Wow, Just Wow...
-
It was clear the two reporters were carrying something that could have been weapons - they were big cameras. There were armed men in the group, probably body guards, but how do you tell the difference? The group hid behind a corner, pointing something towards an approaching US force, if I read the subtitles correctly. After the fact, we know it was a camera with a long lens. The first gun run was justified. They did not shoot the second, wounded, reporter, they waited for him to meet the ROE. He did not, and they didn't shoot. I would have to see the ROE to know if the attack on the van was justified. The fact that there were kids in the van who were identifiable after the fact was bad, but you only know what you know when you act. They should have come clean as soon as they knew what happened. They should prosecute anyone who tried to hide the facts from investigators.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
CSS seems to me like the perfect example of someone who sits at home and judges the actions of people who are putting their lives on the line.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CSS seems to me like the perfect example of someone who sits at home and judges the actions of people who are putting their lives on the line.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
He is paranoid, schizophrenic and deluded. :sigh: I don't doubt that he believes the stuff he reads, when he can understand it. It is sad what drugs can do to a mind.:mad: I knew a couple of people who went that route. But they chose to become the pricks they became, whether they realized it or not. CSS is a real, sad, prick.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CSS seems to me like the perfect example of someone who sits at home and judges the actions of people who are putting their lives on the line.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
And the fact that someone is involved in a front line engagement does not in fact mean that they not just a fuckwit with a gun
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
CSS seems to me like the perfect example of someone who sits at home and judges the actions of people who are putting their lives on the line.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
In this instance I think you're being a bit hard on him. It is shocking footage and some of the comments made by the soldiers are also shocking. In short, it's a normal reaction to be shocked after watching something like this; if you're not you're not human. Also, just because someone is "putting their lives on the line" doesn't necessarily mean they are above judgement; it's clear who's lives were on the line in this footage. I don't have enough information to judge as things stand, but it will be interesting to see how things pan out.
Steve
-
From all I've seen and heard about flying the Apache, it's an awesome machine, equipped with some of the very best avionics and weaponry. It can target and prioritize targets by the threat they offer, destroying tanks or buildings. The 50mm cannon attached to its underbelly is an effective weapon against most targets, and is controlled by the gunner looking at the target and pressing the trigger. All that technology amounts to two human beings, with feelings, fears (whether they be irrational or not) making a judgement call as to whether the people on the ground pose a threat to their or any persons safety. Those guys are trained to be in that helicopter, they are trained to identify weapons and whether they did see or they believe they saw weapons, they deemed there to be a threat. They acted. Now, if there are consequences, I'm sure they'll deal with them. No organisation or military entity would want something like this public. It's damaging to the overall mission.
hammerstein05 wrote:
Now, if there are consequences, I'm sure they'll deal with them.
I don't think they are the ones who should have to deal with the consequences. But they will have to. I'm not talking about court martial or anything like that. I mean the new insurgents that get created by this sort of indiscrimitate killing. Unfortunately this is kind of killing is not the exception, it is the norm.
hammerstein05 wrote:
No organisation or military entity would want something like this public.
The only place it isn't public is here in the US. The Iraqis are all too familiar with it.
hammerstein05 wrote:
It's damaging to the overall mission.
Of course it is. And the damage occurs, not when the Pentagon's coverup is revealed, but when the killing happens.
-
It was clear the two reporters were carrying something that could have been weapons - they were big cameras. There were armed men in the group, probably body guards, but how do you tell the difference? The group hid behind a corner, pointing something towards an approaching US force, if I read the subtitles correctly. After the fact, we know it was a camera with a long lens. The first gun run was justified. They did not shoot the second, wounded, reporter, they waited for him to meet the ROE. He did not, and they didn't shoot. I would have to see the ROE to know if the attack on the van was justified. The fact that there were kids in the van who were identifiable after the fact was bad, but you only know what you know when you act. They should have come clean as soon as they knew what happened. They should prosecute anyone who tried to hide the facts from investigators.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I don't enjoy snuff films. You should watch this because its the real world,
It is a video recording of people being killed. You are not a journalist, you are not a lawyer, you have no reason to watch it, you are a voyeur. Do you like car wrecks too?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
its war, the war we are fighting right now.
Invasion, rather than war.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Americans might find themselves in the view of a helicopter just like this one.
Better get back under the bed with your thumb and num-num blanket. THEY ARE COMING!!!
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You are not a journalist, you are not a lawyer, you have no reason to watch it, you are a voyeur.
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it. We are responsible for this. We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
You are not a journalist, you are not a lawyer, you have no reason to watch it, you are a voyeur.
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it. We are responsible for this. We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
Carbon12 wrote:
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it.
No, you don't. Unless you are a professional (military, legal, ...) investigating the events. Otherwise, you are a voyeur.
