U.S. Military murders Reuters' reporters. Covers it up.

[North Suran]

Right, because wanting to serve my country and eliminate those that intend to kill Americans makes me a troll...

GOOD ONE!

And if I wasn't against violence in general, I'd take the side of the Iraqis. Does that make me a troll?

If you are an american?

No, it just means you are guilty of treason and should be sentenced to death pursuant to statute.

Because obviously, freedom of speech is not at all protected by the US Constitution.

Apparently reading comprehension isn't your thing...

"IF I WASN'T AGAINST VIOLENCE"

Meaning, if he was in favor of fighting then he would side with the insurgents, meaning, he would fight against America... not just speak as you are suggesting.

He would be fighting against a combat mission introduced by a US President. Countries are geographical features; they do not make political decisions.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Does this count?

Nope. I don't trust the Huffington Post (especially for something like this). If it's on the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc, then I'll consider it legit. It probably is and I just don't want it to be, to tell you the truth though...

Fair enough, I don't like them either. How about the BBC then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8603938.stm

The video is of high quality and appears to be authentic, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says. It is accompanied by a recording of the pilots' radio transmissions and those of US troops on the ground.

Now I'm convinced. Thanks.

*sigh*

Maybe I'm missing something but...

What exactly does that article cover that isn't already covered in this thread? I think everyone reading this knows by now that this came out on wikileaks, and all the article really does is explain what goes on in the video... the above link is basically the OP in article form. So what are you "convinced" of now that you weren't after reading the OP and watching the video?

I had never heard of wikileaks and didn't find it credible enough. The BBC is well known and credible.

Still, all it basically says is "wikileaks has a guncam video of troops shooting people that don't deserve it." BBC mentioning it doesn't make wikileaks credible, it just means they saw it too.

It most certainly does make the video credible. Imagine if they reported about it and called it authentic looking (which they did) to find out later it's a fake? They have to do research into these things.

[Panzerjaeger]

Does this count?

Nope. I don't trust the Huffington Post (especially for something like this). If it's on the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc, then I'll consider it legit. It probably is and I just don't want it to be, to tell you the truth though...

Fair enough, I don't like them either. How about the BBC then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8603938.stm

The video is of high quality and appears to be authentic, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says. It is accompanied by a recording of the pilots' radio transmissions and those of US troops on the ground.

Now I'm convinced. Thanks.

*sigh*

Maybe I'm missing something but...

What exactly does that article cover that isn't already covered in this thread? I think everyone reading this knows by now that this came out on wikileaks, and all the article really does is explain what goes on in the video... the above link is basically the OP in article form. So what are you "convinced" of now that you weren't after reading the OP and watching the video?

I had never heard of wikileaks and didn't find it credible enough. The BBC is well known and credible.

Still, all it basically says is "wikileaks has a guncam video of troops shooting people that don't deserve it." BBC mentioning it doesn't make wikileaks credible, it just means they saw it too.

It most certainly does make the video credible. Imagine if they reported about it and called it authentic looking (which they did) to find out later it's a fake? They have to do research into these things.

Saying something looks authentic is now a verification? In what universe?

[JuNii]

Honestly, this is the kind of defeatist bs attitude that gets our soldiers killed. First and foremost, look up the word murder. Secondly, when you create an aura around the troops forcing them to second guess every decision they make in a combat zone you are in a sense, contributing to their demise.

Murder:

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Except for the fact that the U.S. says this is legal, I would call this murder. The part where the pilots destroy a van trying to save the injured photographer is almost too sick to be real. Perhaps I am contributing to the military's demise by supporting this video. For the sake of innocent lives, I can only hope so!

er.. according to your own source, if it's legally done then it's not murder. so it's not just the U.S. but any government.

[Jocabia]

This is disgusting, especially when they are looking for excuses to shoot the wounded reporter. They kept saying things like "pick up a weapon" because when they are armed it gives them an excuse to shoot. Perhaps they were making up seeing AK's and RPG's, just so they could fire.

when did they say "pick up a weapon". please indicate how far into the video that occurred?

It's right before the van picks him up but it's only in the longer video.

