Wikileaks Video Released!!

reply to post by MikeboydUS


We have to accept that some of us will view this event differently. And some have a stronger ability to accept that this event is acceptable. Do to the circumstance of weapons being present in that crowd of people.

To me its sounds like the the pilots/gunners orchestrated the event to get the clearance needed to engage the crowd. In my opinion the pilots/gunner could have used more time to ID the situation. The crowd was not scattering they were gathering. The choppers were at a safe enough distance to give this situation more time, maybe the event would have played out differently or maybe not.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

These are all assumptions.

You keep saying that but you are plain wrong!

I said:

1.They boys screwed up and killed the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Once again, the military has ZERO reason to cover this up if the kills were righteous!

2. Command lied about it when it happened.

Proof of non assumption:

On the day of the attack, United States military officials said that the helicopters had been called in to help American troops who had been exposed to small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades in a raid. “There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad, said then.

But the video does not show hostile action. Instead, it begins with a group of people milling around on a street, among them, according to WikiLeaks, Mr. Noor-Eldeen and Mr. Chmagh. The pilots believe them to be insurgents, and mistake Mr. Noor-Eldeen’s camera for a weapon. They aim and fire at the group, then revel in their kills. nyt

Further proof: The original article with the military's story at the time of the event:

www.nytimes.com...

3. Buried it, covered it up, resisted the FOIA requests.

Proof of non assumption:

Reuters employees were allowed to view the video on an off-the-record basis two weeks after the killings, but they were not allowed to obtain a copy of it. The news organization said its Freedom of Information Act requests were not approved.nyt

Emphasis mine to refute your flimsy explanation of military bureaucracy. They REJECTED the request ... that is a willful act to cover up and obfuscate the truth!

4. And they like yourself are only addressing it now, with a different story and only in the face of the truth in order to limit the pr damage!

Proof of non assumption:

Late Monday, the United States Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released the redacted report on the case, which provided some more detail.

The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees “made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.”

Mr. Schlesinger of Reuters also said in his statement: “The deaths of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh three years ago were tragic and emblematic of the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones. We continue to work for journalist safety and call on all involved parties to recognize the important work that journalists do and the extreme danger that photographers and video journalists face in particular.” nyt

If that's not PR talk and damage control I don't know what is.

No assumptions, just facts!

None of which can be refuted!

The only reason you were included in my last comment is because you choose to keep calling facts assumptions. To be fair, your inclusion was assumptive ... but some assumptions are sounder than others.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Those are not just assumptions old top. Reuters filed a FOIA years ago and the info was not released until someone leaked it out. How can you sit there and say these boys didn't screw up? Killing two journalists, and a family man driving his kids to school isn't a screw up? I will concede that as I was not there, I have no idea if the CP/G was intentionally targeting civilians. I hope that is not the case, but there is no refuting that innocent lives were lost, and these guys screwed up, and that the screw up was followed by a Govt blackout.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Raustin]

reply to post by spy66


I concur time should have been taken and maybe a ground assessment with the eyes in the sky as back up..Indeed a screw up it could of been handled alot better...but question still remains what were the press up to?

[edit on 6-4-2010 by DreamerOracle]

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
reply to post by spy66

 

I concur time should have been taken and maybe a ground assessment with the eyes in the sky as back up..Indeed a screw up it could of been handled alot better...but question still remains what were the press up to?

As a member of the press; my guess would be covering the news.
Looking for some pictures, video and a story for their readers/station.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by whaaa]

So now it is a fact that the man in the mini van was innocent and that the group of men were innocent?

Oh cool.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


We don't know if they lied or made mistakes due to ignorant assumptions.

In ten years I have seen plenty of ignorant assumptions.

I have even seen people deny them.

Unless you were there in person, you have know idea what happened.

Neither you or I are a court of law. Until a proper investigation can be done, its all assumptions.

reply to post by Raustin


I'm not saying they didn't screw up. You can still screw up without violating the ROE.

A proper investigation should be done.

Thats why I called for better training and optics. There is a hard lesson here to learn from. Its the same kind of mistakes that can lead to friendly fire.

reply to post by T0by


If i timed this correctly the chopper is at a distance of 885.5m.

