BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 08:35 AM

I do find it useful to back off from this thread from time to time and try to regain some perspective.

Assuming that Terribus is correct in his interpretation of the video (and he may be incorrect in describing specific weapons evident), then it's logical that the military superiors would find the conduct of the copter crew acceptable, with maybe a reprimand for what was said during the shooting. If Terribus is incorrect (that is possible and might even be acknowledged by him if he were feeling less defensive), the copter crew should be court-martialed.

However, in either case, they did make a serious mistake by killing two journalists and two children; several other people who may have been insurgents were also killed and maybe they should get a medal for that. At another level, their actions created an international incident which because the video has become public is at the very least an embarrassing one.

I do think that the families of the innocent victims (while the journalists were not as cautious as they might have been they certainly were not insurgents, nor were the two children) have a cause of action in the courts against the US military for substantial monetary compensation.

I do find it regrettable that so many of the posters on this thread are so uncivil with one another. It's a good thing, in my opinion, that we are not able to link to armed drones!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 12:15 PM

Assuming that Teribus is correct in his interpretation of the video (and he may be incorrect in describing specific weapons evident), then it's logical that the military superiors would find the conduct of the copter crew acceptable, with maybe a reprimand for what was said during the shooting.

OK what backs up that assumption:

1. Weapons and grenade launchers/grenades were found and photographed at the scene when the ground troops arrived.

2. On the video PAUSE at 03:39 the Reuters Cameraman is nearest the helo crossing the street in the background there is a group of four men. At this point in the video the man second from the left is carrying in his right hand an RPG-7 Launcher and the man on the left of this group is carrying an AK-47 (Anybody who cannot see that needs their eyes tested)

3. PAUSE video at 03:43 AK-47 is in plain sight carried by the man on the far side of the street closest to the trailer the gun is held by the pistol grip in his right hand.

4. PAUSE video at 03:45/46 The man nearest to the man holding the AK-47 swings round to his left and the RPG-7 (loaded) is clearly seen.

5. Run Video to 03:56 Man with the RPG can be seen turning back round to his right he rests the exhaust cone of the RPG on his right foot then at 03:56 picks it up and move over to cross the street to look round the corner of the building down the road the US ground patrol are going to approach from.

If Terribus is incorrect (that is possible and might even be acknowledged by him if he were feeling less defensive), the copter crew should be court-martialed.

OK what backs up the argument that I am mistaken??

1. Anyone here denying that weapons were found at the scene?

2. Anyone here denying that there were US patrols in the area that had already come under fire?

3. Anyone here denying that the patrol was approaching the location where these men were observed?

However, in either case, they did make a serious mistake by killing two journalists and two children;

From the helicopter camera footage can you tell me exactly how either pilot or weapons operator could tell those two men were journalists??

From the helicopter camera footage can you tell me exactly how either pilot or weapons operator could tell that there were two children inside that van??

If they could not identify the journalists or the children at the time they opened fire, then how could they have possibly have knowingly and deliberately made a mistake??

several other people who may have been insurgents were also killed and maybe they should get a medal for that.

They were armed (weapons found at the scene) no MNF forces at that specific location so there is no may have been insurgents about it. What evidence apart from the weapons lying about backs that up?

1. The fact that none of these people could be identified

2. If they were innocent civilians just out for a stroll you would think that they would be carrying things like wallets, letters, ID cards, driving licences, but yet NONE of them had any form of identification on them at all and to this date they remain unidentified. Same goes for the children, now I would have thought if Dad had been out innocently driving with the kids as Lox wants us to believe, he would be carrying at least a wallet and a Driving Licence (mandatory throughout the Middle-East) at least. The van would be registered and as such easily traced. But yet the only people positively identified are the Reuters employees, everyone else remains unidentified to this day.

At another level, their actions created an international incident which because the video has become public is at the very least an embarrassing one.

What international incident? Apart from the one that Wikileaks is trying to fan the flames under now? Reuters demanded to see all the coverage, tapes, photographs and transcripts of the incident in which their employees were killed. They demanded an investigation. All of which was done within 14 days of the 12th July, after which the story was not reported until now. Reading newspaper reports of this Wikileaks story shows clear anti-US bias and a marked lack of objectivity in its reporting.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 01:07 PM

Most of the analysis of the vidseo in that last post is correct, except for the bit about the rpg being aimed round the corner.

The device going round the corner is a camera.

But this serves as evidence (as i have agreed earlier) that there were armed men in the group.

The problem I have consistently expressed is that of the Van.

Analysis of the video shows that the helicopters circled the area repeatedly.

In the surrounding streets we can see numerous vehicles parked, no dark coloured Van though, so that weakens that assertion.

So what do we see?

We see lenty of footage of a guy who can't stand up he has been so badly mutilated by the initial attack.

We see unarmed men in civilian clothes trying to help him into a van and showing NO interest in weapons.

After that its "ha ha" all the way.

You might see a job being done within the context of a war that makes it alright, I just saw a load of people being murdered and the murderers laughing about it.

I see Iraqi civilians, in Iraq, being killed by an occupying foreign force that had no right nor mandate to be there.

Rules of engagement?

I preferred when you were using mild insults like "fool", "twat" and "fucking idiot" or whatever your exact words were.

I can't be bothered to check exactly, because none of that comes even close to how insulting it is to humanity to say that what happened there was anything less than coldblooded murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:21 PM

at 03:56 picks it up and move over to cross the street to look round the corner of the building

NOTHING WAS AIMED ROUND THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING

NOTHING WAS PANNED ROUND THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING

What had the Reuter's men been invited there to do?? Now apply that to what was about to happen had the insurgents had their way and they had been allowed to put their plan into operation. The insurgents main priority would be what??

A. Good firing position with the RPG

OR

B. Great camera angles

Having answered that question then ask yourself who is it that needs to check the view down the street the approaching patrol will use, the cameraman or the gunner.

Now Target 2. The Van

1. Nobody who was travelling in the van was ever traced indicating that the van in all probability was stolen.

2. There was no family outing, no Dad driving around innocently with his children

3. Check the video all you want and tell me how close the Bradley AFV's and Humvees had to get before you saw them on camera, yet you can hear both pilots talking about this column of vehicles approaching and moving through the area long, long before you see them. If they could see those vehicles moving they would have undoubtedly spotted a van driving about, particularly as there was no other civilian traffic observed moving throughout the entire incident.

4. The above only leads to the probable conclusion that the van was parked in a nearby street. Discounting the Dad driving around innocently with his children as were they real they would have been easily traceable via the van and the remiander of their family and friends would have reported them missing (none of which happened). That would mean that having witnessed the initial engagement and observed the wounded man crawling half way along that block away from where the bullets had struck and noting that all firing had stopped, the driver of the van would have to get into the van, start it and drive to the spot where the man lay. The man the driver talks to as he pulls up indicates where he thinks the firing came from (at this point they all think that it is ground fire) and he is indicating that the van should not go near the crossroads where the initial attack took place (That is why the van was attempting to turn round).

5. Why did they not show any interest in picking up weapons? Because they never got a chance to, because where the weapons lay they thought was still within the firing arc of whatever weapon it was that had killed their colleagues.

6. Did the pilots or weapons system operators in the helicopters know what was in that van? No they did not, what they did know and what they did report was that it had arrived on the scene very quickly and the occupants were removing evidence from the scene (wounded man)

7. OK how should this wounded man have been viewed? Had he been wearing his Blue PRESS Flak-Jacket he would in all probability still have been alive today. But he wasn't was he, so the judgement of the controller had to make was, is this somebody important to the insurgents? Can I let this man escape? If we hold fire on these activities what else will they remove from the scene? The Fire Controllers Rules Of Engagement allowed him to prevent that van and its occupants from doing what it was they appeared to be doing and he gave the order to engage.

Target 3: The Building under construction

1. People were seen leaving the area surrounding the site of the initial attack by the helicopters, some of them armed.

2. These people, some armed, were seen entering a corner building that appeared to be under construction and unused. In all six men entered that building.

