Originally posted by blupblup
Please stop trying to defend the indefensible
We speak with a former member of Bravo Company 2-16, the military unit involved in the 2007 helicopter shooting of Iraqi civilians that killed twelve people, including two Reuters employees, as seen on the military video released by WikiLeaks. “The natural thing to do would be to instantly judge or criticize the soldiers in this video,” says Josh Stieber. “Not to justify what they did, but militarily speaking, they did exactly what they were trained to do…If we’re shocked by this video, we need to be asking questions of the larger system, because this is how these soldiers were trained to act.”
Originally posted by jerico65
No one seems to be defending the indefensible. They are trying to get the narrowminded posters here to actually take a look at what happened that day. How about people take off their blinders and actually doing some research. "Well, shucks, if wikileaks said it was murder, I guess it is..."
Has anyone actually read the FOIA? Everyone is crying, "Oh, the poor children were murdered!" Nope, they weren't. Wounded, not killed.
"Oh, the poor children were not allowed in a US Hospital." Nope, wrong again. The kids were taken to the US CSH and then a day or so later, taken to an Iraqi hospital.
"No one found any RPGS." Wrong again.
Originally posted by joel.ohman
reply to post by Goathief
It is not legal to carry weapons around in new Baghdad they have stricter rules there. You know part of the rebuilding of Iraq and what not.
PHOTO TAKEN RIGHT BEFORE ENGAGEMENT WITH CRAZYHORSE 18, SHOWING EXTREMELY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO US FORCES. CRAZYHORSE PERCEIVED THIS TO BE IMMEDIATE RPG THREAT AND ENGAGED.
I just showed my husband this footage. He was there and had a role in reviewing the investigation on this case. His response below might clarify some things.
This footage shows the final engagement of the Reuters field reporters in New Baghdad. Missing is the overwatch video and earlier AH64 footage showing the development of the situation where the two reporters and armed men supported by a van and cars were shadowing a Coalition patrol. These reporters accompanied the armed men who were tracking a Coalition patrol about a city block away. The camera man would peek around corners to shoot a few digital frames of the patrol and then show the pictures to the armed men. If you have all the video footage, you will see this activity happened repeatedly. The operational suspicion was that this was enemy TTP (tactic, technic, or procedure) to help prepare for an attack; the digital photos would be used to quickly evaluate the target — to judge what it looked like, its shape, distance, terrain in between, where to aim, etc. This way, the RPG operator would select the right warhead, he’d preset the mechanical sights (elevation), and fix in his mind a visual picture of the target so he would limit his exposure time when stepping out in the street to fire. The recovered camera showed how the cameral man was aiding the enemy. What you also don’t have is the operational history of RPG attacks in New Baghdad. This was heavy JAM territory. I understand that it is disturbing to see calculated killing, but the engagement was not without cause. The engagement of the van should be understood in the overall context of earlier events. It is obvious the AH64 pilots and the operational commander conferred. This was not a war crime.
Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
So the 18 minute video on youtube now has over 5.8 million views but it is not listed on the "most viewed" videos for the past week.
The #1 video is a ipad being blended with 5.1 million views.
So why would youtube not have it listed as #1?
I love google but so i don't know why they would try to hide it. Maybe if the video is over 10 minutes long they don't count it as a normal video? Any thoughts on this?