Wikileaks Releases Video of US Military War Crimes

[Makalakumu]

www.wikileaks.com

Click on the link on the website, it is against the MT TOS to post the video link directly to the site because of its language and violent content. Please watch this video with discretion.

Here is the blurb from wikileaks.

WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff. Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded. For further information please visit the special project website www.collateralmurder.com.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Big Don]

The Reuters news staff CHOSE to embed themselves with VISIBLY (AK47/RPG) armed terrorists. The bastards got what they deserved. See here.

 

[Marginal]

The Reuters news staff CHOSE to embed themselves with VISIBLY (AK47/RPG) armed terrorists. The bastards got what they deserved. See here.

The Reuters staff are bastards now? Ah well.

 

[72ronin]

Notice a patrol was pretty close by, meaning these at LEAST two armed insurgents were prob about to RPG then AK the patrol.. Is that what photo's they were hoping for?

Everyone needs to realise that if the choppa didnt spot these guys then we may have lost men in the nearby patrol as it is highly likely that it was these peoples target.

So, some photographer that waits down the street for some action shots with prior knowledge gets no sympathy from me at all. Prior knowledge meaning what did he think they were about to do?
Ofcourse he knew they planned to engage the nearby patrol, and was hoping for some great shots..
Like i said, no sympathy at all.

The person who drove children to the scene, before the dust had even settled, words cannot exspress how stupid that man must be..

 

[Big Don]

The Reuters staff are bastards now? Ah well.

They made their bed when they embedded themselves with terrorists, so, yeah, pretty much. Terrorist sympathizing bastards.

 

[Archangel M]

Like Don said: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php

Any reporter who apparently knew that a US patrol was going to be ambushed and instead of warning them, waited for a "good photograph" of it happening, got what they deserved IMO.

 

[xJOHNx]

And whoooofff, we just threw independent, objective media out of the window.


We don't need it afterall.

Related to the incident, 2 kids died because a van was coming over to help the wounded. The van got shot as well, with the kids inside.

[cynism]
Stupid terrorist kids and stupid terrorist healthcare workers.
[/cynism]

 

[dancingalone]

www.wikileaks.com

Click on the link on the website, it is against the MT TOS to post the video link directly to the site because of its language and violent content. Please watch this video with discretion.

Here is the blurb from wikileaks.



What are your thoughts?

I think there's a fine line between remaining journalistically neutral and being complicit in attacks on US soldiers. Regardless of the Reuters people's nationality, if they were embedded with combatants, they can't cry foul if they come under fire from US forces. Consider all those reporters that were embedded with US soldiers during the Iraq invasion. A few of them died or were injured during attacks from the insurgents. Do you think the insurgents worried even a little about those casualties?

 

[Archangel M]

The more I read the more I think that this is a media smear job against the US military because some of their own got caught in the crossfire.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/05/video-collateral-murder-or-the-risks-of-war-zones/

Take a good look at what these "reporters" were doing.

If you dont want to be whacked by an Apache don't buddy up with American killing Jhiadists in hopes of getting that Pulitzer wining shot. Play that game..take your chances.

Welcome to War.

 

[Archangel M]

And whoooofff, we just threw independent, objective media out of the window.


We don't need it afterall.

Related to the incident, 2 kids died because a van was coming over to help the wounded. The van got shot as well, with the kids inside.

[cynism]
Stupid terrorist kids and stupid terrorist healthcare workers.
[/cynism]

WTF? If reporters are next to the enemy we cant machine gun their position?
"Media Shields"?? Is that the way we fight wars now?
Come racing to the scene where RPG/AK wielding enemy were staging an ambush? Damn straight you will get lit-up.
Did that van have a red cross/crescent on it??? Otherwise it looks like reinforcements arriving.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/05/video-collateral-murder-or-the-risks-of-war-zones/

War correspondents take huge risks to bring news of a war to readers far away. What this shows is just how risky it is to embed with terrorists, especially when their enemy controls the air. War is not the same thing as law enforcement; the US forces had no responsibility for identifying each member of the group and determining their mens rea. Legitimate rescue operations would have included markings on the vehicle and on uniforms to let hostile forces know to hold fire, and in the absence of that, the hostile forces have every reason to consider the second support group as a legitimate target as well. It’s heartbreaking for the families of these journalists, but this isn’t “collateral murder” — it’s war.

 

[Brother John]

Like Don said: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php

Any reporter who apparently knew that a US patrol was going to be ambushed and instead of warning them, waited for a "good photograph" of it happening, got what they deserved IMO.

and are thus "Bastards"....


Your Brother
John

 

[xJOHNx]

I'm actually more concerned with the ease and eagerness the pilots engage and kill peope. Yes it is a warzone, doesn't change a thing.

Same with the chuckles afterwards when a tank drives over a body. A little courtesy together with a better understanding of the country could make it a lot less bloody.

In case you didn't know, every family has an AK in their homes and carries it on the street. It was so before the war and probably will be after the war. It's sort of tradition.

Yes it's a warzone, so it means we can't have any reporting from it? We'll just take what our side says, blindly? No more objectivism needed?
If it were truelly "Jihaddists" (just using this term shows how much you really know about it) they would have kidnapped the journalists. They get more out of doing that.

And no it didn't have a red crescent on it. Picking up bodies isn't the same a aiming a RPG, or am I wrong? Too much fear and panic in those who go to war.
So the statement about war reporters expecting to die can be modified. If you join the force, expect to eat lead one day. I'm not wishing anybody who is a soldier harm, but that statement was over the top.

