Wikileaks Video Released!!

reply to post by spy66


Also the fact that they claim they had a guy firing or shooting, I can't remember which.

Either way it was totally untrue.

This is my first post so please.. bear with me.

So, let me get this straight, they can zoom in to look at dead bodies and destroyed vehicles yet they can't zoom in to check to see if what they're calling RPGs and AK-47s are actually them? Bull#. I can understand thinking that they were weapons a first but if they had waited to zoom in and take another 10 seconds to confirm this then this whole thing would have played out differently.

Also, engaging the van should have never happened even if the people getting out did have weapons. They were there to pick up the wounded and get out, that's all. The second the men in the helicopter or whatever they were flying saw children in the car they shouldn't have even considered opening fire on them.

This really isn't the fault of the people on the other end up the microphone as some people are saying, they didn't know they didn't have weapons, they were blind and oblivious to the fact that the men in the helicopter just wanted to shoot something. Also, the fact that the U.S. Military isn't punishing the men in the helicopter due to giving false information is preposterous, apon ariving at the scene did none of the soldiers find it a little weird that there were no weapons besides the deadly camera?

All in all I think this is just poor judgements by our soldiers in Iraq and it really is sad that CNN/Fox could care less about what's happening over there.

reply to post by Kram09


It seems to me (well judging from the comments by alleged military/ex military personnel on here) that these military types all stick together and defend each other to the hilt.

They can't take any criticism and also don't seem to be able to distinguish between what is right and wrong.

Infact basic words such as "combat" and "mistake" seem to have different meanings to people in the armed forces.

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by spy66

 

Also the fact that they claim they had a guy firing or shooting, I can't remember which.

Either way it was totally untrue.

Correct. Just before the chopper turned the corner to open fire on the crowd. One of the pilots tells over the radio that they are being fired upon.

Than you can hear the ground crew reply. Negative... No movement seen..... Then you can hear the pilot say f # you.....

So this much explains, that either the ground crew at the other location nor the Apache's at the present location are being fired up on. The whole thing is just initiated to get clearance to engage.

Originally posted by Cthulhus Messenger
This is my first post so please.. bear with me.

So, let me get this straight, they can zoom in to look at dead bodies and destroyed vehicles yet they can't zoom in to check to see if what they're calling RPGs and AK-47s are actually them? Bull#. I can understand thinking that they were weapons a first but if they had waited to zoom in and take another 10 seconds to confirm this then this whole thing would have played out differently.

Also, engaging the van should have never happened even if the people getting out did have weapons. They were there to pick up the wounded and get out, that's all. The second the men in the helicopter or whatever they were flying saw children in the car they shouldn't have even considered opening fire on them.

This really isn't the fault of the people on the other end up the microphone as some people are saying, they didn't know they didn't have weapons, they were blind and oblivious to the fact that the men in the helicopter just wanted to shoot something. Also, the fact that the U.S. Military isn't punishing the men in the helicopter due to giving false information is preposterous, apon ariving at the scene did none of the soldiers find it a little weird that there were no weapons besides the deadly camera?

All in all I think this is just poor judgements by our soldiers in Iraq and it really is sad that CNN/Fox could care less about what's happening over there.

FYI you need to check the whole thread I myself disected the footage and picked out the Combatants with weaponry which includes an RPG....

reply to post by DreamerOracle


Oh, sorry, I got to around page 3 or 4 before I decided that reading 75 pages didn't seem to appealing right now. I apologize and I'll look for your post.



[edit on 7-4-2010 by Cthulhus Messenger]

reply to post by DreamerOracle


You must have good eyesight, that's all I can say.

No wonder the war can never be won (Killing innocent civilians and the families of the loved ones become suicide bombers etc).

its page 70, sorry to be abit rash the thread kinda gets you carried away sometimes.....but debates as for my previous post I thought that all avenues should be explored. Its not like Journo's haven't stooped this low in the past is it?

[edit on 7-4-2010 by DreamerOracle]

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by DreamerOracle

 

You must have good eyesight, that's all I can say.

No I have a 52" screen and software to blow up the image.

reply to post by DreamerOracle


Well, I stand corrected, I suppose.

But if they had weapons, we can assume they could see the chopper, because the man looks round the building.

In that case why didn't they open fire?

Why did they all stand there?

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by DreamerOracle

 

Well, I stand corrected, I suppose.

But if they had weapons, we can assume they could see the chopper, because the man looks round the building.

In that case why didn't they open fire?

Why did they all stand there?

Maybe they didn't feel threatend because they didn't have any intention of doing any harm to the helicopter? They aren't out of line having weapons are they? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by DreamerOracle

 

Well, I stand corrected, I suppose.

But if they had weapons, we can assume they could see the chopper, because the man looks round the building.

In that case why didn't they open fire?

Why did they all stand there?

Maybe they didn't feel threatend because they didn't have any intention of doing any harm to the helicopter? They aren't out of line having weapons are they? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by DreamerOracle

 

Well, I stand corrected, I suppose.

But if they had weapons, we can assume they could see the chopper, because the man looks round the building.

In that case why didn't they open fire?

Why did they all stand there?

Maybe they didn't feel threatend because they didn't have any intention of doing any harm to the helicopter? They aren't out of line having weapons are they? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by DreamerOracle

 

Well, I stand corrected, I suppose.

But if they had weapons, we can assume they could see the chopper, because the man looks round the building.

In that case why didn't they open fire?

Why did they all stand there?

Maybe they didn't feel threatend because they didn't have any intention of doing any harm to the helicopter? They aren't out of line having weapons are they? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Double post? Why did that happen?

[edit on 7-4-2010 by Cthulhus Messenger]

reply to post by Cthulhus Messenger


So they are alleged insurgents, with weapons.

They see the American chopper, but don't bother to open fire. They all stand there.

So they haven't opened fire or been hostile yet the chopper guns them all downs and claims they were being fired at (which they wern't).

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by Cthulhus Messenger

 

So they are alleged insurgents, with weapons.

They see the American chopper, but don't bother to open fire. They all stand there.

So they haven't opened fire or been hostile yet the chopper guns them all downs and claims they were being fired at (which they wern't).

Yes, I understand what happened but what I don't understand is why and how the soldiers in the helicopter got to the conclusion that they were hostile towards them, if looking at someone is reason to be shot and killed then there would be a lot less people in the world.

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by Cthulhus Messenger

 

So they are alleged insurgents, with weapons.

They see the American chopper, but don't bother to open fire. They all stand there.

So they haven't opened fire or been hostile yet the chopper guns them all downs and claims they were being fired at (which they wern't).

Yes, I understand what happened but what I don't understand is why and how the soldiers in the helicopter got to the conclusion that they were hostile towards them, if looking at someone is reason to be shot and killed then there would be a lot less people in the world.

go to the pages after 70 they state that the Apache was atleast 800metres+ away from the group and would from the ground seemed to be flying over the groups intended target.
e.g.. The guy with the zoom camera is at 1 point looking down a street and the apache passes nearly 1 mile infront of the Journo and goes off to the left of the journalist and behind the group ...nearly 1 mile away....hardly a threat..... you can hear it maybe but it wouldn't be a threat from the ground perspective.
Supposidly the journo was looking at an ongoing skirmish or target. Depends how you look at it.



[edit on 7-4-2010 by DreamerOracle]