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.

 

WIKI DECEPTION: Iraq video last week edited. Uncut video released.

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by IanC99000310
I have watched the 40 min video over and over....

From what I gather and this is purely my opinion ... Although it clearly says that they are fired upon.... there is no sound of insurgent fire. Clearly the military had a better view of what was going on at ground level... It is unfortunate innocents may have been killed however one must remember that war isnt pleasant.

It was a case of trigger happy overkill clearly they had men on the ground and the helicopter was under no risk... If the people on the ground had weapons i would assume that they would have got more back up and took some pot shots.

We live in troubled times that much is true and when these soldiers lie on there death beds they will recall there actions. May there souls find peace.


The thing is at 885m++ from the crowd. The two pilots see exactly what we see. They to have to view the target from the same targeting camera as we see in the video. There is now way at that range they can ID weapons or a aggressive behavior by looking out of their canopy. They would hardly even see the crowd by looking out from their canopy.

EDIT to add. It is much easier for the crowd to spot the Helli's at 885m than it would be for the Helli pilots to visually spot the crowd on the ground from 885m

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

apart from the cameramen, I saw the guy with a gun.

It wasn't an AK, but a weapon regardless.

shooting the van? They had people on foot on the way, tactically they were at a disadvantage with unknown enemy in the area. Obviously they'd take them out too.

a shiitty situation all around I say..




[edit on 10/4/2010 by badw0lf]




posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
This whole situation reminds me of the movie Rules of engagment and the reaction it had on people. During the first 20 minutes of the movie people are sort of agreeing that the order of opening fire on the whole crowd given by Samuel L. Jackson's character was criminal. Then at the end of the movie you see what really happened and people start being glad that they shot everyone in the crowd.

Someone mentioned that it smelled of a set up, I have to agree. People's opinion can be so easily manipulated. There's hundred of stories of innocents being killed for no reasons in Iraq from vet testimonies who witnessed such acts.

Fact is, everyone knows that we SHOULDN'T BE THERE in the first place, we invaded that country....beat a dog with a stick and he'll eventually bite. Put yourself in the position of these people, if you had relatives who had been killed in senseless bombing and what not from invaders you might be carring a weapon to defend yourself.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by svpwizard
reply to post by Raud
 

I would consider myself EXTREMELY critical of our military's BUT if you are in the vicinity of a group of individuals as in talking and walking with them you deserve every stray bullet.


Ehmm...."stray bullet"? Come on, man. Those rounds were pretty damn deliberate. Nothing "stray" about none of them...



they don't say "all fair in love and war" for nothing.


Is that the ROE according to you?
Sorry, but in the "real" world, outside your cosy home village, it doesn't really work that way. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Besides, it's not "war" anymore. Don't you remember Bush Jr. saying "mission complete"?

Flame avoided with a slight wave of hand.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


if so... why did US lied about the killings of the reporters in the first place...they would have shown the world the vid first to proof that the reporters where carring weapons.... this is just an other couver up again...

no for sure this was another mistake of the troops in the trend of My Lai / bombing the shelter in bagdad ect....they did it then they do it now and they will do it tomorrow :-(

like the whole ( illegal war) was was one mistake .... in the hunger of power and luting an other nation is seems pointless to take care of a few civilians...



[edit on 11-4-2010 by ressiv]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
I will state for the record the logical conclusion to this thread, it does not matter if the video was cut down, shortened, edited or not, I watched every version I could find the simple fact was, you had unconfirmed intel about weapons on non aggressive acting combatants and the blew them away and the fired on them again to ensure all were dead including the juveniles in the group. I think these boys are getting a lil to trigger happy. You can hear a sound of almost elation in the voice of both the intel relay guy and the man operating the gun.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by BeyondBelow]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
I think the Americans should pool out. Because they dont have what it takes to create peace. If American citizens cant agree on whats right or wrong that means that some are confused about the rules of engagement.

Iraq is only a war zone because of the presence of US troops. If the United States didn't have troops in Iraq, no American would have been in danger.
In my opinion the Iraqi people have all the right in the world to roadside bomb and ambush your patrols and convoys. The US have invaded Iraq on false pretences. That makes the US the real criminals in this war and not the Iraqi people. So this event we are discussing cant be justified by the US in any way.