Carbon12 wrote:
We are responsible for this.
The USA held a referendum on the invasion of Iraq, and the people voted in favour of it? No. Even if you, personally, were shouting "Go Bush, Go!", you still do not have any responsibility for this action, all decisions were made without reference to you. Nobody cared what your opinion was.
Carbon12 wrote:
We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
Civilians + Civilian Insurgents + Military. Hmm, I wonder, now, what might be the consequence of that?
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
In this instance I think you're being a bit hard on him. It is shocking footage and some of the comments made by the soldiers are also shocking. In short, it's a normal reaction to be shocked after watching something like this; if you're not you're not human. Also, just because someone is "putting their lives on the line" doesn't necessarily mean they are above judgement; it's clear who's lives were on the line in this footage. I don't have enough information to judge as things stand, but it will be interesting to see how things pan out.
Steve
Do you have any military experience? I was never shot at, but what they say isn't out of the norm.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
In short, it's a normal reaction to be shocked after watching something like this; if you're not you're not human.
I do know what happens when people are shot: they come apart. It can be saddening, but if you are shocked by it, it is because you are sheltered. In any case, I hope you would be just as shocked by US or terrorist bodies coming apart.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
just because someone is "putting their lives on the line" doesn't necessarily mean they are above judgement
No, it does not. But the actions that are acceptable are different from what we apply to ourselves in front of our computers.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it.
No, you don't. Unless you are a professional (military, legal, ...) investigating the events. Otherwise, you are a voyeur.
Carbon12 wrote:
We are responsible for this.
The USA held a referendum on the invasion of Iraq, and the people voted in favour of it? No. Even if you, personally, were shouting "Go Bush, Go!", you still do not have any responsibility for this action, all decisions were made without reference to you. Nobody cared what your opinion was.
Carbon12 wrote:
We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
Civilians + Civilian Insurgents + Military. Hmm, I wonder, now, what might be the consequence of that?
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Otherwise, you are a voyeur.
Hogwash. You may choose to stick your head in the sand, I choose not to.
Bob Emmett wrote:
you still do not have any responsibility for this action
Of course we do. We are all collectively responsible.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Civilians + Civilian Insurgents + Military. Hmm, I wonder, now, what might be the consequence of that?
Indiscriminate and wanton murder?
-
hammerstein05 wrote:
No organisation or military entity would want something like this public. It's damaging to the overall mission. Quote Selected Text
True, but the cover-up was pretty intense for this one... If I remember the news stories right, Wikileaks announced that they would be posting it, and found themselves being detained and harassed by government agencies (As in, one of them spent something like 28 hours in a holding cell)... Kind of hard to keep something like this quiet.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Kind of hard to keep something like this quiet.
That's only true when you have people willing the spend the time investigating these types of occurances and not simply being stenographers to whatever the Pentagon says. It took 3 years for this story to come out.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
The first gun run was justified.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Men with guns in Bagdad, by itself, is not justification for killing. The behavior of the group does not seem to be threatening.
Carbon12 wrote:
The behavior of the group does not seem to be threatening.
The had weapons, could have had an RPG. It seemed they hid around the corner from a patrol, then pointed the (could be camera, could be RPG) around the corner. They were not friendlies, based on troop locations. If they are armed and not friendly, what are they? Do you always have to wait until they shoot at you first? Don't base your judgment on knowing what the outcome was, base it on the situation on the ground/air. Again, there was not excuse for the cover-up.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
You are not a journalist, you are not a lawyer, you have no reason to watch it, you are a voyeur.
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it. We are responsible for this. We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
Carbon12 wrote:
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it. We are responsible for this. We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
Should we also obliged be watching the videos of US soldiers getting ripped apart by IEDs? Should we have to watch Perlman's head getting cut off? Should we have watch videos of Iraqi and Afghan girls being allowed to go to school? Aren't those also the consequences of our actions? Or should we just watch the bad consequences?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
hammerstein05 wrote:
Now, if there are consequences, I'm sure they'll deal with them.
I don't think they are the ones who should have to deal with the consequences. But they will have to. I'm not talking about court martial or anything like that. I mean the new insurgents that get created by this sort of indiscrimitate killing. Unfortunately this is kind of killing is not the exception, it is the norm.
hammerstein05 wrote:
No organisation or military entity would want something like this public.
The only place it isn't public is here in the US. The Iraqis are all too familiar with it.
hammerstein05 wrote:
It's damaging to the overall mission.
Of course it is. And the damage occurs, not when the Pentagon's coverup is revealed, but when the killing happens.
Carbon12 wrote:
I mean the new insurgents that get created by this sort of indiscrimitate killing.
How was this indiscriminate? An armed group in a war zone where there are no friendlies? How is shooting them indiscriminate killing?
Carbon12 wrote:
Unfortunately this is kind of killing is not the exception, it is the norm.