3. The Fire Controller gave the helos permission to engage that target with "Hellfire" Missiles and the Helos fire three missiles into the building, the effects of this fire are to date unknown.

Now compared to all that, a story about gung-ho helicopter pilots deliberately shooting up a bunch of innocent civilians including two journalists and two children and then trying to cover it up. Just does not add up to the evidence available.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:38 PM

I see Iraqi civilians, in Iraq, being killed by an occupying foreign force that had no right nor mandate to be there.

The date of this incident was 12th July 2007 wasn't it? In which case the foreign force most certainly did have both a right to be there and a duly authorised mandate to be there. Whether you think that they had any right to be there or not is irrelevant, at that time all MNF troops were operating in Iraq at the express invitation of the internationally recognised Government of the State of Iraq and under a Mandate issued by the Security Council of the United Nations.

During that month in 2007 some 3000 odd civilians were killed in Iraq, most of them by fellow Iraqis and fellow Muslims, in Baghdad alone the number was about 1200+. In this incident the more I have looked at it the more I am sure that the children had probably been snatched and were being held hostage as window dressing, they are the innocents in all of this. The Reuters employees could have taken measures to make them stand out conspicuously as accredited members of the international PRESS but elected not to do so for reasons best known to themselves. Whatever this incident was, it most certainly was not cold-blooded murder, by any stretch of the imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:41 PM

"The insurgents main priority would be what??"

I don't know mate - I'm not asserting or defending a hypothesis - that looks like its your job ...

I just took a close look at the footage and the device peering round the corner is without any shadow of a doubt a camera.

I can see the lens which is about 1 and a half feet long, and I can see the camera itself at the end. Then the operators arms begin at a different angle.

An RPG would be held over the shoulder and is more than 1 and a half feet long.

Of course if your hypothesis is corect that that is what was going on, then it might make more sense to point the RPG, however, that isn't what ios on the video.



"3. Check the video all you want and tell me how close the Bradley AFV's and Humvees had to get before you saw them on camera,"

How long do you think they were in contact with the Humvees etc before they saw the insurgents.

They don't have to have a camera trained on them the whole time to know where they are.

Usually Armies coordinate their activities Teribus, especially when it is one persons job to cover another person - like the helicopter and the humvees.

So your argument that their knowing wehere the humnvees was proves that the Van wasn't on the road is easily scuppered.

They weren't watching the humvees, their focus was on the crowd of mewn and on the square which is why the Van was a surprise.

Teribus - who says it was a family day out - kids still went to school during this time - and to mosques etc etc etc - they were just going somewhere mundane as part of their attempts to live their lives despite the occupying invadres presence.


"Why did they not show any interest in picking up weapons? Because they never got a chance to, because where the weapons lay they thought was still within the firing arc of whatever weapon it was that had killed their colleagues."

Bollocks - they picked the guy up and then they tried to drive away as soon as he was in the van to get him to a medic.

As they tried to turn the van round and go they got pulverized.

This fact is clear and obvious so please don't bother trying to refute it.

"the occupants were removing evidence from the scene"

you expect me to buy that? they shot them for "moving evidence" - bollocks.

"4" - I won't bother quoting from this paragraph.

The whole thing is a masterclass in vivid imaginings.

Teribus is not only telepathic, but can lip read. His dog is called Lassie and his horse Black Beauty, and evry now and then the Littlest Hobo comes by to discuss the situation in Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 05:39 PM

Terribus and Lox-

Hey, we're making some progress here!

And I really can't contribute much since I can't stand to watch the video.

I find it really surprising that no one has claimed the "kids." I know that in 2007 Baghdad was an active war zone but surely someone would have come forward. Is the entire family dead?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:10 PM

"Is the entire family dead?"

Highly likely - the Aussies over there wiped out an innocent family a while ago - tried to cover it up too. Made it to TV though...

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:13 PM

"yet you can hear both pilots talking about this column of vehicles approaching and moving through the area long, long before you see them"

Their (non)controller! told them?

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:28 PM

"War is God's way of teaching Americans Geography"
- Ambrose Bierce

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:42 PM

1. The gunner wanted to finish off the journo long before anyone tried to move him. There's about a minute of his gloating satisfaction and his pleas to the target to pick up a weapon. There wasn't a weapon of any description anywhere near the man.

ROE notwithstanding, there is no necessity to kill an unarmed and dying man, unless of course you are the sort of psychotic, and almost certainly racist, killer who was manning that machine gun. He was determined to have those extra notches on old Betsy, and the bragging rights in the mess later.

2. Occams Razor....The most likely explanation for the fact that nobody came looking for their missing kids, is because they had already lost their mother, and their father was killed in the van with them.

Nobody will ever know for sure, but it's at least as viable as Teribus's theory.

3. Teribus is at great pains to inform us, with a spate of appropriate (in his opinion) name calling, that we don't understand that this is a war zone, then asks us to believe that in such a chaotic circumstance, the fact that the van wasn't properly registered, indicates that it was stolen, to be used by terrorists.

Or could it just be that a local had annexed an abandoned vehicle to his own use? Wouldn't be the first time!

Teribus has long been in the habit of espousing the most complex and least likely theories, and hanging on to them to the point of obsession.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, the final killing of the journalist was IMO murder.

What's the next thing Teribus will ask us to swallow, shooting down men who are surrendering? After all, they're only a bunch of towel heads, aren't they.

WELL, NO!! If we don't have rules, what distinguishes us from the enemy?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:53 PM

"the van wasn't properly registered"

So few are in many countries outside the stable 'civilised' areas like the USA - and in a country in a state of war for years anyway who cares - if you tried to, the corrupt officials taking advantage of the situation would only demand bribes. And is there even a working system for registration anyway? And what are you registering for? To drive on bombed out roads?

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 07:00 PM

US forces in the Pacific WWII did practice 'take no prisoners' - this is just the modern example.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 08:12 PM

Don-

You've also done some good work on this thread. You're at least able to watch the video and draw your own conclusions.

It may be time to surf the internet and see if anyone else has any information on who the father was in the van and whether his family claimed his body and those of the two children.

It is sad that they were killed, and "collateral damage" just doesn't do them justice.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 08:21 PM

Hmmmm?

Most of the on-line links describe the two children as "injured" rather than killed. Can't seem to find any follow-up.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 03:36 PM

"Teribus is at great pains to inform us, with a spate of appropriate (in his opinion) name calling, that we don't understand that this is a war zone,"


The thing to ask is, what makes this a warzone?

What single factor could you remove that woud cause that area to cease being a warzone?

The answer is ....... The Americans.


So the whole point is a reflexive fallacy anyway.


The Americans being there shooting at Iraqis is what makes it a warzone, and the claim that it is a warzone is what legitimizes the shooting of Iraqis.

Teribus - that video shows you and me what murder looks like when committed by cruel conscienceless .... I can't think of a powerful enough noun that describes those horrendous blemishes on the human race.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Charley Noble
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 08:11 PM

Lox-

"War Zone"?

Sure, it's a war zone and Americans and what few allies we have left have contributed to it (as has Al Qaeda) but you should be well aware that there are enough issues between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq for there to continue to be a war zone after the Americans leave.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 12:39 AM

What single factor could you remove that would cause that area to cease being a warzone?

The answer is ....... The Americans.

Ah Lox your bias is showing again

Besides go back and read what I actually said. I do not believe I have ever used the term warzone in any of my posts.

Greatest cause of civilian deaths in Iraq? Fellow muslim killing fellow muslim - Fact. Foreign Jihadists; Ba'athist insurgents; Sectarian Militias and criminal gangs all played their part, which you somehow seem to totally ignore. Saddam Hussein releasing every single criminal in the country immediately before the US forces invaded did little to help either, but there again as you no doubt will be able to tell us Saddam always had the best interests of Iraq and the Iraqi people at heart. Of course had Saddam been left in place and maintained his averages he would have continued to have killed somewhere between 154 and 282 Iraqi citizens every day, as he had done for the 24 years of his rule. Probably more as he would now be into the fourth year of Iraq's second war with Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 07:55 PM

Posted in another thread
Why Iraq Was a Mistake

Apache helicopter gunners talk good game 'so the people don't seem real'

QUOTE
The soldiers joke and jeer as they shoot: "Look at those dead bastards," one helicopter pilot says. Another replies: "Nice . . . good shootin'."