EDIT to add: The US have to kill innocent civilians to protect their illegal presence in Iraq. That is exactly what the Americans are trying to defend right now. And they are trying to spin it in a nice way so it wont look so unjust to the American public.

Iraq dont need armed US troops to hand out candy to the Iraqi children. It would be a lot safer for both sides if you send the candy by boat.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
"The US have to kill innocent civilians to protect their illegal presence in Iraq. That is exactly what the Americans are trying to defend right now. And they are trying to spin it in a nice way so it wont look so unjust to the American public."

STUPIDITY=AMERICAN PUBLIC



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"The US have to kill innocent civilians to protect their illegal presence in Iraq. That is exactly what the Americans are trying to defend right now. And they are trying to spin it in a nice way so it wont look so unjust to the American public."

STUPIDITY=AMERICAN PUBLIC


Exactly. The American people are arguing if they can justify their illegal invasion of Iraq, by killing the Iraqi people who dont want them there.

I wonder what the Americans would have done if Russia invaded the US to free the American people from Obama. By killing innocent Americans. It doesn't make sense.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
I've noticed several people using the term 'battle' when referring to the matter at hand.... the whole apache's wasting little people on the ground all indiscriminately and stuff was more like.... a turkey shoot!

Battle


Generally, a battle is a conceptual component in the hierarchy of combat in warfare between two or more armed forces, wherein each group will seek to defeat the others within the scope of a military campaign, and are well defined in duration, area and force commitment.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Hello Spy66!
I've liked all your posts in this thread, but now I think you have to check your facts before you derail (note that I am saying "before you do it").


Originally posted by spy66
I think the Americans should pool out. Because they dont have what it takes to create peace. If American citizens cant agree on whats right or wrong that means that some are confused about the rules of engagement.


The idea was never to "create peace". There was peace before they came, but that isn't part of the deal.
The idea is to keep the war running. This is the main goal of the dreaded Military Industrial Complex; war of the sake of war. Just like Vietnam. There is no long-term goal or interest in stability and good living standards for the Iraqi people. If there ever was such a plan, the invasion would never have been executed.
The plan is, like always, to divide and conquer. Every bullet fired means that a new one must be produced. And that generates money.
For each house that is obliterated by a bunker-buster, a new one must be built....in other words, job for Haliburton and subsidiaries.
As long as there is threat of terror and violence....job for private security contractors...
See the pattern?
And the oil, of course.



Iraq is only a war zone because of the presence of US troops. If the United States didn't have troops in Iraq, no American would have been in danger.
In my opinion the Iraqi people have all the right in the world to roadside bomb and ambush your patrols and convoys. The US have invaded Iraq on false pretences. That makes the US the real criminals in this war and not the Iraqi people. So this event we are discussing cant be justified by the US in any way.


Hmmm... Criminal or not, it's more like country A feels like invading country B because it has something county A needs. A standard type of "war". Just the kind of agression that the UN has deemed illegal, so yes, you are partly right.
But though the IED attacks and ambushes are understandable, they are not justified. Such attacks only prolong the occupation and leads to more suffering for all involved.
If the Iraqi insurgents (and those recruited and imported from other neighbouring nations) would put their arms down, the occupation would be even more so illegal.

One must be very careful before saying what is "right" and "wrong" in a murky and chaotic semi-conflict like this one.



EDIT to add: The US have to kill innocent civilians to protect their illegal presence in Iraq. That is exactly what the Americans are trying to defend right now. And they are trying to spin it in a nice way so it wont look so unjust to the American public.


Well, they don't have to, but they do so anyway.
The poor conscripts that are shipped there, willingly or by (more or less) force, have no idea what they are in for.
They are trained for a whole different kind of warfare; conventional such.
There is also a severe lack of motivation and morale among the soldiers.
I mean, they are said to fight to defend the USA and its constitution...but instead they are being sent to some remote desert to watch over pipelines being built while the civilians hate them and drive car-bombs into their camps...

It's a mess. Trying not to get entangled and confused in this turmoil is hard.

Iraq dont need armed US troops to hand out candy to the Iraqi children. It would be a lot safer for both sides if you send the candy by boat.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Raud
 


The post i made was intended to make people think exactly like you did right now. My point was to make people see the reality of this war, and by that make people think about their arguments about the events taking place.