And they pretty clearly think he's dangerous. It's not surprising that people risking their life in a warzone do not want to see the people they believe are trying to kill them escape. If you watch the part with the van in the longer video one of the guys is getting really upset when they don't get a response from command. Also, the longer video says that some of them did appear to have weapons. That's on the website that calls this murder.

[Parthenon]

Right, because wanting to serve my country and eliminate those that intend to kill Americans makes me a troll...

GOOD ONE!

And if I wasn't against violence in general, I'd take the side of the Iraqis. Does that make me a troll?

If you are an american?

No, it just means you are guilty of treason and should be sentenced to death pursuant to statute.

Because obviously, freedom of speech is not at all protected by the US Constitution.

Apparently reading comprehension isn't your thing...

"IF I WASN'T AGAINST VIOLENCE"

Meaning, if he was in favor of fighting then he would side with the insurgents, meaning, he would fight against America... not just speak as you are suggesting.

He would be fighting against a combat mission introduced by a US President. Countries are geographical features; they do not make political decisions.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Siding with insurgents engaged in a war against the USA? Yep, treason.

[Ravea]

Right, because wanting to serve my country and eliminate those that intend to kill Americans makes me a troll...

GOOD ONE!

And if I wasn't against violence in general, I'd take the side of the Iraqis. Does that make me a troll?

If you are an american?

No, it just means you are guilty of treason and should be sentenced to death pursuant to statute.

Because obviously, freedom of speech is not at all protected by the US Constitution.

Apparently reading comprehension isn't your thing...

"IF I WASN'T AGAINST VIOLENCE"

Meaning, if he was in favor of fighting then he would side with the insurgents... Thus, he would fight against America... not just speak as you are suggesting.

I'm an American by the accident of birth. I hold no allegiance to any nation, and tend to side more with the weaker and exploited nations and sides of wars. I don't support what either side is doing, but defending one's home is far better than fighting an unjust war. If that's treason, then so be it.

[United States of PA]

Apparently it's the business of trigger happy sadists.

If I was in a country full of people who hated me and wanted me out to such an extent that they leave bombs at the side of the road to blow my humvees up daily, shoot at me with RPGs, and attempt to gun me down with AK-47's, I'd be a little looser on the trigger as well. I'd rather kill the guy who might be about to kill me than to pay the price for it and die in the next second. That's not sick or sadistic. It's the basic human instinct for survival.

For once i find myself Agreeing with GA.


That said, i watched the 17 minute version of it with Commentary, and, had it not been for the Commentary and knowing what had happened beforehand, i honest to god would have come to the same conclusions as the Pilot and Gunner. This is coming from a person with no actual military experience, but who has a Cousin who he has spent quite a bit of time with that has done several tours of Combat as a A-10 Pilot in the Middle East.


As to the guy who asked how a Camera can look like a RPG, have you ever seen a RPG, or even bothered to watch the video before commenting? He leaned around the corner for less than 2 seconds and pointed the damn thing right at the helo, as if he wanted to take a Potshot with a RPG at the Helo. That is far from ordinary. If he really wanted to take a picture, he would have stood in the middle of the street or the square and took the pictures, rather than leaning around a corner and than ducking back real quick. That looked a lot like a Insurgent with a RPG too me.


When they were first spotted, the Camera's they had at their side did infact look like the Butts of AK-47s, add in the fact that the video was likely enhanced for this. Whoever added the commentary to the video following its release also could not know the those 2 white objects in the Vans window were infact kids, unless, oh i dont know, were actually standing right next to the thing when it happened. Yes, i know 2 kids were injured as a result, but their is no way to know that those were kids in the window, and, in the situation, ID them as kids from that video feed. I re-watched that sections 3 times, and non of them i could actually identify them as kids, or even people.


I agree that that video was pretty high quality for Apache Guncam Footage, but as i said, good chance that it was enhanced after the fact.

[Panzerjaeger]

Honestly, this is the kind of defeatist bs attitude that gets our soldiers killed. First and foremost, look up the word murder. Secondly, when you create an aura around the troops forcing them to second guess every decision they make in a combat zone you are in a sense, contributing to their demise.

Murder:

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Except for the fact that the U.S. says this is legal, I would call this murder. The part where the pilots destroy a van trying to save the injured photographer is almost too sick to be real. Perhaps I am contributing to the military's demise by supporting this video. I can only hope so!