Reports yesterday said many veterans who viewed the footage made the point that soldiers cannot do their jobs without creating psychological distance from the enemy. One reason that the soldiers seemed as if they were playing a video game is that, in a morbid but necessary sense, they were, experts told The New York Times.

"You don't want combat soldiers to be foolish or to jump the gun, but their job is to destroy the enemy, and one way they're able to do that is to see it as a game, so that the people don't seem real," Bret A. Moore, a former US army psychologist and co-author of the forthcoming book Wheels Down: Adjusting to Life After Deployment, told the newspaper.

Military training is fundamentally an exercise in overcoming a fear of killing another human, Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, author of the book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, told the paper.

Combat training "is the only technique that will reliably influence the primitive, midbrain processing of a frightened human being" to take another life, the colonel writes. "Conditioning in flight simulators enables pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations even when frightened."
UNQUOTE

QUOTE
Soldiers and marines were taught to observe rules of engagement, and throughout the video those in the helicopter call base for permission to shoot. But at a more primal level, fighters in a war zone must think of themselves as predators first, not bait, the report said. That frame of mind affects not only how a person thinks, but what he sees and hears, especially in the presence of imminent danger, it said. The fighters in the helicopter say over the radio that they are sure they see a "weapon", even though the Reuters photographer, Noor-Eldeen, is carrying a camera.

"It's tragic that this all begins with the apparent mistaking of a camera" for a weapon, David A. Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, told the paper. "But it's perfectly understandable with what we know now about context and vision. Take the same image and put it in a bathroom, and you swear it's a hair dryer; put it in a workshop, and you swear it's a power drill."

To a soldier or a pilot, it can look like life or death. "I worked with medivac pilots, and vulnerability is a huge issue for them," Dr Moore told the paper.
UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 08:02 PM

Makes sense to me.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Apr 10 - 06:15 PM

2 TV segments that went out last night on an Aussie channel - Americans will never see these. The ABC has these videos available for download and viewing.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2886429.htm

Soldiers in 'Collateral Murder' video apologise

Broadcast: 29/04/2010

Reporter: David Mark

Two soldiers pictured in a leaked US military video showing Iraqi civilians and Reuters staff being killed have written an open letter of apology.

Transcript

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: A leaked video showing the death of 12 to 15 civilians, journalists and children in Baghdad has become one of the most compelling and controversial stories of the Iraq conflict.

The video called 'Collateral Murder' has been viewed by millions since it was posted on Wikileaks and YouTube three weeks ago.

Now two of the soldiers involved in the attack have written an open letter to apologise. We'll speak to one of those soldiers shortly.

First David Mark takes us through the footage obtained by the Wikileaks website.

And a warning this piece contains some graphic and violent footage.

DAVID MARK, REPORTER: It looks like a video game.

SOLDIER 1: See all those people standing down there.

DAVID MARK: But the grainy images taken from a US Army Apache helicopter as it circles a group of suspected insurgents in Baghdad three years ago are very real.

SOLDIER 1: Yeah, Roger. I just estimate there's about twenty of them

SOLDIER 2: There's one, yeah.

DAVID MARK: Among the group are two employees of the Reuters News Agency, the photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver Saaed Chmagh. The Wikileaks video identifies the two and the cameras they're holding. The US soldiers on board the chopper claim they can see weapons.

SOLDIER 1: Copy on the one-six {inaudible} .. Roger ... F***kin' p***k.

SOLDIER 2: Hotel two-six this Crazy Horse one-eight. Have individuals with weapons.

SOLDIER 1: ... radio ...

SOLDIER 2: ... he's got a weapon too... Hotel two-six, Crazy Horse one-eight. Have five to six individuals with AK47s. Request permission to engage.

DAVID MARK: With permission granted the helicopter circles the group of men waiting for a chance to shoot. ... Tension rises on board the Apache.

SOLDIER: Light 'em all up ... come on fire.... Roger ... Keep shootin' . Keep shootin'.

DAVID MARK: Eight people are killed.

SOLDIER 1: Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards. ...

SOLDIER 2: Nice ... Good shootin'

SOLDIER 1: Thank you.

DAVID MARK: Saaed Chmagh manages to escape the attack but the crew keep circling.

SOLDIER 1: Yeah, we got one guy crawlin' around down there. But uh, yeah, we got, definitely got something. We're shootin' some more.

DAVID MARK: Then they find him.

SOLDIER 1: He's gettin' up.

SOLDIER 2: Maybe he has a weapon there in his hands.

SOLDIER 1: No, No, I haven't seen one yet. We'll see you guys got that guy crawlin' on the curb.

DAVID MARK: After a few minutes a van drives up and people run to help Saaed Chmagh.

SOLDIER 1: Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage ... c'mon let us shoot. One-eight engage.

SOLDIER 2: Clear.

SOLDIER 1: Come on.

SOLDIER 2: Clear. Clear.

SOLDIER 1: We're engaging.

DAVID MARK: When the dust clears an estimated 12 to 15 people are dead and two children are injured.

This video would never have been made public if it weren't leaked to a little known website called Wikileaks.

Since it was posted online three weeks ago it's been seen more than seven million times and refocused attention on the war in Iraq.

The Pentagon has been forced to defend the crew's actions while two former US soldiers have publicly apologised for the attack on the van.

SOLDIER 1: Well it's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle.

SOLDIER 2: That's right.

DAVID MARK: One of them, Ethan McCord, arrived at the battle scene eight minutes after the van was shot. He carried one injured child to safety.

He's seen here carrying a small boy who died in his arms.

David Mark, Lateline.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Former US soldier speaks

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 29/04/2010

Reporter: Tony Jones

US soldier Ethan McCord speaks to Lateline about the fourteen months he served in Iraq and the 'destructive policies' of the US Government.

Transcript

TONY JONES: Well as we just heard, two former US Army soldiers have written an open letter to the people of Iraq. In it Josh Stieber and Ethan McCord apologise for the attack on the van and more broadly for the war in Iraq and what they call the destructive policies of the US Government.

The letter says, quote "The Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created." They accuse the US Government of ignoring the Iraqi people in favour of its public image.

Well, the two served in Iraq for 14 months and as we've seen, Ethan McCord was at the scene on the attack on the van. I spoke to him earlier today.

TONY JONES: Ethan McCord, thanks for joining us.

ETHAN MCCORD, FORMER US SOLDIER: Thank you for having me.

TONY JONES: Now can I start by asking you, what went through your mind when you first saw the Wikileaks video?

ETHAN MCCORD: Well I, I, I didn't know that the ahh, there was actually a video, umm, until the day that it was released and I, ahh, I dropped my children off at school, went home, grabbed a cup of coffee, sat on the couch and turned on the news and, ahem, saw myself running across the television screen carrying a child, umm.

My initial reaction was shock and, umm, anger. Anger that this scene, that had been playing over in my head, was now in front of my face.

TONY JONES: What you finally saw on the video was what happened before you got there; starting with the helicopter gunners looking down on that group of men that, as we now know, included the two Reuters journalists.

Now, tell me what you thought about that first attack. Was it reasonable, from your perspective, to have attacked those men on the ground?

ETHAN MCCORD: From being in the perspective of the Apache helicopter crew, umm I can see where a group of men gathering, um, when there's a fire fight just a few blocks away, which I was involved in, um, and they're carrying weapons, one of which is an RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade.)

Umm, their overall mission that day was to protect us, to provide support for us. Ahh, so I can see where, where the initial attack on the, on the group of men was warranted.

