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: 72
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:14 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

You would of explained it very well if you used your: This is my Uniform speech. I loved that one. It made a lot of sense.

That uniform you wear is MINE! I ALLOW you to wear in on MY BEHALF. It belongs to ME and represents MY WISHES. If you DISHONOR IT, you dishonor ME! And if I SAY you DISHONOR it, then there is no question YOU HAVE. Every deed you do while in MY uniform reflects on ME, either GOOD or BAD. And, if you deny anything I just said, then you are NOT an ‘American Soldier!’

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:28 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

I dont even know where to begin with this so Ill start with I love your avatar. I have nearly the same thing up on my two desktops at work.

Actually, I am thinking about this logically. The fact is, they did release the facts. This is the link given earlier in the thread.

They didn't try to hide any information, only a video that can be easily edited to put the American Military in a bad light (which admittedly isn't hard to do). They admitted civilians were killed. They also gave details about the area and what variables were encountered.

I have a hard time feeling as you do on this subject because I can not ignore why the air support was in the area in the first place. Weapons were found on scene and it is a fact that the American ground troops were under small arms and RPG fire. While the banter between the gunners, pilots, spotters and authorizing brass may have been more than difficult to hear, their actions fit the circumstance. The innocents that were killed were in the area for one of two reasons. They were embedded journalist who were covering the insurgents OR they were children who's parents made a decision to bring them into a combat zone.

Edited to add: Something that seems to get brushed under the carpet here is that Baghdad Soldiers, with their Iraqi Security Force counterparts took part in the operation and were the ground troops being supported.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by DerbyCityLights]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:29 PM

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
I also don't know how i feel about it. The cameras did look questionable but come on, they weren't pointing their "weapons" at the helicopters.

That's exactly what I saw. The guy with the telephoto lens, which looked like an RPG, kneeled down and peeked around that corner, if the video wasn't labled and I didn't already know, I'd think it was a rocket launcher aimed at the apache.

It's a brutal video. But I don't believe the apache thought they were killing innocent civilians.

I saw this post on another forum, I believe it's anonymous. This is just a snip, but I think it puts things into a different perspective.

I'm going to try not to get into a semantic debate about the realities of war versus civilian perception of war, but I do want to clarify a little of what's happening in a technical sense so that the viewer understands what is and is not allowed in these situations. And I'm sure that, despite my best abilities, my personal bias as an Active Duty US Soldier will ultimately show through in the end. I'm currently deployed to a region in southeast Baghdad, near where this incident took place, and the Rules of Engagement that dictate the use of lethal force state 51% certainty that the individual represent a threat to you or another US Soldier. (To my knowledge, it always has been.)

First off, I would be interested in knowing whether or not Reuters reported the presence of journalists to the US Forces who were responsible for operating the battlespace they were located in. That fact that the Bradley unit's ground commander clears the Apaches to engage without further target description implies that this was not the case, and if so it means that these journalists were operating completely independent of any ability of the US to track them, or even know they were present somewhere. This is incredibly dangerous, even now in 2010. Back in 2007, that sort of thing would have been damn near suicidal.

Despite the video's hesitancy in acknowledging that several of the men 'appear' to have weapons, it is clear to me that several of them are carrying AK-47s. If you look at graphics representing the positioning of these journalists from a Bradley convoy only a few blocks away, I think that it is entirely reasonable that the pilots would consider them a threat - particularly after mistaking a massive zoom lens peaking out from behind cover on the very street that an American patrol was taking place for an RPG. Complex ambushes with 8-12 men with AK-47s and RPGs were very common back in early 2007. I can't speak as to why the two Reuters journalists were walking around with men carrying AK-47s trying to sneak pictures of an unaware American combat patrol, and I certainly do not assume that the reason was nefarious.....

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:30 PM
reply to post by MikeboydUS

Explanation: Thanks for disambiguating that!

1stly] Are they really independant?

2ndly] Who polices them?

3rdly] Who funds their activities?

