It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CNN: Leaked video reveals chaos of Baghdad attack

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

CNN: Leaked video reveals chaos of Baghdad attack


www.cnn.com

WikiLeaks, which publishes anonymously submitted documents, video and other sensitive materials, posted the aerial footage Monday.

The video footage showed that one of two photojournalists killed was being rescued when the gunship's crew fired on the van to which he was being carried. Saying the footage was still classified, Wikileaks contended it "clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers."

On Tuesday, the Pentagon made public a partially redacted report on the incident that concluded the Apache attackers had no way of knowing the journalists
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
So CNN is beginning to cover this. Link holds video of what was on CNN and article. The video holds analysis but it sounds like they are almost trying to justify and bring 'context' to why and how it happened. On top of that, they really don't go after the important issues, such as why it was covered up or highlight the highly ignorant "don't bring your kids to battle", etc. comments.

What do you guys think of CNN's spin on it?

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
the herald sun here in australia is covering it too -

iraqi -- us copter footage

they are calling it "tragic"



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I love how they can just republish a partial report and come up with a half-assed excuse and everyone just lets it go. I am not really sure what else I was expecting to happen but maybe if more of this stuff gets out into the MSM more and more people will realize what "going to war" actually means.

Tragic isn't the right word but it is the first that comes to mind.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I saw this as well. I too was a little confused with the way it was written. Like a lot of people on this site, I've been following this since Wikileaks announced it. Anyone who knows the whole story can see how much CNN manipulated the facts. It's disgusting.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by nick112
 


Ye. I found that they make a concious effort to go around everything issue that, for example, people that have known about the video since its release have raised.

This is their half-hearted attempt to save face. They report only what they deem "important". In other words, they leave out what would really be important to the people, such as the level of dehumanization in the video or the fact that they shot two kills and felt no remorse (at least those in the Apaches).

Also, make note of the "Story Highlights on the left side of the page. It makes no mention of the fact that two children were shot, and civilians were killed, not insurgents.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Yep. I guess the MSM must say something about this video since it seems to have become known to many people. I was flipping channels and stopped at Fox News and there was a little blurb about how the helicopters were responding to a fire fight. I didn't stick around for anymore of the propaganda. I doubt they would have shown anything of significance from the 18 minute version I watched. What I gathered from the few seconds given to this story, the Fox folks were justifying the attack on the people, who I believe were innocent of any wrong doing, who just happened to be milling about on their own streets of Baghdad.

I'm still attempting to get my uber Christian and uber patriotic sister to see this is bullcrap what the U.S. is involved with in Southwest and Central Asia. On the other hand, I am trying to figure out why my uber liberal other sister sees nothing wrong now with these same wars that she previously opposed vehemently.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyred
Yep. I guess the MSM must say something about this video since it seems to have become known to many people. I was flipping channels and stopped at Fox News and there was a little blurb about how the helicopters were responding to a fire fight. I didn't stick around for anymore of the propaganda. I doubt they would have shown anything of significance from the 18 minute version I watched. What I gathered from the few seconds given to this story, the Fox folks were justifying the attack on the people, who I believe were innocent of any wrong doing, who just happened to be milling about on their own streets of Baghdad.

I'm still attempting to get my uber Christian and uber patriotic sister to see this is bullcrap what the U.S. is involved with in Southwest and Central Asia. On the other hand, I am trying to figure out why my uber liberal other sister sees nothing wrong now with these same wars that she previously opposed vehemently.


Let them form their own opinion on things no need to try and force your brief's on others, if they choose not to to believe your propaganda






posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
You would think every news organization would care about people shooting reporters walking down a street. I am getting the impression to news agencies, getting shot unprovoked in a war zone is something their reporters signed a contract for.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
You would think every news organization would care about people shooting reporters walking down a street. I am getting the impression to news agencies, getting shot unprovoked in a war zone is something their reporters signed a contract for.


it isn't the first time.

Just go ask Sean Flynn and Dana Stone.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Somehow, I can't believe that these pilots could have been confused about the intentions of the people they were surveilling prior to the attack. To look at the video, it's obvious that they're not combatants.

I think it's interesting how they just happen to be looking at this particular place at this particular time. Just as a certain member of the media is a victim of a botched assassination, they're there to finish the job?

What did that guy know, and who was he going to tell?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
The CNN article acknowledges that they did appear calm--> They attribute this to the American technology being that advanced that the insurgents could not detect them. Something to be proud of.

The ex-military analyst keeps bringing in context as to why they were scoping the place. If it were a battle zone, does it not make sense for camera men to be there? In 4 years in Iraq would the Americans or any other force not recognize that cameramen exist? To me they didn't even try to acknowledge them as Media. They cover up their gaft here to them not wearing media badges so it's not their fault.

In my opinion, this is all nicely covered propoganda. They seem to have every point and objection covered.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
i2.cdn.turner.com...

^^ This is a link to the Pentagon's report on the events of that day. Perhaps this deserves its own thread.

EDIT: It should also be noted that they edited the original link. It hold 12 edited minutes of the wikileaks video. It no longer holds the propogandist analysis.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by Portugoal]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
There's a new video up on CNN about this.

Why Wikileaks posted air assault vid

cnn.com.../video/international/2010/04/07/bs.julian.assange.wikileaks.int.cnn

[edit on 7-4-2010 by ZombieSlayer]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Somehow, I can't believe that these pilots could have been confused about the intentions of the people they were surveilling prior to the attack. To look at the video, it's obvious that they're not combatants.


Obvious not combatants?

mypetjawa.mu.nu...

Hmmm.....that first clip shows a dude with an RPG.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
amazing is that they try to say that there were 2 guys with weapons, but you could clearly see 2 cameras, and

they said that the ground guys saw weapons too I mean, WTheck!!

maybe they just are like vampires, they want to kill and tell anything to justify death



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Portugoal
The ex-military analyst keeps bringing in context as to why they were scoping the place. If it were a battle zone, does it not make sense for camera men to be there? In 4 years in Iraq would the Americans or any other force not recognize that cameramen exist? To me they didn't even try to acknowledge them as Media. They cover up their gaft here to them not wearing media badges so it's not their fault.


It was a battle zone in 2007. "New Baghdad" really isn't a "suburb" like you'd imagine, but more like a slum just South of Sadr City. In other words one of the most active combat areas of Baghdad.

It was controlled by insurgents and Route Predators ran right next to it. RT Predators had one of the highest IED rates at that time period. US troops that went in there were always in contact.

US Forces do know that there are media in Iraq. Did these guys do anything to show that they were media? Were they wearing the body armor that had "PRESS" written on it? Nope, they were in a crowd of armed men. Sure, that one dude had a camera, but how could you tell?

And a shoulder camera could look like a shoulder fired Manpad.


Originally posted by Portugoal
In my opinion, this is all nicely covered propoganda. They seem to have every point and objection covered.


And what Wiki is putting out ISN'T propaganda???



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Faiol
 


Funny, I clearly saw an RPG, and another guy with a shoulder bag of some sort. Didn't see anything that looked like a camera.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Don't forget about the part the black van

They are moving/collecting the bodies/wonded AND WEAPONS. That moment I said WTF, weapons where? How the hell the pilot got to that conclusion if the people from the van was trying to move the wounded.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
reply to post by Faiol
 


Funny, I clearly saw an RPG, and another guy with a shoulder bag of some sort. Didn't see anything that looked like a camera.



You didn't read the report. The Army admits there was no RPG recovered nor were any of the dead found to be in possession of RPG's. RPG's were being fired from another part of the city. If you were seeing it, it's because you wanted to see it.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join