Is there proof that the journalists were hanging out with terrorists? Or is that just a accepted fact to make the truth less ugly?

 

[Empty Hands]

Wow, this thread got predictable fast.

One thing is for certain, these incidents are unavoidable when wars are started. When errors are made or crimes committed, all you can do is punish them after the fact. Thus, our apparent eagerness to get into wars is what should be examined. We should be asking ourselves whether the war is truly necessary knowing full well what we will unleash. Especially with Iraq, one of the least necessary wars I can recall.

We Americans are great at waving the flag and wanting to bomb a few places, but we aren't so great at realizing the inevitable consequences of our actions. That should change.

 

[dancingalone]

I'm actually more concerned with the ease and eagerness the pilots engage and kill peope. Yes it is a warzone, doesn't change a thing.

That is what they are TRAINED to do. The US cultivates an advantage in air power precisely so they can win engagements like these quickly and overwhelmingly.

Yes it's a warzone, so it means we can't have any reporting from it? We'll just take what our side says, blindly? No more objectivism needed?
If it were truelly "Jihaddists" (just using this term shows how much you really know about it) they would have kidnapped the journalists. They get more out of doing that.

Embed at your own peril. It works on the opposite side too. If you are with US troops, you just might come under fire too.

And no it didn't have a red crescent on it. Picking up bodies isn't the same a aiming a RPG, or am I wrong? Too much fear and panic in those who go to war.

There are specific rules of engagement for marked vehicles with symbols like the famous Red Cross. These are followed internationally by all countries with armed forces that are signatories. Follow the rules and one's chances of being blown up are much, much less.

So the statement about war reporters expecting to die can be modified. If you join the force, expect to eat lead one day. I'm not wishing anybody who is a soldier harm, but that statement was over the top.

??? Soldiers know that dying in a battle is an occupation hazard. Seems like war journalists should understand they face some of the same risk.

Is there proof that the journalists were hanging out with terrorists? Or is that just a accepted fact to make the truth less ugly?

The same could be asked on the opposite side. There's been enough debunking stories on the web that argue these were terrorists and combatants. If you choose to believe that they were innocent civilians, that's up to you and your own predispositions.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Armed man standing around when Obama delivers a speech: patriot defending his second amendment rights. He must be praised.

Armed man (carrying an ak-47 is apparently legal in Iraq) standing in a crowd in Iraq: he is automatically terrorist. His existence justifies having a gunship open fire on a crowd with heavy machine guns, and then obliterate the ambulance trying to get the wounded away while the gunners make crude jokes and laugh with the victims. Then lie about it when you find out you pulped a crew of reporters and try to cover it up.

Keep telling yourself that they hate you because of your freedom.

Whether they were terrorists or not: opening fire on a crowd is really something you cannot do if you claim to be the good guys, and not a brutal occupying force. Ditto for opening fire on an ambulance trying to get the wounded out.

 

[dancingalone]

Armed man standing around when Obama delivers a speech: patriot defending his second amendment rights. He must be praised.

A bad example don't you think, Bruno? The only armed men around the US president are the Secret Service. It would be very shocking if someone carrying a weapon, even a licensed handgun, was allowed to come anywhere near Obama.

Armed man (carrying an ak-47 is apparently legal in Iraq) standing in a crowd in Iraq: he is automatically terrorist. His existence justifies having a gunship open fire on a crowd with heavy machine guns, and then obliterate the ambulance trying to get the wounded away while the gunners make crude jokes and laugh with the victims.

It is a war zone. Seems like local customs should be modified a bit as long as the US military forces continue to be present. If only out of prudence regardless of your thoughts on the rightness or wrongness of it.

Keep telling yourself that they hate you because of your freedom.

Who are they?

There are many in the Middle East who hate the US and for a variety of reasons. I am more sympathetic to some than to others. Don't act like the Middle East is monolithic. There are many different factions, even within Iraq, all with their own motivations and goals.

 

[blink13]

It is a war zone. Seems like local customs should be modified a bit as long as the US military forces continue to be present. If only out of prudence regardless of your thoughts on the rightness or wrongness of it.

Uh, while I agree with a lot of your points, current ROE doesn't allow shooting at people just because they're armed with AKs and similar weapons. RPGs, yes, AKs, no. This might have changed since the last time I was there, though.

(just addressing the ROE question)

 

[Makalakumu]

Even if some of those guys were armed (that's hard to determine from the original footage), isn't it a crime to open fire on an "enemy" picking up wounded? Children were clearly present and I couldn't see any weapons when they opened fire on them.

 

[blink13]

I just edited and it didn't "take." Sorry.

I'm only addressing the ROE question of "does the presence of an AK-47 allow U.S. forces to engage." No, it does not. AKs are okay unless a HOSTILE ACT takes place or HOSTILE INTENT is shown.

Without HA/HI - can't (and shouldn't!) engage.

I'm not getting into the rest of the argument, who shot John, who's the mostest evilistist, who sucks, etc., because no one's going to "win" anyway. I have my thoughts based on a few combat tours, countless ROE/escalation of force briefs, etc.

Not getting into, and please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Bruno@MT]

A bad example don't you think, Bruno? The only armed men around the US president are the Secret Service. It would be very shocking if someone carrying a weapon, even a licensed handgun, was allowed to come anywhere near Obama.

Check your facts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-among-protesters-at-Barack-Obama-speech.html
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/armed-protesters-lurking-outside-obama-speech-locations.html

One such instance was even discussed here at MT. A guy openly carrying his side arm during a healthcare speech.