Umm, however, personally, I don't feel that the attack on the van was warranted. It, it, it seemed more, it, I think that the people could have been deterred from doing what they were doing in the van by simply firing a few warning shots versus, um, completely obliterating the van and its occupants.

TONY JONES: Ethan we know that soldiers in war are expected to kill, but one of the things people find disturbing about this video is the matter-of-fact way the gunners go about their business and that they're very pleased when they see the bodies lying on the ground.

Now, did you find that disturbing at all as a former soldier?

ETHAN MCCORD: Well, you know, I, I think that instead of, the, the way that the Apache crew members were talking isn't unusual. It's kinda the way that we're trained to deal with our own personal emotions and feelings about the situations that we're placed in. Um, it's almost like a coping mechanism.

Um, you use humour and, ahh, say callous things to kind of dehumanise what, had, had, the people that you're fighting against and you use that push your emotions down.

TONY JONES: In the first attack the Reuters journalists were killed carrying a camera and a tripod that were identified as being a weapon and the second part, as you say, the helicopter shot up a van and the people who were simply trying to help carry away the wounded. You clearly feel differently about that second attack.

ETHAN MCCORD: Yeah, yeah, um, the second attack, which was on the van, again I felt was, was, was not warranted. Now, in, in war time you're not supposed to go pick up the wounded but how is every Iraqi citizens supposed to know that if you see somebody laying on the ground wounded that you're not supposed to pick them up. Um, ah, I think it's a problem, um, definitely that we engaged this van, um, with children inside it as well, um, simply for the fact of picking up a wounded person.

TONY JONES: Did you see that particular attack on the van as a breach of the rules of engagement?

ETHAN MCCORD: Mmm, you know, when I was in Iraq, the rules of engagement were changing on, ah, almost a constant basis. There was never any actual, like, rules of engagement that you, um, stuck to, um, the entire time you were there. Ah, there was, there was, many times that they changed, almost for a case for case, you know, situation.

So, at that time, I'd, um, in 2007, I don't think that they broke the rules of engagement per se but, I feel on a more moral and human level, um, instead of engaging the van the way that they did by simply firing a warning shot, being that this person was a citizen and not a combatant. Um, if you were to fire a warning shot, say, in the general direction, into the wall or something, they would have definitely dropped what they were doing and left.

TONY JONES: The Wikileaks site refers to the footage they've shown as 'Collateral Murder.' Do you think that's going too far?

ETHAN MCCORD: I do.

I, I, I personally feel that the, um, the way Wikileaks released this video was more of a, a shock factor to try to, to, ah, it was more of a political way of releasing this. Um, I feel that they could have been more responsible in the release of this video.

Um, I do know that when I, when I watched the video they made sure to point out the cameras that the journalists were holding, but failed to point out the weapons that the other people were holding as well.

Collateral murder I think, is, is going a little far, um, as far as saying that soldiers intentionally murder civilians.

TONY JONES: Ethan let me take you back to what happened when you actually arrived on the scene. You'd heard the helicopters, you'd heard the shooting, but when you arrived there, yourself, on foot. What did you actually see? Describe that for us if you can.

ETHAN MCCORD: Yes, ahh ... When I got to the scene I was one of the first six soldiers who were dismounted that day to arrive actually on the scene of where the Apaches, um, open fire.

Ah the first thing I saw was about four men, um, laying on the ground and ah, they were pretty much completely destroyed. I'd never seen anybody who had been shot by a 30 millimetre round before and, ah, I don't want to see that again. It was, it almost didn't, it didn't seem real, um, in a sense that it looked more like I was looking at something that would be in a bad horror movie.

Um, I did also notice a couple of RPGs as well as AK47s when I got to the scene. Um, I could hear a small child crying and, ah, the crying was coming from the van that was shot up. I, I I ran over to the van and got to the passenger door and there, it was me and another soldier who was in my unit, and you can see in the video where we both get up to the van, and um, the soldier that I was with turns around and started vomiting at the sight of the children, turned around and ran off not wanting to deal with that situation or, or even look at that.

Um, looking inside of the van I saw a little girl about three or four years old. She had a belly wound, um, as well as glass in her eyes and her hair, pretty much all over the place. Ah, laying next to her, half on the floorboard with his head resting on the bench seat of the van, was a boy approximately seven or eight years old. He had a wound to the right side of his head, um, and next to him, in the driver's seat was a man who I assumed to be the father at the time.

He was slumped over, almost in a protective nature, over his children, um, and it looked like he had taken one of those 30 millimetre rounds to the chest. So, I, I immediately, ah, assumed he, he was deceased, also the boy wasn't moving, so I focused my attention on the girl who was sitting there and she was alert and crying.

I picked her up yelled for a medic, ah, the medic and I went into the houses that were behind the van, where the van had crashed and, ah, started tending to the child. Um, we dressed her wounds, I, I picked out as much glass as I could from her eyes, and um, you can hear in the video where the medic states "there's nothing else I can do here" ah "we need, she needs to be evaced." Um, and that's where you can see him running the girl, um, to the Bradley.

Ah, in turn I went back outside to the van, um, looked in and I saw the boy take what appeared to be a laboured breath. I started screaming out "the boys alive, the boy's alive" and, ah, I picked him up and cradled him in my eyes and told him "don't die, don't die", um and started running towards the Bradley with him.

In doing so he opened his eyes, looked up at me, I told him "it's OK I've got you" and, ah, his eyes rolled back into the back of his head and that's when I got to the Bradley and placed him inside the Bradley.

TONY JONES: So, what effect did it have on you, seeing children so badly wounded in that way?

ETHAN MCCORD: Well, one of the first things that I thought about when looking in the van was of my own children. I had a son who was born, um, just one month prior to this incident while I was in Iraq. So I had, I hadn't seen him yet but I had another child and, you know, you're first thoughts go to, go to children, um your children back home. I was, I was heartbroken seeing this.

Um, I'm still heartbroken to this day I have, that day I felt, um, it was, it was very hard for me to justify after that day what I was doing in Iraq because I felt that in going to Iraq I was going to be doing the Iraqi's this great justice of helping of them and, ah, ah, protecting them from the so-called insurgents when, after that day, I couldn't justify, 'cause it seem that we were doing more harm to the citizens of Iraq than good.

TONY JONES: Can you tell us what happened when you got back to your base, after this, because as I understand it, your sergeant was not at all sympathetic, to say the least, to the way that you were feeling?

ETHAN MCCORD: Right, um well, when we went back to the Fob later that evening I was in my room and I was cleaning the blood from the children off of my uniform, off of my IBA (Individual Body Armour), my protective gear and, um, you know, the flood of emotions that I was havin' it was very hard for me to deal with and to cope and understand exactly what had happened that day.

So I went to the staff sergeant who, um, was in my chain of command and asked him if I could go see mental health there on the Fob. Um, he kind of chuckled and told me to get the sand out of my vagina and to suck it up and to be a soldier and told me that there would be repercussions if I was to go to mental health, um, and said that it's viewed upon as malingerer in the Army, um, that you're not doing your job.

A malingerer in the Army is actually a crime. So, I, I, not wanting to have anything to do with that and, um not wanting to have to deal with the, the added pressure of somebody else looking down on me I, ah chose not to go to the mental health and, um, to bottle up as much emotions as I can and move on with my job.

TONY JONES: Was it bad for you doing that, bottling it up and what effect did that ultimately have on you?

ETHAN MCCORD: Um, I think it did because, ah, I, I started becoming very, very angry with the people around me. I would blow up at people, um, and yell and scream at them. I would be angry with everybody and even be angry with myself.

I started, um, watching a lot of movies and listening to music to try to basically escape the realities of what was going on in my own head. So, um, I was escaping into movies and not dealing with my emotions and the realities of what I had seen,

TONY JONES: Did you have the impression, Ethan, that this was unusual or did you see the same sorts of things happening to other soldiers around you?

