than the photographers. Just seems to me that they were hanging around with the wrong crowd at the wrong time.

They werent wearing anything to identify themselves as press.

Just an unfortunate thing but they had to know the risks of walking around with guys who are carrying weapons openly... in a place of war.




posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I've not looked through all the thread but just wondered.....I've watched the film heres a few questions with pictures....
What were the press doing?



Secondly I noticed the group the reporters were with an Armed group....




and there is an RPG being heeld by the Armed group behind the reporters




So my question is what were they up to?
I don't condone impulsive acts that cause harm, when they could of informed ground units to take them from the ground if they turned out to be hostile but question still remains .......what were the press doing with a armed group of civillians?




[edit on 6-4-2010 by DreamerOracle]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Just saw this in a book I was reading and immediately thought of this thread




I am capable of what every other human is capable of. This is one of the great lessons of war and life."


-Maya Angelou

Not a huge fan of the 'ol girl but I love this quote.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
I didn't see any violations of rules of engagement here.

On the other this is identical to various incidents of friendly fire.

There are lessons to be learned from this.

1.Apache pilots need more visual testing and better optics on the gunships.

2. The Pentagon needs to be blunt when this or friendly fire happens. Thorough investigations need to be done and findings need be upfront.

These kinds of incidents and friendly fire need to be eliminated. Better training and better equipment will help with this.


Please show me where in the rules of engagement that it shows you can fire on people that have not fired upon you. Had they have actually been carrying weapons, these people could very easily have been local law enforcement, indiginous forces, or even special ops. I doubt their communication is so well that they would have known such things. The fact that there were no weapons period makes this a violation of the rules of engagement. The fact that there was a cover-up of this incident screams loud and clear that they were trying to hide a violation of the rules of engagement or else they wouldn't bother covering this up. What would they have to hide?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Why do you say there were no weapons? They are as clear as weapons as they are 'tripods' that have been neatly pointed out to you in the video. If you cant think on your own why even comment? I dont understand.

Just how you can CLEARLY see children in the unmarked van.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
I've not looked through all the thread but just wondered.....I've watched the film heres a few questions with pictures....
What were the press doing?



Secondly I noticed the group the reporters were with an Armed group....




and there is an RPG being heeld by the Armed group behind the reporters




So my question is what were they up to?
I don't condone impulsive acts that cause harm, when they could of informed ground units to take them from the ground if they turned out to be hostile but question still remains .......what were the press doing with a armed group of civillians?




[edit on 6-4-2010 by DreamerOracle]


Your RPG is a tripod. The man carrying what "could be an AK" could very well be armed private escort. We have the technology to prevent such occurances but yet we do not use it. Why do you defend these actions? There is no reason to fire on the van. Why did that occur? If I drove by somewhere and saw some one injured I would help them as well. Am I now a combatant? Suppose next time I stop on the highway when there is an accident I should start looking up for gunships?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by racerzeke
 


I wasn't saying it was friendly fire, but that its like incidents of friendly fire.

The pilots can get carried away at times. They didn't violate ROE or LOAC though.

I still say better training and optics will help.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



This is an interesting idea, and outstanding post, and worthy of a thread of its own.

The Arab nations are easy pickings for controlling via mental warfare. They want so bad to be looked at legitimately and as equal to the west (there is this complex that seems to pervade them, about not being respected), yet act in a way that lampoons humanity.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Yes look for gunships on the freeway in California. Dont be silly.

Whether the guy who stopped knew what had just happened is up for debate, but if he did would you stop and help people who you just saw get mowed down like that? I know it goes against all human emotions... but it still isnt smart.

Why did they fire on the van? Was the van marked?

The pilots truly believed those guys were combatants and that they were picking them up and taking their weapons away. When the ground troops got there there would have been nothing left. I think it was in their best interests to try to preserve the scene as it was.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


If they thought they saw weapons and felt threatened they wouldn't have violated the ROE.

An investigation into this kind of incident would have come to the same conclusion.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Damian-007
 


I'm not disagreeing with you. Read my posts here, you'll see that...

As for my "almost wishing"? Let me see if I can put my thoughts into the proper wording...

Had that been an RPG, rather than a camera, the guys in the chopper, depending upon how far away they were, could have been in danger of being shot at. So they'd have been ok to shoot. As for the follow up, no. That's not on... and I'm in no way excusing that, or attempting to. That's what I was trying to get across...