Personal Disclosure: IMO since they work for and support the US DoD and this issue goes to the highest of DoD command chain, that they ARE NOT the best people for the JOB! How about we employ the AFP [Australian Federal Police] who have often done International Police Work!

1stly] They are Independant! [Australians tend to be FAIR!]

2ndly] The are policed by themselves via an Internal Affairs unit!

3rdly] I do with my Taxes!

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:50 PM
I don't understand why so many people are offended by this video. Are people seriously ignorant enough to believe that US forces don't do this on a daily basis? Does putting images to it suddenly make it more real?

There were two armed insurgents gathering with a group of people only a few blocks away from where combat operations were being conducted. The aircrew who made the request to engage the armed individuals were doing so to protect their comrades and the commanders who allowed them to engage were doing the exact same thing. Whether or not the men with the AK-47's actually had the opportunity to use them, by the mere nature of the weapons being on their person, they had the intent to use them.

Agree, or disagree, but in a war without morals, none of the casualties are justified anyways. It is unfortunate that innocent people were killed, but it really shouldn't be a surprise at this point.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by DerbyCityLights

Then Wikileak must have edited out the part were the group of people on the ground fired a RPG and small arms fire. Because that can not be identified by looking at this video.

The report does specifically mention that the people on the ground engage them with RPG and small arms fire. If that is true than the clearance to engage is correct. But there is no RPG being used nor the AK-47. They do after the event is over confirm RPG rounds. But they dont mention the launcher being found or observed after the attack took place.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:53 PM
I believe it was an honest mistake that was taken too far..

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:00 PM

Originally posted by cessationoflife

Agree, or disagree, but in a war without morals, none of the casualties are justified anyways. It is unfortunate that innocent people were killed, but it really shouldn't be a surprise at this point.

War without morals? Have you ever heard of the Rules of engagement?

There's your morals and they weren't followed. Innocent people weren't just killed they were murdered! And the grunts were blind with blood lust.
You can hear it in their voices.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by redhorse

If you hesitate, you are risking their lives, and possibly your own. I have no doubt that at least a few of those voices we heard had been in the situation in the past

Yes, if you hesitate, some one could die.

But these guys weren't hesitating.....they also weren't exercising caution.

You could hear the eagerness in their voice to "LET ME FIRE LET ME FIRE"
"look at those dead bastards"

I mean for Christ sake - they opened up fire on an UNARMED van that was doing nothing more than trying to pick up dead bodies.

THat isn't being cautious and protecting ground troops

Actually, I addressed that, and I agree with you. Opening fire on the van was wrong. Period. No excuses.

Their judgement for the initial engagement was hasty and questionable, but at that point they were still using some of the front of their brains. I do think opening fire was justified in a combat situation. Not only will I still support that, I still feel that 'you hesitate and people die' all by itself, will support it. Those circumstances require it and they are trained to do so.

I suspect you didn't read the entire post. It was long, boring and boiled down to personal opinion, so I can't blame you if you didn't. If so, no harm no foul. If you did, please try to keep what I have written in context... I will do my best to do the same for you.

Originally posted by SnarfThat's called playing too much Modern Warfare, going for a kill streak.

Again, I mentioned this. They did descend into a weird video-game-boys-having-a-good-time banter blood lust thing. Creepy, detached, and disturbing, especially after the van hit the scene. No excuse. The banter and callousness implicit was wrong, and I think contributed to the escalation of their use of force. They did rather quickly stop actually thinking after people started dying. Agreed. I am ashamed of the actions of my country in this, and expect more from these soldiers.

Originally posted by SnarfWell, looks like he got about 15 kills from the Chopper Gunner....guess it's time to call in the tactical nuke?

At that point if those pilots had access to one, and a kid with a lollipop (or a stray kitten) had wandered onto the scene they might have done. Things had deteriorated to that point. (Okay, kidding... Okay, half...)

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Fastercaddy
I believe it was an honest mistake that was taken too far..

that doesn't even make any sense
how could it be an honest mistake if taken too far??