I timed the shooting to impact at about 1.1 sec. The velocity of the projectiel is 805m/s.

That would be: 805m/s x 1.1 sec. = 885.5m

885m is quite far away for the crowd on the ground to be a immediately threat to the Apaches. And by the distance of the Chopper the crowd would most certainly not feel threatened by the circling Apache's.



EDIT : Do to gramer.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

A proper investigation should be done.

In this, for what it is worth, we are in full agreement for that is a reasonable position to have in this matter.

An independent investigation is the only way forward. Hopefully the truth, no matter what that truth is, will emerge as a result.

Yet I cannot help but feel saddened and somewhat betrayed that whistleblowers and WL had to go to extraordinary lengths for this to even be considered. For without their efforts this incident would have remained buried forever.

Not surprised ... but still cognisant that we deserve better from our military.

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
reply to post by spy66

 

I concur time should have been taken and maybe a ground assessment with the eyes in the sky as back up..Indeed a screw up it could of been handled alot better...but question still remains what were the press up to?

[edit on 6-4-2010 by DreamerOracle]

My conclusion is that the press was tipped of that something was going to happen or had happened. It would explain the crowd present as well.

When the Helli pilot mentions being fired upon. You can hear the ground crew at some other location who is on the same radio channel replay negative ...... they had seen no movement by the truck or something Then the Helli pilot reply: F # you.......
This location might be were the press was heading?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


I think CID if given the opportunity would do a decent job investigating the incident and determining if there is any evidence of malicious intent on the part of the pilots. If so, then the pilots should be charged and court-martialed.



[edit on 6/4/10 by MikeboydUS]

Another atrocity committed by the war criminal terrorists of the Pentagon.

These are human beings, not attacking anyone, & these uniformed bitchassed p*ssys in US military uniforms are laughing & partying as they are butchering them.

It is called a psycho-party, being run on your hard earned tax dollars.

Now is there ANY question that these psychos would turn on the American people at the drop of a pin?

That 30mm did some kind of damage to that van. It almost looks like a Bradley drove over the front end. Wow.

Does anyone really have to ask why the video was buried?!

Because it looks bad and they didn't want this EXACT reaction from people at the time. All the bickering and division and hatred it would cause. They did not try to hide what happened. It has already been posted in this thread that the Military released a statement the day it happened that detailed why they were there and that civilians were killed. A link was given.

Those of you who are insisting it is some massive conspiracy to hide the truth cant see past the end of your hatred of America.

The truth hurts.

Which is why you NEVER get any from the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, FBI, Congress & the Whitehouse.

just noticed some parts of this video (the people on the ground being shot at, the two men running for cover and getting shot, and the van) were covered just now on "Pro-TV stiri" which is a Romanian national channel. Caught it by chance as I don't watch TV, and didn't have sound to see what they said.

reply to post by MikeboydUS

Explanation: Which CID are you talking about???

Counter Intelligence Division Governmental->Military

OR

Criminal Investigation Department ->Military

OR

Other CID acronyms [answers.com]



Personal Disclosure:

P.S. I know the US is pretty fubah at the moment so I wouldn't be surprised if you said "Compare and Ignore Data Computing->Assembly"

reply to post by OmegaLogos


I apologize.

Its these guys: www.cid.army.mil...

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
Does anyone really have to ask why the video was buried?!

Because it looks bad and they didn't want this EXACT reaction from people at the time. All the bickering and division and hatred it would cause. They did not try to hide what happened. It has already been posted in this thread that the Military released a statement the day it happened that detailed why they were there and that civilians were killed. A link was given.

Those of you who are insisting it is some massive conspiracy to hide the truth cant see past the end of your hatred of America.

What you are saying is completely untrue!
They released a statement saying they were insurgents, they released a statement saying they didn't know all the specifics.

All that were lies.

It's not about hatred against America
There are americans condemning these actions here in this thread.

They don't like the government killing in their name
That is pro-americanism.
Perhaps you forgot what your country used stand for before it was hijacked by neocons.

It's the same as dems supporting corrupt dems
they support the party not the democratic progressive philosophy.
It's the same as republicans, they support the party not the republican platform.

You support the elected representatives robbing you and killing in your name so THEY can become rich, as opposed to supporting what this country used to stand for.

It's all the same!