As it turns out? It wasn't an RPG, it was a camera.

Now is where the investigation must start. Accident, or no? We don't have all the evidence, just this video.


This is where it falls on Obama's shoulders. He promised "transparency". We haven't had it in this case thus far. If the People are ever going to have faith restored, transparency is a critical step. Without it, i don't believe anything that i am told.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by racerzeke
 


I don't think preserving the scene justifies the shooting of wounded and unarmed people. Then again I didn't see what happened out of frame with the van and with that cognition realize I have somewhat contradicted some of my earlier posts.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Raustin]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Just to make things clear, according to the report initially given to Reuters, one rpg was found along with one AKM (photographs of both given as well)

However :

link

We are asking the wrong questions.

Why was the camera (which survived) confiscated and not returned till days later?

Why did witnesses to the scene report NO battle or confrontation leading to the Apache attack?

link 2

Why where any gatherings of people in the area shot at?

Why weren't documents of the logging of weapons at the site revealed?

Why weren't the kids injured included in the report?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Where is your proof that they were unarmed? Where is your proof that these were tripods and cameras? Just speculation and opinion

You dont have any just like I dont have any proof that they had weapons or were unarmed. I can see both sides, unfortunately it seems like the majority just feeds into the edits on the video.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress




Your RPG is a tripod. The man carrying what "could be an AK" could very well be armed private escort. We have the technology to prevent such occurances but yet we do not use it. Why do you defend these actions? There is no reason to fire on the van. Why did that occur? If I drove by somewhere and saw some one injured I would help them as well. Am I now a combatant? Suppose next time I stop on the highway when there is an accident I should start looking up for gunships?


I have'nt defended anyone I asked what the press were doing with an armed grp of civilians...it is clearly an rpg. Needless to say, what were the press doing?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by racerzeke
Yes look for gunships on the freeway in California. Dont be silly.

Whether the guy who stopped knew what had just happened is up for debate, but if he did would you stop and help people who you just saw get mowed down like that? I know it goes against all human emotions... but it still isnt smart.

Why did they fire on the van? Was the van marked?

The pilots truly believed those guys were combatants and that they were picking them up and taking their weapons away. When the ground troops got there there would have been nothing left. I think it was in their best interests to try to preserve the scene as it was.


The pilots wanted to believe those guys were combatants. They van only stopped in one spot and 2 guys got out to help one man. No one tried to roam the scene nor was there any threat from the van. This act was misconduct on the highest level. America was found on the priciple of innocent until proven guilty. Granted this is a warfront but, there was never an indication of violence nor agression towards our troops or any civilians. So how is this not a violation of the current rules of engagement for our troops in Iraq? I have 3 soldiers standing next to me right now stating that that was a violation of the rules of engement. Two were in Iraq and one was in Afghanistan.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by racerzeke
 


Once again ... to the question that all the apologists neglect to address ...

If there's nothing to hide and this was a righteous kill why were they hiding it for the last three years and why did they lie about the circumstances?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
At 3:41 on the short version you can see center screen 3 guys w/ weapons.

What are we doing in Iraq anyway? Can somebody answer that? I will.

Our leaders want us to have presence in the Middle East.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbomb456
 


If someone has an RPG, they become an instant target. It doesn't matter what is going on. If one of them had an RPG, they are dead and anyone around them is in danger.

Even cell phones, night vision, or binoculars on a person at the wrong place at the wrong time can get you killed and others around you killed.


[edit on 6/4/10 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Those people in that video could hear and see the gunships in the air. The did not feel threatened because they felt they were not doing anything that should warrant being shot at from the helicopters. The insurgents know what these helicopters are capable of and would not knowingly gather in a group like they did knowing that they could be shot up that easily. Some times common sense comes into play. These people were doing nothing suspicious. they never shouldered up anyting nor even looked up at the gunships. Yes I am aware that the gunships were at least a mile away flying a circle pattern. Sneaky insurgents do not just go roaming around in groups in broad daylight, congregating in the open with weapons in hand with malintent. As for finding the weapons, my three friends say that troops planted more weapons then they acctually found in these "fire fights".



new topics

top topics



 
600
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join