ETHAN MCCORD: Yeah, the, ah, a lot of, a lot of the same things were happening to the other soldiers that I was serving with. Um, we, you could tell people losing some more of their sense of humour, their ah, their smiles fading, getting upset at the smallest things. Screaming and lashing out at other soldiers if the line at the phones to call home were too long. Um, it just got to the point where everybody, I think, I was kinda breaking in a sense.

TONY JONES: So, why did you actually write this letter? Because reading it you get the impression that, ah, that you started to feel personally responsible for civilian deaths and other terrible things that happened in Iraq.

ETHAN MCCORD: Well the personal responsibility goes as far as, we are a part of the system that injured this Iraqis. That have injured thousands of Iraqis, you know, we want everybody to see that, that this one video is not just an isolated incident, that these things are war. There is, there is no difference between that day or any other day in Iraq other than that one was caught on video and the world got to see it.

TONY JONES: It does seem to me that, that the power of what you've done here is because you actually served in the conflict and it's similar in a way to what happened during the Vietnam War when veterans came home and started speaking about their experiences and turning against the war. I mean, do you see that this has happened before in American history and this is a sort of continuum of that?

ETHAN MCCORD: Ahh, I, I think so. I think that the, ah, you know, veterans who see wars know firsthand what wars um and, come back, and, and want to let people know that war is not, you know, some glorified thing that you watch on television.

Um, you know, you grow up watching John Wayne movies and you start to glorify war in your own head but, in all actuality war is a dirty, ugly, disgusting thing and, ah, if we can speak out any way to help shorten this war and get our troops home where they belong. Um, then we're going to do anything possible that we can.

TONY JONES: Ethan McCord, we'll have to leave you there. We thank you very much for taking the time to come and talk to us tonight on Lateline.

ETHAN MCCORD: Thank you for having me.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 12:13 PM

Taking David Mark's Lateline Broadcast on 29/04/2010 first:

1. a leaked US military video showing Iraqi civilians and Reuters staff being killed

Now this "Report" is being broadcast two years and nine months AFTER the incident took place. So why is there no mention of those "civilians" being armed? Why is there no mention of the fact that just over two blocks away there are two US Patrols who have already come under fire? So much for factual, objective and impartial reporting of events.

2. TONY JONES, PRESENTER: A leaked video showing the death of 12 to 15 civilians, journalists and children in Baghdad has become one of the most compelling and controversial stories of the Iraq conflict.

The number of people killed in the attack was 10 and the only reason it has become what it has is down entirely to the way the media have presented it. All footage, recordings, transcripts, statements and still photographs were presented to Reuters by the 26th July 2007. And Reuters subsequently reported nothing on the incident, now why was that?

3. DAVID MARK: Among the group are two employees of the Reuters News Agency, the photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver Saaed Chmagh. The Wikileaks video identifies the two and the cameras they're holding. The US soldiers on board the chopper claim they can see weapons.

The US soldiers onboard the chopper claim they can see weapons. . I suppose somebody is going to tell me how they know for certain that the helo crew are actually referring to either Namir Noor-Eldeen or to Saaed Chmagh when they report that they can see weapons? Taking into account that they state:

"Hotel two-six, Crazy Horse one-eight. Have five to six individuals with AK47s. Request permission to engage."

Does that sound like he has just mistaken cameras for guns (only two people carrying cameras – right?) and that everybody else is unarmed??

I looked at the video and I could quite clearly see four people with weapons in their hands, none of those four being the two Reuters men. And lo and behold I must have been right because weapons were found at the scene, photographs were taken of them. The soldier who these reporters later interview actually refers to having seen:

"I did also notice a couple of RPGs as well as AK47s when I got to the scene."

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 02:56 PM

"Umm, however, personally, I don't feel that the attack on the van was warranted. It, it, it seemed more, it, I think that the people could have been deterred from doing what they were doing in the van by simply firing a few warning shots versus, um, completely obliterating the van and its occupants."

"Um, I'm still heartbroken to this day I have, that day I felt, um, it was, it was very hard for me to justify after that day what I was doing in Iraq because I felt that in going to Iraq I was going to be doing the Iraqi's this great justice of helping of them and, ah, ah, protecting them from the so-called insurgents when, after that day, I couldn't justify, 'cause it seem that we were doing more harm to the citizens of Iraq than good."

"Well the personal responsibility goes as far as, we are a part of the system that injured this Iraqis. That have injured thousands of Iraqis, you know, we want everybody to see that, that this one video is not just an isolated incident, that these things are war. There is, there is no difference between that day or any other day in Iraq other than that one was caught on video and the world got to see it."

"in all actuality war is a dirty, ugly, disgusting thing and, ah, if we can speak out any way to help shorten this war and get our troops home where they belong."


Teribus - I would like to ask you a simple direct honest question.

Please give a simple direct honest answer.

Does the account of finding the kids break your heart?

Does this whole mess make you feel sad?


In addition, something you need to know.

You are wrong about the van.

WRONG!

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 01:18 AM

"Now this "Report" is being broadcast two years and nine months AFTER the incident took place"

Because *******s like YOU fought to conceal it!


"Reuters subsequently reported nothing on the incident, now why was that?"

Why don't YOU ask Reuters?


"Does that sound like he has just mistaken cameras for guns"

So why did he not then report the cameras as well as the weapons as he should have if he was a competent trained observer? Hiding/ignoring them? Or didn't the 'shoot-em-up' military game-like training course bother with ANYTHING BUT WEAPONS, so he was brainwashed and could not see them? The arcade games I have played give you penalties for taking out an innocent bystander.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 10 - 10:44 AM

Well Fool, I fought to conceal nothing, gun camera coverage has for a fact been requested in a number of "friendly-fire" instances by Coroners Courts in the UK. So far the US Authorities have point blank refused to release them on every single instance.

Now please correct me if I am wrong here, but on two occasions after this particular instance Reuters demanded that all records related to this incident on the 12th July 2007 be made available for their inspection. The response of the US authorities in this case was that every scrap of information in their possession was presented to Reuters within 14 days of the incident taking place - Reuters was satisfied with that and with what they saw, listened to and read, now how can this be described as a cover up

As to the bent and biased way the story has been reported now two years and nine months after the incident, when it has now been established beyond any doubt that in the group that was fired upon there were armed men, they were not "innocent civilians" so the media should stop lying to the public about it.

As to your view that the crew of the helicopter have to report EVERYTHING they see, that is ridiculous. And the soldier who was interviewed, the soldier who was on foot and had already been fired upon earlier on that very patrol, said:

ETHAN MCCORD: From being in the perspective of the Apache helicopter crew, umm I can see where a group of men gathering, um, when there's a fire fight just a few blocks away, which I was involved in, um, and they're carrying weapons, one of which is an RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade.)

Umm, their overall mission that day was to protect us, to provide support for us. Ahh, so I can see where, where the initial attack on the, on the group of men was warranted.

ANY UNNECESSARY LOSS OF LIFE IS SAD

Within this incident quite a number of things could have been done by ALL PARTIES INVOLVED that would have prevented what happened. But taking all circumstances into account, the crews of those Apache Helicopters did the job they were supposed to do within the confines of the Rules of Engagement in force at that time.

The motivation of the crews of the helicopters is plain. simple and honest.

The same can hardly be said for the Reuters Cameraman and his Driver, they went there to film people getting killed, they went there to film an ambush by insurgents of US troops and Iraqi policemen. So as not to betray the presence of the insurgents neither Reuters employee wore the distinctive clothing that could well have saved their lives (It was probably that very point that was made to Reuters when they reviewed the coverage of the incident that resulted in the lack of news copy this incident received after the event).

As for the van? As a parent there is no way on God's earth that I would ever put the lives of my children deliberately at risk period.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 01 May 10 - 11:06 AM

"As for the van? As a parent there is no way on God's earth that I would ever put the lives of my children deliberately at risk period."

What does this have to do with the thread?

The Idea that the children were deliberately put at risk is your assertion unsupported by any eveidence anywhere, let alone on the video.

Paradoxically, you support your son being put at risk by being posted in Afghanistan.

The kids in Iraq were in their home town.

