but cold hearted bastards like YOU would not help but just stand there, laugh and say "Die you heathen bastard"?, am I wrong?

Yes Fool you are wrong, completely wrong. But please do not let that stop you from putting words into my mouth and attributing to me views that I myself do not hold. It is a standard debating tactic of the left, always has been, and it is a sure indication that their arguments are weak, as they then have to resort to lies. Of course that is what this "wikileaks" story is all about isn't it LIES - COLLATERAL MURDER - No-one was murdered.

And Lox - you know for certain that everything that you contend happened was fact do you? Care to tell me how? Or are you yourself mere making completely unsupported assertions.

Now tell us what the driver of that van WOULD have heard Lox according to your reading of events. I'll tell you both what he could and could not have heard:

1. He could not have heard a bomb Lox because there wasn't one, was there?

2. He most certainly would have heard the sound of gun fire 30mm cannon are rather loud.

3. He would have heard the gun fire from those engaging the Patrol

4. He would not have been deafened by the noise of rush hour traffic because there was no traffic about was there Lox? And the driver of this van, does not even question why he happens to be the only thing on the road during a summer that marked the highpoint in sectarian killings in Baghdad.

It is all supposition Lox based upon what Wikileaks chose to show us. You and Foolestroupe and the majority posting to this thread, some who openly admit that they could not watch the video coverage swallowed the lie that US troops had deliberately murdered civilians on that afternoon in Baghdad on the 12th July 2007. I on the other hand did watch the video, I checked up on the incident, I checked how Reuters subsequently covered it.

Do you still support the wikileaks lie that the people shot were unarmed civilians? Evidence against:

- Video coverage of people with guns and RPG's in their hands;

- Still photographs of those very weapons taken at the scene;

- Eye-witness statements verifying the presence of those weapons at the scene.

None of that Lox is unsupported supposition that is all fact that wikikeaks deliberately decided to ignore.

Oh the other thing that dropped out of the picture in this thread, the matter of treatment of the wounded. Now what was the slant wikileaks wanted to put on this again? Oh yes that the brutal and callous US stormtroopers refused to send the wounded little girl to the US Army treatment centre and ordered her to be handed over to the Iraqi Police so that they could take her to an Iraqi Hospital because they knew it would be under-equipped, under-staffed and over worked - That was more or less the gist of it wasn't it Lox?

Fact was the local hospital was nearer, the little girl would get there quicker, evidence of that is the little girl herself, she survived to prove that that was the right decision, taken on the ground at the time of the incident. Care to provide some sort of explanation as to why wikileaks did not feel the need to explain all that Lox. I can tell you why they did not, it would have run counter to the lie they were peddling, the lie that the lot of you have bought into, the lie that you lot are only all too ready to believe to the extent that you did not look, you did not read, you did not question - how unfortunate for the party line that I did.