That doesn't even fit the murder definition. Oh bloody hell what is the use you have an ax to grind and a hardon to politically spin it.

You are the one who immediately tried to say that the vid was "suspicious" yes thats right everybody is trying to make fake videos to undermine the US, in fact they want to so badly that they managed to get hold of an attack helicopter, about 30 actors and extras, and what looked like a Bradley. Those dirty Muslim communist bastards...


oh i forgot to put in i actually agree with you that the vid is remarkably clear, but I have seen footage just as clear on Brit cop shows.

Brit cop shows do not equal Apache Gun Cam footage.

[North Suran]

I had never heard of wikileaks and didn't find it credible enough. The BBC is well known and credible.

Still, all it basically says is "wikileaks has a guncam video of troops shooting people that don't deserve it." BBC mentioning it doesn't make wikileaks credible, it just means they saw it too.

It most certainly does make the video credible. Imagine if they reported about it and called it authentic looking (which they did) to find out later it's a fake? They have to do research into these things.

People are still capable of making misjudgements - even well-informed, balanced misjudgements.

At any rate, even if the footage is genuine, what is the issue at hand? Civilians are killed during war by military mistakes? No doubt WikiLeaks will soon leak new damning footage of bears defecating in woodland areas and the Pope confirming his Catholicism.

[Gravlen]

Honestly, this is the kind of defeatist bs attitude that gets our soldiers killed. First and foremost, look up the word murder. Secondly, when you create an aura around the troops forcing them to second guess every decision they make in a combat zone you are in a sense, contributing to their demise.

It's Rather the lack of proper training, the failure of leadership and command, and the lack of discipline that leads to their demise.

[JuNii]

Honestly, this is the kind of defeatist bs attitude that gets our soldiers killed. First and foremost, look up the word murder. Secondly, when you create an aura around the troops forcing them to second guess every decision they make in a combat zone you are in a sense, contributing to their demise.

Filling journalists full of holes and shooting children is never justified. It's clearly murder.

Yes because Blue on Blue never happens in the real world.

At one point the pilots urge one of the wounded on the ground to go for a weapon so they can have justification for shooting him. That's just fucked up. It's like the special forces team in Afghanistan that murdered seven people before digging out the bullets to cover it up. This doesn't seem much different.

please indicate the time stamp where this "urging" is happening?

Edit: found the link for the longer version of the video. looking at that now.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I don't know if this is what you guys are referring to, but taking up arms on behalf of the Iraqis against US coalition forces is treason if you're an American. End of story.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I had never heard of wikileaks and didn't find it credible enough. The BBC is well known and credible.

Still, all it basically says is "wikileaks has a guncam video of troops shooting people that don't deserve it." BBC mentioning it doesn't make wikileaks credible, it just means they saw it too.

It most certainly does make the video credible. Imagine if they reported about it and called it authentic looking (which they did) to find out later it's a fake? They have to do research into these things.

People are still capable of making misjudgements - even well-informed, balanced misjudgements.

At any rate, even if the footage is genuine, what is the issue at hand? Civilians are killed during war by military mistakes? No doubt WikiLeaks will soon leak new damning footage of bears defecating in woodland areas and the Pope confirming his Catholicism.

They seemed quite trigger-happy. That's what I don't like about this. They didn't observe these guys much (from what we can tell) before they shot them. If that camera really did look like an RPG and the photographer was doing something seemingly menacing with it, then their death wouldn't unsettle me as much. But that's not the case here.

[Soyut]

Honestly, this is the kind of defeatist bs attitude that gets our soldiers killed. First and foremost, look up the word murder. Secondly, when you create an aura around the troops forcing them to second guess every decision they make in a combat zone you are in a sense, contributing to their demise.

Murder:

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Except for the fact that the U.S. says this is legal, I would call this murder. The part where the pilots destroy a van trying to save the injured photographer is almost too sick to be real. Perhaps I am contributing to the military's demise by supporting this video. For the sake of innocent lives, I can only hope so!

er.. according to your own source, if it's legally done then it's not murder. so it's not just the U.S. but any government.

