Wikileaks Video Released!!

page: 79
597
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Clearance to engage was given because of what the Gunship reported. The Gunship would never have been given clearance to engage the crowd if the pilot didn't report a aggressive crowd with RPG and AK-47.

The pilot initiated the whole thing deliberately. By describing a situation that was far from the real thing. That is very clear when the Van shows up. The pilot pretty much bagged for permission to shoot.


That was kind of my point. Saying that they are even slightly justified in any manner because they had clearance that they themselves solicited makes no sense at all, yet I keep reading it.




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.


No, you have an imagination and a blurry picture that could easily be a tripod with a toolbag hanging from it. It looks very much like mine does right now where it is hanging against a shelf at an angle.

BTW, Everyone has software to blow up the image, what you are thinking of is CSI Miami software that adds imaginary details from no information. That you do not have.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
To me Journalists and SOME soldiers... not all... show me the difference?
I remember the death of Princess Diana......Journo's ARE SCUM!! hovering over her like vultures not letting the ambulance men through to deal with her injuries.
THEY MAKE ME SICK. Atleast the Soldiers are held to account UNLIKE the press.


[edit on 7-4-2010 by DreamerOracle]


I am pretty sure you are confusing paparazzi with journalists.

I did not think this thread could be any more sad than the video it was about and yet...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I'll asume you're posting from Iraq then and not perched in a comfy chair sipping a 7-up.

So you're saying they just saw what they wanted to see.

Doesn't excuse their actions in the slightest.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
Why because it is....look at a tripod picture they ain't 4 ft long or more and they don't have a Rocket poking out the end lol you guys need glasses lol....


I have personally seen and used tripods that start from 5cm long to one that goes up to 3m. Also you say we need glasses and in the same sentence clai to see a rocket.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
To whom it may concern:

The personal sniping stops here

Fair warning.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


Agreed.

Also, awesome paintings.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
This makes me so mad and upsets me so much watching it. They had no weapons nothing at all. Why isnt this on the news ohh wait the news is controlled so they can cram down our throats what they think we should see and hear about. This should be on every news channel. I never supported this war and this is why its pointless and this stuff happens.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
There is one thing that concerns me. Some say that the journalists should have had Orange wests on. That is fair enough, they probably should have. But what about the other civilians that were in that crowd. Is it really fair that they had to pay the ultimate price just because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time?
What about the civilians that walked by the building when the Apache's fired the three Hellfire's? They never knew what hit them. NB.You have to look at the 39 minute version to see that part.

The Apache had the time to get the right distance to fire the Hellfire's. I think they had to adjust the distance two or three times before they let the Hellfire's go, but they didn't have time to let the civilians pass before they engaged?? They didn't even call in the civilians that passed in front of the building.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dynamitrios
An Iraqi in his own country, even IF he points an RPG at an Apache, has every right to do it, after all the US is the occupying force in his own country, and he is the freedom fighter.


"Freedom Fighter" my butt!


I wonder if the women and children that are butchered in the market place when an insurgents car bomb explodes consider these ass-hats "freedom fighters"?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
The shape that people claim is an RPG, does in a way look like an RPG. I can understand that, but it looks like it's between his legs, which is weird.


I just had a thought: RPG or tripod, he was doing what 99% of guys do when they are carrying something long and thin and out with their buddies!


"Hey, guys! Check me out!"


Originally posted by Kram09
Also when the man looks round the building he doesn't fire the alleged RPG, nor does it appear that he tells his comrades to either take cover or get the hell out of there because there is a chopper. Instead they all just stand there.


How far away is the helicopter from them? Just because the video seems to make them appear close, they may have been a good distance away and the guys on the ground didn't think the helicopter was a threat?


Originally posted by Kram09
The Americans in the chopper claim they were being fired at. That isn't true. Not once did any of those men fire at them. Yet they supposedly had weapons. Yet they didn't open fire? So maybe they couldn't see the chopper.


Is it true? They might have been fired on by another group that wasn't in the video.


Originally posted by Kram09
In which case they were no threat. Yet they were killed anyway.


They had weapons, and ROE might have been that in that area, all guys carrying weapons were a threat.

Carrying a weapon in a war zone is inviting yourself to be a target.


Originally posted by Kram09
Secondly the people who came in the van certainly wern't a threat. I saw no weapons there. They were just killed. I know you said insurgents at the time used vehicles but what could they possibly have done? Also there were children in the van. They were killed and the transcript proves the men in the chopper didn't care in the slightest.


Again, they might have thought it was a threat. Firing up that van wasn't a good idea (to me), but I wasn't there.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
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]



Well that would be difficult for the cameras you were watching to spot since they arrived on the Air Support Helicopters AFTER they were called in for support. Hard to film it if they werent in the area when it was going on isnt it?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Just saw a snippet on CNN , they blocked out the images, but at least a tad of coverage, hehe it was interesting seeing Don Lemon's face, he appeared sickened.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Even so if the group was far away from the chopper, I don't see why they were killed.

Also if the chopper was attacked by another group, why were these men killed, especially if they were as far away as they might have been to the chopper?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
My friend found this in the NYT. Thought it was interesting:

"Since 2003, when the Iraq war began, 140 journalists have been killed, most who were singled out by other Iraqis because of their sectarian identity, the [Committee to Protect Journalists] said. The group has tracked 16 cases in which journalists were killed from fire by American forces, although in none of these cases is there evidence the journalists were intended to be targets. This list, however, does not include Mr. Chmagh, because he is considered a media support worker."



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
Even so if the group was far away from the chopper, I don't see why they were killed.

Also if the chopper was attacked by another group, why were these men killed, especially if they were as far away as they might have been to the chopper?


As I said, ROE in that area at that time might have said that if you were walking around with a weapon, you were a target.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
ON TOPIC:

Inasmuch as there was some apparent lag, I think the criticism of the MSM not running with this has been over exaggerated. I watched Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC) last evening and she devoted an entire segment to the story.

Also many people seem to love to bash CNN. IMO, the clip below offers some fairly decent analysis by Retired General Mark Kimmitt. (I can already hear the accusations of a Pentagon shill.) Probably this clip will serve to confirm whatever preconceived notions we all may have for or against.

I submit in the spirit of context, objectivity and clarity. The more I watch the entire clip the more I come to the conclusion the ensuing chaos and need to act quickly added to the confusion.

Also if you believe the General (or Pentagon talking points?) he adds some context that this skirmish was part of a on-going battle. I must also agree the journalists were not wearing PRESS vests and the van was not easily identifiable as first aid or Red Cross.

It is easy to second guess these "split-second" reactions in a war zone with the luxury of hindsight, repeated viewings and context.

www.liveleak.com...

I still have mixed reactions.


[edit on 7-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
It is easy to second guess these "split-second" reactions in a war zone with the luxury of hindsight, repeated viewings and context.


And that's what myself and others have been trying to say. Hindsight is 20/20, and even more clear when you're safe at home, eating Cheetos in your underwear.

Thanks!

[edit on 7-4-2010 by jerico65]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I just found out the United States Army Enemy Identification Guide



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 



Wow, that was clever and funny.


Must have been made by one of the "Cheeto-eating" crowd.

I wonder what Bob Woodruff thinks of it. You know, the reporter that was just about killed by an IED while travelling with a US unit.

I didn't see too many ATS posters expressing their outrage over that.

Typical.





new topics

top topics



 
597
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join