Your son has travelled half the world to be in his life/death situation.

So perhaps you are in no position to be so scathing about that poor dad who died whilst trying in vain to cover his children.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 01 May 10 - 01:02 PM

"that poor dad who died whilst trying in vain to cover his children."

Utterly heartbreaking. That had me blubbing I must say. Maybe more soldiers need to be exposed to the reality of their actions rather than encouraged to depersonalise so fully, as - it seems - they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 06:06 PM

"Well Fool, I fought to conceal nothing"

Except in this thread...

"how can this be described as a cover up"

Years of hiding it from the taxpayers funding the murder - just like in Vietnam - and people like you saying that we have no 'right to know what harm is done in our name'!
"So far the US Authorities have point blank refused to release them on every single instance."
Point confirmed.

"the bent and biased way the story has been reported now"

NOW who's biased?

"the crew of the helicopter have to report EVERYTHING they see, that is ridiculous."

Haha! Let me see - Men in Black movie - only the 'hero' of the story saw what was really there in the 'shooting test' - all of the 'best of the best of the best' blasted ALL the innocent aliens, and lestthe real baddie - only HE looked at what he really saw - which is why all the 'best of the best of the best' failed the test due to narrow minded bias.

In the video shoot-em-up games for the public, you have to discriminate between the baddies and the innocent hostages and bystander.

"Umm, their overall mission that day was to protect us, to provide support for us. Ahh, so I can see where, where the initial attack on the, on the group of men was warranted."

Ah - but you REALLY WANT to suppress his further words and judgement of personal experience, just like in the days of Vietnam, don't you! :-) Even the guy on the ground could not accept the attack on the van as being 'correct'. He also said that sort of murder happens many times a day, it's just that you don't get to see the footage.

""friendly-fire""

My Aussie rellies who fought on the Kokoda track were also bombed by the US (you can find my previous comments on never letting armed yanks anywhere near you!) - of course accuracy in the 1940s and inability to see anything much in the mountainous jungle were contributing factors.

"it has now been established beyond any doubt that in the group that was fired upon there were armed men"

Ha! It's now justified by you that when a single armed terrorist is known to be in a crowd of your OWN citizens, you can just blow them ALL away! The arrogant insensitive "Kill them all - let God sort them out!" has been on record since the Crusades - and the residents of those lands have never forgotten THAT either...

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 10 - 06:31 PM

"TONY JONES: The Wikileaks site refers to the footage they've shown as 'Collateral Murder.' Do you think that's going too far?

ETHAN MCCORD: I do.

I, I, I personally feel that the, um, the way Wikileaks released this video was more of a, a shock factor to try to, to, ah, it was more of a political way of releasing this. Um, I feel that they could have been more responsible in the release of this video.

Um, I do know that when I, when I watched the video they made sure to point out the cameras that the journalists were holding, but failed to point out the weapons that the other people were holding as well.

Collateral murder I think, is, is going a little far, um, as far as saying that soldiers intentionally murder civilians."


And I agree on that point with Mr McCord, but to many here it is perfectly OK for the Press to lie. Most of you lot fell for it "Hook-line-and-sinker", guess I just have better eye-sight than most of you.

The Idea that the children were deliberately put at risk is your assertion unsupported by any eveidence anywhere, let alone on the video.

WHAT????? Are you really that stupid?? Eight people have just been shot up by two 30mm cannons and you as a father of two children deliberately drive towards where that happened, and you think it is safe or sensible to actually do that?? You either have no children or you are on a different planet.

Paradoxically, you support your son being put at risk by being posted in Afghanistan.

My son entirely of his own choosing volunteered to serve his country. He has no say in where the Government of his country order him to go, that is accepted as being part and parcel of the deal. Exactly the same was true for me when I was in the armed forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 06:43 PM

" Eight people have just been shot up by two 30mm cannons"

And has been established here, the source of the gunfire was out of sight - and all that was visible was signs of distressed and possibly dying people which no normal ethical human being could stand by and iognore. But you tell us that YOU would.

"Are you really that stupid?? Eight people have just been shot up by two 30mm cannons and you as a father of two children deliberately drive towards where that happened, and you think it is safe or sensible to actually do that?? You either have no children or you are on a different planet."

And you, of course being totally omniscient, KNOW IN YOUR HEART that everybody else on the planet also knows the full facts of everything that happens everywhere. That poor father just saw a situation where a human being was in distress and rushed to render aid - as often happens when bystanders rush to drag people from burning cars, house fires, drowning, etc and sometimes even get bravery awards - but cold hearted bastards like YOU would not help but just stand there, laugh and say "Die you heathen bastard"?, am I wrong?

Yes, I'm stupid enough to want to have rendered aid.

We know who is on the different self entered planet - and psychiatrists have a name for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 01 May 10 - 08:56 PM

This:

"WHAT????? Are you really that stupid?? Eight people have just been shot up by two 30mm cannons and you as a father of two children deliberately drive towards where that happened, and you think it is safe or sensible to actually do that?? You either have no children or you are on a different planet."


Does not provide the substantiaton requested by this:


"The Idea that the children were deliberately put at risk is your assertion unsupported by any eveidence anywhere, let alone on the video."


It merely provides more assertions, and more absurd ones ... like the father knew that 30mm cannons had anything to do with the situation.


It's ok, I've got your number. You're proud of your son and rightly so, but to cope with him being out there you too have developed a blind spot.


Blind so you can't see and numb so you can't feel.


The thing you can't seem to understand is that the people in the van were in their own home.

To them it was not a battlefield, but their locality - their schools - their shops etc - the place where they live.

For all they knew it was a bombsite. There was no sight or sound of any planes, tanks, soldiers etc etc ... just wreckage.

oh ... and a screaming, possibly dying man ...

"Quick - load him in - we'll get him to hospital"

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 10 - 03:39 AM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 May 10 - 05:02 AM

"is a standard debating tactic of the left"

Of course, with your omniscience, you KNOW I 'am leftist' - you know me not from a lump of wood! How insulting! and you are found out for "attributing to me views that I myself do not hold" - thus I accuse YOU of 'being leftist"!!!


"No-one was murdered"

Ah - you see, that's why the USA refuses to join the International body that purses War Crimes - murder by another name!

"Care to provide some sort of explanation as to why wikileaks did not feel the need to explain all that"

Why should they? They've got YOU!

"the sound of gun fire 30mm cannon are rather loud"
And the driver also has your Superman hearing - as the chopper was oooo HOW FAR AWAY in the middle of the other gunfire you allege was being heard at the same time?

"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"

Well now you are telling porkies about me mate - just WHO posted the transcript - the films have been shown on Aussie TV more times that would know.

"the people shot were unarmed civilians"

You are obsessed with ONLY the initial engagement - which even the military guys on the ground WANTED (if you ARE going to fight wars the you HAVE to give 'covering fire' to your own troops dummy!) - but blind to the fact that even HE was sickened by the butchery of the people shot WHO were unarmed civilians (and children). As are those who are not inhuman - you cannot separate the 'legal' military engagement from the immediate subsequent war crime you applaud. It was a deliberate and separate (military approved) subsequent act to open up on the van.

ETHAN: Umm, however, personally, I don't feel that the attack on the van was warranted. It, it, it seemed more, it, I think that the people could have been deterred from doing what they were doing in the van by simply firing a few warning shots versus, um, completely obliterating the van and its occupants.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 02 May 10 - 05:36 AM

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

These ones were 5 km away - remember?

"swallowed the lie that US troops had deliberately murdered civilians on that afternoon in Baghdad on the 12th July 2007."

i think if you read back you will find that I have been somewhat more balanced than that.

"you know for certain that everything that you contend happened was fact do you?"

Which of my statements is incorrect?

1. that the people in the van were in their own locality?

2. that there was a man with horrific injuries lying on the ground?


Tell me teribus - do you think it is a wild suggestion that he was either screaming in pain or begging for help?


On the other hand, you assert that it was there to collect weapons.

There is NO evidence of this happening.