Not necessarily U.S. law has to only be applied here. You could frame this event in the context of German law, human rights laws, or even metaphysical laws like the pillars of Islam. The word "unlawfully" is very vague.

[JuNii]

Just because you found a word in Webster's doesn't mean its applicable. It was a legal action, as such, not murder.


Btw, whoever made this video is a fucking idiot...

A Bradley is not a tank.

Yeah, alot of the commentary is skewed. I wish the people who presented this were a little more objective about the information. The George Orwell quote at the beginning is completely unnecessary.

I suggest watching the unedited 40 minute clip; it contains no commentary or editing other than captions for the radio transmissions.

thanks, maybe then I can find some of these claims.

[Grand Tomania]

Right, because wanting to serve my country and eliminate those that intend to kill Americans makes me a troll...

GOOD ONE!

And if I wasn't against violence in general, I'd take the side of the Iraqis. Does that make me a troll?

If you are an american?

No, it just means you are guilty of treason and should be sentenced to death pursuant to statute.

Because obviously, freedom of speech is not at all protected by the US Constitution.

Apparently reading comprehension isn't your thing...

"IF I WASN'T AGAINST VIOLENCE"

Meaning, if he was in favor of fighting then he would side with the insurgents, meaning, he would fight against America... not just speak as you are suggesting.

He would be fighting against a combat mission introduced by a US President. Countries are geographical features; they do not make political decisions.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Siding with insurgents engaged in a war against the USA? Yep, treason.

Technically, they might not be "the enemy"...I thought you guys defined them as "unlawful ragheads" or something so you guys could torture and rape them in cuba?

[Panzerjaeger]

I had never heard of wikileaks and didn't find it credible enough. The BBC is well known and credible.

Still, all it basically says is "wikileaks has a guncam video of troops shooting people that don't deserve it." BBC mentioning it doesn't make wikileaks credible, it just means they saw it too.

It most certainly does make the video credible. Imagine if they reported about it and called it authentic looking (which they did) to find out later it's a fake? They have to do research into these things.

People are still capable of making misjudgements - even well-informed, balanced misjudgements.

At any rate, even if the footage is genuine, what is the issue at hand? Civilians are killed during war by military mistakes? No doubt WikiLeaks will soon leak new damning footage of bears defecating in woodland areas and the Pope confirming his Catholicism.

They seemed quite trigger-happy. That's what I don't like about this. They didn't observe these guys much (from what we can tell) before they shot them. If that camera really did look like an RPG and the photographer was doing something seemingly menacing with it, then their death wouldn't unsettle me as much. But that's not the case here.

30 Minutes of footage is not enough observation? How bloody long are they supposed to wait till they get shot at? Lose a couple of birds then return fire?

[Jocabia]

He would be fighting against a combat mission introduced by a US President. Countries are geographical features; they do not make political decisions.

Cheese is a yellow thing. It is not a white thing.

If we're just making definitions for words that already have definitions, I want to join in. Why should you have all the fun?

[Gravlen]

Honestly, this is the kind of defeatist bs attitude that gets our soldiers killed. First and foremost, look up the word murder. Secondly, when you create an aura around the troops forcing them to second guess every decision they make in a combat zone you are in a sense, contributing to their demise.

Filling journalists full of holes and shooting children is never justified. It's clearly murder.

You mean journalists peering around corners with a big black rpg looking camera aimed right at a US gunship?

or the children that weren't visible inside a minivan that drove up to a scene and attempted to evac a suspected insurgent that was engaged just minutes prior?


Stupidity on the part of those killed, not murder.

You must have watched a different video than I did. At no point did I see the camera operator ever point the camera at anyone other than the other people with whom the camera operator was conversing.

4:13 mark...

I could not see that he aimed the camera at them. Nor that he was firing, as the crew said.

[Fson]

Honestly, this is the kind of defeatist bs attitude that gets our soldiers killed. First and foremost, look up the word murder. Secondly, when you create an aura around the troops forcing them to second guess every decision they make in a combat zone you are in a sense, contributing to their demise.

Murder:

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Except for the fact that the U.S. says this is legal, I would call this murder. The part where the pilots destroy a van trying to save the injured photographer is almost too sick to be real. Perhaps I am contributing to the military's demise by supporting this video. I can only hope so!