It is the intention of this invasion that should make people see the justification of our war actions against the Iraqi people. But instead we focusing on protecting our presence.
To me its clear that a lot of people tend to forget what the intentions of this was is based upon. And when people forget the bases of this war, people might be indirectly supporting something they never would directly support. If everything was clear to them.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead
I've noticed several people using the term 'battle' when referring to the matter at hand.... the whole apache's wasting little people on the ground all indiscriminately and stuff was more like.... a turkey shoot!

Battle


Generally, a battle is a conceptual component in the hierarchy of combat in warfare between two or more armed forces, wherein each group will seek to defeat the others within the scope of a military campaign, and are well defined in duration, area and force commitment.


agree.... IMO..they should honor the apache crew with an purple hart...ore some other medal of honor...
they have defended the whole world from destruction with there own live at risk.....ROTFL....

[edit on 11-4-2010 by ressiv]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Oh, I see.

Well, then I guess I made it extra easy for them.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raud
reply to post by spy66
 


Oh, I see.

Well, then I guess I made it extra easy for them.


Your reply was right on the dot. And everyone should read your reply before they make a defending argument to these events.

To defend these events after reading you reply. Should make people wonder about human rights. Do we have the right to do this to the Iraqi people.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Thank you for the kind word, I feel honoured.


I remember when the invasion of Iraq was in the planning stage and the US warmongers sat in the UN council, trying to get approval (like they cared anyhow).

I remember the protests in the streets. The anxiety. The anger and frustration.
I remember Bush Jr. and Cheney being in power...winning the second election by fraud. The crowds jeering and crying as Bush went down to get sworn in.

I remember when they displayed their "evidence" for WMD's in Iraq to the UN. One of them was a telephone call the CIA had intercepted. It was said to be between two Iraqi officers...it was so lame. I shook my head, thinking "would anyone be so stupid to believe this?"

Man...
This whole deal is tearing me up. I feel sorry of all involved in this. I even pity the US regime for what they will face in the next life.
The whole world is under illegal occupation. We have all been invaded by these demons.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Wow. I didn't think the posting would go where they have. I wonder if this topic would be a good choice for a good ole' ATS Debate?

Some pretty powerful arguements-on both sides (or more sides). It has made me think and re-think again and again.

Disturbing video/indicent. I would like to think the US is in the right but maybe it is time to get the heck out of there. If they can't govern themselves by now-they never will.

We have to accept that not all people and nations desire to be Free and Democratic.

Let's be thankful we are over here being able to Monday moringin QB and not over there actually faces with such matters.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
Disturbing video/indicent. I would like to think the US is in the right but maybe it is time to get the heck out of there. If they can't govern themselves by now-they never will.

We have to accept that not all people and nations desire to be Free and Democratic.



And when was this attempt made?

Was it during the sanctions when their economy crashed, giving Saddam an opportunity to blame and unite the people against the "big Satan"?

Or was it when their were blown away with depleted uranium shells, turning their cities to nuclear wasteland, unfit for habitation for hundred of years to come?

Or is it now, as attack helicopters are prowling the skies, shooting civilians as they see fit?

There was never a plan to bring democracy to Iraq.
The plan was, and will always be, to keep them bombed firmly back in the stone-age, while the oil can be sucked out and shipped home without any Iraqi being any wiser....besides the bribed and corrup puppets in their parliment, that is.

Other than that, you can't just "bring" democracy to a part of the world that hasn't known it since the dawn of time. Especially not if it wears the colours of an enemy they have been taught represents the moste vile evil the world has ever known. These things take time.
Our nations weren't democratic and free from day one either.
Politics doesn't speak to all people anyhow, some just want to be left alone to attend their culture and heritage; something the current invaders couln't care less about.

(I was going to paste links here, but I realize I am drifting this thread off-topic, something I don't wanna do)



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Raud
 


Personally i think your points make a lot of sense. And people should learn to know the real reason behind our agenda. Because it explains exactly how we interpret justice and human rights over there. Right now we are only focused on our own view of things. We cant understand that by pointing weapons at people we create fear and anger.
The argument we use is this: They pointed their weapons at us first. And we are only defending our selves. This is a false image of the real event. But it is this image we support by agreeing to this shootout.

All troops have a right to defend them selves. But in this case the American troops have no right to be in Iraq period. Therefor it makes the argument of justification of killing Armed or civilian Iraqi's pointless.