You believe this based on what?
Carbon12 wrote:
And the damage occurs, not when the Pentagon's coverup is revealed, but when the killing happens.
The damage gets even bigger when the cover up is revealed. [edit] My point is that cover-ups make things worse, wikileak did the right thing. [/edit]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
The behavior of the group does not seem to be threatening.
The had weapons, could have had an RPG. It seemed they hid around the corner from a patrol, then pointed the (could be camera, could be RPG) around the corner. They were not friendlies, based on troop locations. If they are armed and not friendly, what are they? Do you always have to wait until they shoot at you first? Don't base your judgment on knowing what the outcome was, base it on the situation on the ground/air. Again, there was not excuse for the cover-up.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
The had weapons,
A lot of Iraqis do. So, kill them all? How well do you think that would work out? The civilians knew the gunship was there and they made no attempt to hide from it. Not the behavior of insurgents preparing to attack a patrol.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you always have to wait until they shoot at you first?
No, but the patrol didn't have to drive into an ambush, they new the civilians were there.
RichardM1 wrote:
Don't base your judgment on knowing what the outcome was
Of course I will. Killing innocent civilians is completely counter productive to our goal of defeating the insurgency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it. We are responsible for this. We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
Should we also obliged be watching the videos of US soldiers getting ripped apart by IEDs? Should we have to watch Perlman's head getting cut off? Should we have watch videos of Iraqi and Afghan girls being allowed to go to school? Aren't those also the consequences of our actions? Or should we just watch the bad consequences?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
I mean the new insurgents that get created by this sort of indiscrimitate killing.
How was this indiscriminate? An armed group in a war zone where there are no friendlies? How is shooting them indiscriminate killing?
Carbon12 wrote:
Unfortunately this is kind of killing is not the exception, it is the norm.
You believe this based on what?
Carbon12 wrote:
And the damage occurs, not when the Pentagon's coverup is revealed, but when the killing happens.
The damage gets even bigger when the cover up is revealed. [edit] My point is that cover-ups make things worse, wikileak did the right thing. [/edit]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
An armed group in a war zone where there are no friendlies?
It was in a Baghdad neighborhood. No friendlies? You must be kidding!
RichardM1 wrote:
You believe this based on what?
General McChrystal: “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.” Read about the recent murder of 5 Afghans including 2 pregnant women.
RichardM1 wrote:
The damage gets even bigger when the cover up is revealed. [edit] My point is that cover-ups make things worse, wikileak did the right thing. [/edit]
I'm not sure what you mean. Worse because it will reduce American support for the war? Well, I think that creating more insurgents is much worse than that.
-
Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on [^] Everyone needs to see this. I'm speechless. The killing starts after 2m50s.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
I'm given to discount your posts as more conspiracy theorist junk, but this one was interesting. Whilst I'm no soldier, I can well imagine that somebody mounting a shouldered device might seem threatening to those who have been warned about RPGs, and for those threatened to respond in kind. What I have no empathy with is firing on a Van collecting bodies, which posed no threat as far as I could see. It may not have had a red cross sticker on the side, but there was no reason to attack it. That assumes, of course, that the video is true. If it is, then there's clear evidence of the US military performing illegal, inexcusable, acts. But that all happened in 2007 under Bush, perhaps Obama can throw this into the light?
-
RichardM1 wrote:
The had weapons,
A lot of Iraqis do. So, kill them all? How well do you think that would work out? The civilians knew the gunship was there and they made no attempt to hide from it. Not the behavior of insurgents preparing to attack a patrol.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you always have to wait until they shoot at you first?
No, but the patrol didn't have to drive into an ambush, they new the civilians were there.
RichardM1 wrote:
Don't base your judgment on knowing what the outcome was
Of course I will. Killing innocent civilians is completely counter productive to our goal of defeating the insurgency.
Carbon12 wrote:
A lot of Iraqis do. So, kill them all? How well do you think that would work out?
"A lot of Iraqis" don't point what could be an RPG towards a friendly patrol.
Carbon12 wrote:
The civilians knew the gunship was there and they made no attempt to hide from it. Not the behavior of insurgents preparing to attack a patrol.
Did the guys on the ground even look at the chopper? How do you know they knew it was there? The aircraft have high-zoom stabilized cameras, and you have no idea how far away it was. Watch other chopper footage, the people on the ground don't ever seem to know they are being observed. The appearance is that you have a bias, and this will support your bias, facts be damned.
Carbon12 wrote:
No, but the patrol didn't have to drive into an ambush, they new the civilians were there.
They knew armed people were there. If they knew civilians were there, they should have gone ahead and driven through it, right? You've never spend much thought on how to survive in a kill-zone, or even a war-zone, have you? Rhetorical question. Never mind.
Opacity, the new Transparency.