That doesn't even fit the murder definition. Oh bloody hell what is the use you have an ax to grind and a hardon to politically spin it.

You are the one who immediately tried to say that the vid was "suspicious" yes thats right everybody is trying to make fake videos to undermine the US, in fact they want to so badly that they managed to get hold of an attack helicopter, about 30 actors and extras, and what looked like a Bradley. Those dirty Muslim communist bastards...


oh i forgot to put in i actually agree with you that the vid is remarkably clear, but I have seen footage just as clear on Brit cop shows.

Brit cop shows do not equal Apache Gun Cam footage.

The cameras they use are essentially the same, in fact with your country's ludicrous defence budget its safe to assume that your hardware should be better, I truly hope this video is fake, but we shall see in the future if it turns out to be real you probably will still refuse to believe.

[Parthenon]

I had never heard of wikileaks and didn't find it credible enough. The BBC is well known and credible.

Still, all it basically says is "wikileaks has a guncam video of troops shooting people that don't deserve it." BBC mentioning it doesn't make wikileaks credible, it just means they saw it too.

It most certainly does make the video credible. Imagine if they reported about it and called it authentic looking (which they did) to find out later it's a fake? They have to do research into these things.

People are still capable of making misjudgements - even well-informed, balanced misjudgements.

At any rate, even if the footage is genuine, what is the issue at hand? Civilians are killed during war by military mistakes? No doubt WikiLeaks will soon leak new damning footage of bears defecating in woodland areas and the Pope confirming his Catholicism.

They seemed quite trigger-happy. That's what I don't like about this. They didn't observe these guys much (from what we can tell) before they shot them. If that camera really did look like an RPG and the photographer was doing something seemingly menacing with it, then their death wouldn't unsettle me as much. But that's not the case here.

4:13 in the video...

[Melkor Unchained]

Honestly, this is the kind of defeatist bs attitude that gets our soldiers killed. First and foremost, look up the word murder. Secondly, when you create an aura around the troops forcing them to second guess every decision they make in a combat zone you are in a sense, contributing to their demise.

It's Rather the lack of proper training, the failure of leadership and command, and the lack of discipline that leads to their demise.

Yeah, I guess that's why we lost so many troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh, wait...

[Ravea]

Honestly, this is the kind of defeatist bs attitude that gets our soldiers killed. First and foremost, look up the word murder. Secondly, when you create an aura around the troops forcing them to second guess every decision they make in a combat zone you are in a sense, contributing to their demise.

Filling journalists full of holes and shooting children is never justified. It's clearly murder.

Yes because Blue on Blue never happens in the real world.

At one point the pilots urge one of the wounded on the ground to go for a weapon so they can have justification for shooting him. That's just fucked up. It's like the special forces team in Afghanistan that murdered seven people before digging out the bullets to cover it up. This doesn't seem much different.

please indicate the time stamp where this "urging" is happening?

At 8:30.

"Come on, Buddy. All you gotta do is pick up a weapon."

[Jocabia]

I had never heard of wikileaks and didn't find it credible enough. The BBC is well known and credible.

Still, all it basically says is "wikileaks has a guncam video of troops shooting people that don't deserve it." BBC mentioning it doesn't make wikileaks credible, it just means they saw it too.

It most certainly does make the video credible. Imagine if they reported about it and called it authentic looking (which they did) to find out later it's a fake? They have to do research into these things.

People are still capable of making misjudgements - even well-informed, balanced misjudgements.

At any rate, even if the footage is genuine, what is the issue at hand? Civilians are killed during war by military mistakes? No doubt WikiLeaks will soon leak new damning footage of bears defecating in woodland areas and the Pope confirming his Catholicism.

They seemed quite trigger-happy. That's what I don't like about this. They didn't observe these guys much (from what we can tell) before they shot them. If that camera really did look like an RPG and the photographer was doing something seemingly menacing with it, then their death wouldn't unsettle me as much. But that's not the case here.

I can't imagine what it would feel like to be in their situation, but they believed these guys had weapons that could shoot them down. I'm pretty sure that would make me anxious as well. And even then they waited for proper authorization each time they fired.