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:12 PM
um their holding ak-47s and their in the street.

if they were innocent why were they in the street?

odds are those Reuters people were terrorist sympathizers. Like that Casey woman I think here name is who wears the pink shirt. If this is the case then they are a threat to our countries values for decency and morality. In this case the use of force was justified since they hate america.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:14 PM
It is sad to see that happen, but you can clearly understand where the pilots were coming from. It did look like weapons and a RPG; so in their eyes they were shooting insurgents; and that is all there is to it.

I don't see murder here, I see troops doing what they have to do to win a war. That was a tragic misunderstanding in that situation.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:18 PM

Originally posted by tigpoppa
um their holding ak-47s and their in the street.

if they were innocent why were they in the street?

Did you really post that? Two people were carrying guns legally in their own country.

If they were innocent, why were they in the street??? Are you serious? Only guilty people are found in streets is that it? Maybe you can point out the lawns or sidewalks they were supposed to be in to show they were innocent for me?

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:25 PM
reply to post by K J Gunderson

Umm, I dont think it is legal to be carrying your weapons outside when you know there is an occupying country looking for just that thing.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Did you really post that? Two people were carrying guns legally in their own country.

If they were innocent, why were they in the street??? Are you serious? Only guilty people are found in streets is that it? Maybe you can point out the lawns or sidewalks they were supposed to be in to show they were innocent for me?

Ok well lets use common sense here, im not talking about a Real American cleaning his 12 gauge in the backyard of the suburbs. These guys are in the middle of a WARZONE! Im not debating if it is legal, to be honest I dont know what the laws are in Iraq. I do know that common sense says if there are guys holding guns and their not our guys in a warzone then they must be their guys. did you really want the pilot to wait until they killed one of our precious soldiers? Like I said I also heard from my friend who said his roommate heard Reuters is Anti American and they printed stories supported healthcare reform. So in any event it doesnt change the fact Reuters is a threat to the security and stability of this great country.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:39 PM
I have not read all 72 pages yet so forgive me if this has been posted before. The chopper pilot thought he was doing his job of protecting the troops. Let me say this is very disturbing to me. He thought he saw a threat and asked for permission to fire repeatedly before each instance. Not cold blooded but tragic in my opinion. I have never been under fire before but there is little time to know who means you harm. That being said, does anybody know if there is a fund being set up for the reporters and other peoples families?

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:45 PM
Their journalist should have been wearing the flak jackets and helmets so they can be identified. They mistakenly killed these guys and they didn't see the children Why do you think the helicopters were there in the first place? There was a battle going on. Why does the camera man peak his head around the corner? There was a battle going on that’s why.

Why were the journalists not wearing their flak jackets and helmets? There were people walking around with AKs why?

Guess what? what they did was justified under the ROEs. There was a gun battle going on and the helicopters were protecting the Iraqi and American forces.

Not every insurgent is going to be carrying a weapon? You know why? They act as spotters so Americans will not shoot at them.

.You people can judge all you want. Most of you don’t understand what is going on. CAS did its job and under the ROE they did nothing wrong. Maybe the enemy should wear a uniform.

They did not intentionally kill civilians unlike terrorist who set car bombs to purposely kill civilians. I’m saddened that these events happened. The soldiers on the ground got the children out of there and the local hospital might have been closer. The video assumes that there was a nefarious thing at work which there was not. Command did not know the helicopter wounded the children.

This isn’t some damning video, it was an unfortunate thing that happened and will continue to happen until this horrible war is over. That’s what happens when your enemy doesn’t fight conventionally.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by eikmun]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:48 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:53 PM
One of the most shocking video's I've seen all year. ATS has the longest video I've seen today. Most on YouTube are pretty short, but now it's on Yahoo's main page. I think people need to watch this full video. Clearly terror is on both sides

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:06 PM
Surviving children speak out... the children from the van


Analysis of the video

new topics

top topics

<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in