In fact, the driver is in a marked hurry to go once the unarmed wounded man is loaded in by the vans unarmed occupants.

Sorry - not a legitimate target.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 10 - 06:05 AM

You have obviously never heard 30mm cannon fire Lox especially not one firing at 600 rounds per minute.

1. that the people in the van were in their own locality?

Got their address have you Lox? or is that just an assumption on your part? Having said that, it is I would agree a fairly reasonable assumption, but you do not know for certain, therefore do not present it as a fact. It is however factual that those "civilians" WERE armed.

As for the actions of the van driver, he knew or should have known that he should not remove anything or anybody from the scene, that should have been left to the authorities as Mr McCord says.

What McCord's opinion of the incident and the decision to engage the van is, is irrelevant. He is making that judgement in hindsight based on what he saw when he looked into the inside of that van. The helo crew reported what was happening asked for permission to engage the target in accordance with the ROE in force at the time. They received permission to fire, they committed no crime. All of that is fact Lox not supposition.

No weapons were removed because they were not given the opportunity to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 02 May 10 - 06:48 AM

"It is however factual that those "civilians" WERE armed."

Not the ones in the Van ...


"As for the actions of the van driver, he knew or should have known that he should not remove anything or anybody from the scene, that should have been left to the authorities as Mr McCord says."


He was a trained soldier. They were civilians with no more idea of how to behave in a war zone than of how t recognize the sound of a 30mm cannon firing 600 rounds per minute from 5km away.


If I heard any sound from 5km away, I would not for one second consider associating it with devastation occurring around me as I am a civilian.


"No weapons were removed because they were not given the opportunity to do so."


No Teribus, you can see very clearly in the film that the driver tries to get going as soon as the injured man is loaded on board, and everyone else jumps on board as quick as possible.


That those people did not, as a group, quickly run to grab weapons, and that the driver did not wait for such an excursion serves as evidence which clearly and directly contradicts your assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 02 May 10 - 07:03 AM

"You have obviously never heard 30mm cannon fire Lox especially not one firing at 600 rounds per minute."

This comment is stubborn in the extreme.

From 5km away, this sound would be indistinguishable to anyone with no a knowledge of 30mm cannons from most other background noise, such as helicopter engines, motorbikes etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 May 10 - 07:08 AM

"It is however factual that those "civilians" WERE armed"

Now you are confused - those who were armed, were 'armed combatants' (thus legitimate targets according to the US), not 'civilians' - that's what the USA keeps telling us. Thus attacking those 'unarmed civilians' in the van was wrong.

I have found that those who cannot easily keep more than one idea in their head at a time, are not only either 'leftist' or 'rightist' or 'centralist', but inflexible 'fundalmentalists' who will twist even what they have said to justify their position, as long as they 'win'.


"What McCord's opinion of the incident and the decision to engage the van is, is irrelevant."

That is because it now conflicts with your omniscient view - you have previously claimed 'to have been there' and that those who have not 'do not know what they are talking about'. Now you reverse your position, so as to discredit 'one who was there' to justify YOUR position - one who was NOT there.


"No weapons were removed because they were not given the opportunity to do so. "

From where, by whom? Those who had carried the visible weapons were dead. Now you reveal your lack of humanity - your first thought is always for 'the weapons', not human beings in distress.


"You have obviously never heard 30mm cannon fire Lox especially not one firing at 600 rounds per minute."

"These ones were 5 km away - remember?" "in the middle of the other gunfire you allege was being heard at the same time?"

As I said, you can't hold more than one idea in your mind at once.


"some who openly admit that they could not watch the video coverage "

I watched it many times - the damn thing was replayed on EACH of the 3 commercial channels and each of the ABC channels and on both SBS channels almost every foreign language news broadcast (the visuals don't need even subtitles) - and often in full many times on Aussie TV. I used to love 'war movies' as a kid - my dad who had been in the RAAF did not really like the 'battle scenes', faked even though they were. He died long before 'realistic battle scenes' existed in movies.

"As for the actions of the van driver, he knew or should have known that he should not remove anything or anybody from the scene, that should have been left to the authorities as Mr McCord says."

Ah the poor 'dumb trooper' 'who was there' - sorry mate you just said his opinions were 'irrelevant' - the US military - or ANY military is not God, though they often act as though they think they are. Just who the bloody hell are 'the authorities' in a 'disputed war zone' anyway - God's Police the Yanks? In YOUR mind, yes.

"As for the actions of the van driver, he knew or should have known that he should not remove anything or anybody from the scene"

Omniscient again, I see. Just stand there with you and let them die in front of you? Once again, you have just said that you would refuse to give aid to those in distress in front of you.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 10 - 11:30 AM

Wikileaks/Lox/Foolestroupe: "Thus attacking those 'unarmed civilians' in the van was wrong."

FACT: Until Ethan McCord told the interviewer on that programme what he (McCord) saw when he looked into the inside of that van NO ONE THE FOGGIEST NOTION as to what that van was carrying or indeed who was inside it.

Rules Of Engagement (in force at the time of the incident): If you see armed civilians, they are classified as enemy and as such they can be attacked, as can anyone assisting them in any way. On contact no-one is permitted to remove anything or anybody from the scene of that incident, it was the task of those Helo crews to ensure that nothing was removed until such time as US ground forces and the Iraqi Police arrived on the scene.

Now to retrace slightly, would I as the father of two small children driving around with them in my van, blithely drive them into harms way, in a city plagued with sectarian violence and terrorist attacks, then no sorry I most certainly would not. As a parent I would put the lives and safety of my children before anything else, you tell me anything else and I will call you a liar and a fool.

By the bye had the man crawling along the pavement been wearing what he should have been wearing he would in all probability be alive today.

I do not believe that either Lox, or Foolestroupe, have ever personally witnessed any terrorist attack first hand or had to deal with the aftermath of any such attack - I on the other hand have, and as such have some empathy for what Ethan McCord says, at the same time I can appreciate the situation that the crews of Apaches Hotel Two-Six this Crazy Horse One-Eight had to deal with. Had I been their Controller I would have done exactly as their Control on that day did, as I said previously I would rather watch gun camera footage from an Apache killing insurgents than watch Reuters footage of those insurgents killing US Forces personnel. A view that I am sure Ethan McCord would agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 02 May 10 - 01:21 PM

"On contact no-one is permitted to remove anything or anybody from the scene of that incident, it was the task of those Helo crews to ensure that nothing was removed until such time as US ground forces and the Iraqi Police arrived on the scene."

1. Who's "rules"?

2. Were the "rules" distributed to all Iraqi civilians before the war started? Perhaps that was a condition of being involved the war was that everyone read and thoroughly understand the rules first ...

... Only that these people, didn't volunteer to be part of the war - they were just living in their home town when they discovered death and violence all around them.

So why should they be subject to penalties in a game of RISK that they never willingly joined.

You keep talking about them as if they should have been expected to have a full knowledge and understanding of military technology, military rules of engagement and warzone etiquette.

Tell me Teribus, is it their fault that they were not properly informed about these things?

Do you think that these things would have featured in their list of priorities?

What about food, money, work, water, and if possible education and some kind of normality for their kids?

Should they have taken the time to go to war preparation seminars covering issues like "how to behave in a warzone and how to recognize the sound of militarey hardware from 5 km away" before the war started so that they could be properly prepared?

Is it their fault that they did not do this?

Is it reasonable or realistic to expect children to spend years in a basement in their home town and never to leave?


If you are so well informed, and your experience gives so much more credibility to your view than my experience gives mine, then respond to my points.

So far, my view is a lot better argued and supported than yours, and your synopsis of the vans movement and purpose has been well and truly shot to bits.



"Now to retrace slightly, would I as the father of two small children driving around with them in my van, blithely drive them into harms way, in a city plagued with sectarian violence and terrorist attacks, then no sorry I most certainly would not."

This is nothing but repetition of your unsupported synopsis on the subject of what the driver was or wasn't up to.