Edit: We can't justify our actions when we enter a nation with 2 to 300 000 armed troops. Our actions become intentional and obvious when we do this. We can probably justify this to our selves how ever we like to make our actions seam fine and dandy. But we shouldn't expect the Iraqi's to do the same. It makes us ignorant if we do.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Back on topic;

What else could have been done in this situation, and why wasn't it done that way?

Being a soldier myself (did the army for 11 moths back in 2002) and having a father who is a distinguished officer and a commando (among his vast list of merit is the Royal Marines Commando), I call tell good soldiering from bad.

The "assumed" targets in this video is no mission for an attack helicopter such as the Apache.
The AH-64 (I believe that is the one we are dealing with here) is "an aircraft to fill an anti-armor attack role" (Wikipedia).
The 30mm rounds fired are not meant to defeat ground forces.
You can see how the pullets have bad precision when it comes to such small targets. It's a typical over-kill.

If this was carried out with any feel for tactics, the helicopter should have only provided the present ground forces with info on the enemies; how many, what kind of weaponry, location and movement.
They identified two of them as being armed (with one probably carrying a tripod rather than a RPG).
This surely is no big deal for US soldiers, or any soliders, for that sake.

Direct the troops to come from a safer angle to assess the situation closer since it was very apparent that there were unarmed civilans among them.

These are very basic standards of how to operate in such a delicate tactical situation. The forces in Iraq face a very difficult task and minimizing civilian casualties and collateral damage is top priority out of every aspect of the mission.

At least it should be.

But it isn't.

The troops in Iraq have no wish to be there.
They have no morale or care for what they do.
Their only priority is to get home in one piece, as quick as possible.
If some civilians come in between them and that, no love lost; blow them to hell so that they can go back to the base already!

If that in turn leads to escalated violence and hatred towards the foregin military presence, who cares? Right? As long as you can come back home in time, that is all that matters...


If the troops were given some proper training in urban warfare and counter-insurgency, along with a proper job description without propaganda and false claims about the mission standards...then maybe these kind of situations would be sorted out with some sort of proffesionalism.

But no. Instead, and anti-armour helicopter is set do remove a minor threat with a 30mm canon.
There is absolutely no sense in that.
If not anything else, it's a waste of resources.
Incompetence is the main problem here; incompetence in the battlefield and no care for human lives.

Furthermore, the two children was denied medical treatment.
This is the second part of the video that isn't discussed very much here.
The commanding officers did not care.
That was the other problem; lack of care. Indifference. Inhumane, irresponsible routine behaviour and gross misconduct.

This is what the entire operation in Iraq is all about;
Rotten routines and lack of motivation.
The war is way overdue and nothing gets better.
Somewhere, someone is making huge profit from this bloodshed, and that someone just can't have enough of it.
In fact, they want it to keep on going this way. It's much cheaper this way. Why bother?


I doubt this conflict is under any influence of proffesionals; I'd rather believe that experienced officers are replaced with businessmen and careless contractors who enjoy the killing (mercenaries).

(Hmm, I managed to be both on and off topic in this post....sorry for the latter)



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPYvsSPY

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by svpwizard
reply to post by Raud
 


I would consider myself EXTREMELY critical of our military's BUT if you are in the vicinity of a group of individuals as in talking and walking with them you deserve every stray bullet.

Just like hanging with a bad crowd, you are guilty by association, now if you happen to be passing by and were obviously on your way the HECK out of trouble I would completely agree they need to know what they were shooting at, but come on press or not they were IN a crowd and obviously indistinguishable from the others. they don't say "all fair in love and war" for nothing.

Flame out


Being in a crowd is a war crime punishable by death? I guess I missed that somewhere in the ROE.
The Iraqi suicide bombers seem to think along these lines, killing a hundred at a time in a crowd while the citizens are praying.


Just when I thought you couldn't say anything more ignorant you surprise me again. Are you saying that because it works for terrorists our military should do it as well? What happened to being "professional"? What happened with moral values and all that good stuff?

NO!! Just because terrorists use these tactics, it DOES NOT mean we can do so as well. You're thoughts are dangerous my friend. I hope a weapon is never entrusted to you. God only knows what your definition of self defense is.

reply to post by Raud
 


Very well put. Like Sun Tzu says...

"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."

So what is this about, really? That's what the American public has to ask and demand their leaders.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join