Your last post basically sums up to "I repeat my earlier baseless and impossible assertions and then I'm going to run and hide behind my medals"

Come on ...

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: olddude
Date: 02 May 10 - 03:12 PM

I wish I knew if this was a hot zone, that is one controlled by the bad guys ... it does make a difference however much that is ...

In that conflict many civilians are armed for many reasons that are not involved with the war. Mainly to protect their family against criminals and insurgents, some are tribal folks on our side, some are local militia trying to maintain order. Seeing an AK-47 you would have to fire on most of the population if that is the only criteria ... it ain't but I admit I am not there and don't know the policy at the moment ... If it was not a bad guy controlled zone, simply seeing and AK is not grounds to engage unless you are fired on since any engagement involves civilian casualties usually ... and RPG different story I did not see or hear of an RPG... I still don't think the engagement was justified myself. I wasn't there.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: olddude
Date: 02 May 10 - 03:25 PM

by the way in a military active hot zone reporters are embedded with the military units, they are not allowed to wander off ... the request for confirmation to engage leads me to believe this was not an active hot zone ... but again I could be wrong ... also you cannot fire an RPG at a copter from the ground, the back wash will kill you ... that is why they fire the damn things from the top of buildings ... Likewise you can't fire one out of a window like in the movies ... if so you are dead ... I don't know what happened here but I still think it was a rush to engage and not fully justified ... Wish I knew more actually

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 May 10 - 06:37 PM

"have ever personally witnessed any terrorist attack first hand"

Omnisciently wrong again.

I was walking back from my house (this was approx 1975) at lunch time to work when a guy ran down the other side of me carrying a rifle. I turned the corner into chaos. As I walked along the pavement, I noticed a young girl I knew who served in the local shop lying on the pavement with her face a funny colour. Someone was kneeling, holding her hand. I saw a policeman and told him I had seen the guy and where he was heading. The next thing, I and another guy (funnily enough a friend!) who had also seen him close up were in the back of a police car racing after him. I see no need to tell any more of the story.

Fie, man fie,
Who's the Fool now?

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 10 - 06:46 PM

olddude if you did not see any weapons. If you did not see any armed men then you want your eyes tested - basically if you cannot see them you are blind. The weapons were seen (I picked out four people carrying) and those weapons were found at the scene. Now please tell me. Do you believe that they were not present or that they did not exist? (Remembering of course that they were found, they were photographed and eye-witnesses verified that they were there)

Now not knowing what planet you live on, if you have two patrols in the area and at least one of them has come under fire, and you are one of a crew of an Apache Attack helicopter tasked with providing cover for your troops on the ground are you actually telling me that your Rules of Engagement tell you that you cannot fire on the enemy until they have attacked your troops on the ground - If you try to tell me that you are fuckin' dreaming pal - You kill them before they kill or inflict damage on your own troops otherwise you should not be there, that is precisely what being in a support function is all about - simple as that, and that is exactly what these guys did.

Oh Lox:

"On contact no-one is permitted to remove anything or anybody from the scene of that incident, it was the task of those Helo crews to ensure that nothing was removed until such time as US ground forces and the Iraqi Police arrived on the scene."

1. Who's "rules"?

The elected Government of Iraq's Rules, how does that sit with you? That information - Displayed on Bill Boards, Displayed in Newspapers; Broadcast on radio and on television, good enough for you??

After the above the rest of your post was meaningless emotive inaccurate crap.

Do you think that these things would have featured in their list of priorities?

What about food, money, work, water, and if possible education and some kind of normality for their kids?

Come on Lox 'fess up you are not a parent are you? You have no children? How can I tell that? Where in your list of priorites does the basic safety and well being of your children feature?? IT DOESN'T DOES IT?

Your priorities are those of someone who has no children

FOOD is your Number 1 priority??
MONEY is your second?? By the way why do expect money to come before work I take it that you are a socialist - The state must support you - right??
WORK is your third priority!! Very pleased to hear that you think that you must actually do something to support yourself.
WATER as a fourth priority, fuckin ' marvellous, you Lox are an absolute bloody star because you then follow this fourth priority up with:

and if possible education and some kind of normality for their kids?

WOW, fuckin' WOW!!! As a parent you put four things ahead of the safety and well being of your children and when you finally get round to thinking about them, your children that is, when the reponsibility of looking after them finally crosses your mind - You voice that by being concerned about their bloody education - You are bloody unbelievable - Priority NUMBER ONE you MORON you make sure they survive, you do not deliberately and voluntarily put them in harms way, as their clown of a father did on the 12th of July 2007, that is of course assuming that he was indeed their father.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 10 - 06:55 PM

And the terrorist organisation that claimed responsibility for this crime was who Fool??

Approximately 1975 eh, so marked was the incident on your memory that you can only roughly put a year to it.

ONE repeat ONE of my experiences of terrorist attacks Foolestroup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Friday_(1972)

And I can tell you to the bloody minute, literally every bloody minute of how that day passed, how it unfolded for me, no bloody roughly about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 02 May 10 - 07:06 PM

Tell me teribus - how long does a child survive without food and water?

How does a person living in an urban area get food without money?

How do they get money without work?


Once again your imagination is running away with you.

Where do I state that those priorities are in that order? (not that it makes the slightest difference as they are all essential to the survival of my daughter.

Oh yes teribus thats another assertion that you've got wrong.

OK - I've been more than respectful of your family sensitivities.

You clearly don't possess that capacity though - so - what kind of parent would go through fighting in war zones, witnessing death and destruction of enemies and friends and seeing firsthand the consequences of war, and then encourage and support "deliberately putting his kids at risk" by sending them half way round the world to some god forsaken desert so that they too can experience the trauma of killing and permanent physical and mental damage that goes with it.

Hey - maybe if you're lucky he'll develop a massive blind spot like yours.

"The elected Government of Iraq's Rules, how does that sit with you? That information - Displayed on Bill Boards, Displayed in Newspapers; Broadcast on radio and on television, good enough for you??"

You will of course provide me with your source for the above statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 10 - 07:07 PM

Apologies. As a PS to Foolestroupe:

On that day (21st July 1972) between 14:10 and 15:15, nine people died and 130 were injured to varying degrees of severity. How hundreds were not killed is still to this day something that I wonder about - If ever I could lay claim to being present at the performance of a miracle it was on that day in Belfast in Northern Ireland - Of course it wasn't it was all down to performance in their duties of the Security Forces, the Police and the Emergency Services, who all put their lives on the line TO SAVE LIVE.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 10 - 07:13 PM

OK Lox how many children do you have?

I have raised four, all university educated, two of them each with two degrees, all in employment of their choice. You gave a list of priorities, the order in which you prioritised them was entirely yours. As a parent, they did not ring true with me. Simple question Lox are you a parent or are you not? Of course the only person you have to be honest with in answering my question is yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 02 May 10 - 07:17 PM

"Priority NUMBER ONE you MORON you make sure they survive,"

Yes - so they will need to eat and drink ... DUH!



"you do not deliberately and voluntarily put them in harms way"

Oh hello - that same repeated discredited fantasy again.



You need to stop making up bullshit about me, the van and and the rest of your imaginary world.


Did the government posters radio broadcasts etc detail how to recognize the sound of a 30mm cannon from 5km away?


I suspect not.


Did they say "if you see a man dying, leave him there to die"


Maye - but do you think most people would pay any attention to such an instruction?


No - because unlike you, (based on your comments that you would not stop) most other people would help a dying man if they could.


Your expectations are utterly unrealistic.


I'm sorry I got personal, but you're arguing like a teenage girl.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 10 - 07:19 PM

"The elected Government of Iraq's Rules, how does that sit with you? That information - Displayed on Bill Boards, Displayed in Newspapers; Broadcast on radio and on television, good enough for you??"

You will of course provide me with your source for the above statement.

Ehm No I won't Lox, you check it out for yourself, because lets face it if I do it you will not believe me, you will come out with more inaccurate emotive crap.

PS: Take better care of your daughter in real life than you apparently would on the internet!!