BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 07:55 PM

""Unbeknown to this bunch of insurgents the Apaches were already onto them and the hunters became the hunted.""

Well I don't know how it is on your planet Teribus, but in the real world men who are hunting a group of well armed and armoured modern troops don't normally stroll across open ground in shirt sleeves with their weapons slung on their shoulders, or hanging down at their sides.

As for the idea that these murderous bastards were following standard operating procedures for either US or UK forces, I don't think you'll sell that one with green stamps.

Any British gunner gloating over a dying, and unarmed, man and begging him to "Please pick up a weapon, any weapon" so he could justify shooting him, would have been court martialled.

Eventually he got his wish when the wounded man was being rescued by others who were also unarmed. Didn't matter to the giggling homicidal maniac, he unloaded on them, finally getting his wish, and killing an innocent journalist.

For him the kids were just a twenty point bonus in his real life video game. Ten years from now they'll be shooting US soldiers, and it'll be his fault.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 08:10 PM

Well, Terribus does make some points about how military people are trained to behave and he also makes some knowledgeable observations of the videotape itself.

But other experienced observers do come up with different conclusions.

I come down on the side where you don't blame the victims for getting killed, placing the primary responsibility on the ones who pull the trigger and those who gave them permission to do so. The US Military made a tragic mistake in this case. And they didn't get killed.

I don't expect Terribus to acknowledge that a tragic mistake was made but it would help clear the air on this thread if he would do so.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 03:20 AM

"Our ROE stipulate if they are carrying a gun then they are fair game and a legitimate target." (Teribus)

Oh I see - shoot first & ask questions later. You admit it. (Foolestroupe)

From that do I take it that you would rather allow the enemy to fire at our troops first before they are allowed to take steps to defend themselves? You are aptly named Fool

"Walk around in a hat with "PRESS" in big letters on the side and idiots keep hitting you in the head. Pity not everybody reads English..." (Foolestroupe)

Well as we are discussing a specific incident here Fool, hating to point out the obvious but the guys flying the helicopters most certainly would be capable of both reading the word "PRESS" and fully understanding what it meant.

"So then why all the Official refusals to release this material that had to be dragged out thru FOI procedures. Only ONE answer - ONE BIG COVERUP."

Standard procedure Fool, UK Coroners have requested gun camera evidence to be submitted as evidence before during Inquests and they have been refused and there are a number of very good reasons for not releasing such evidence. As time progresses things change and it becomes possible for the images to be released. But again hating to point out the obvious if there had been as you state "ONE BIG COVER-UP", then the footage and the rest of the photographic evidence from the incident would not have been shown to anybody - TRUE?? As it was within two weeks Reuters staff had been shown everything, now effective a cover up was that??

Lox, under what delusional reasoning are you equating Baghdad in July 2007 with London during the Blitz of 1940? For your information during the latter (which did take place as part of a global war in which nations declared war on one another) family groups did not drive round in vans during the middle of air raids looking for incidents in which they could play the Good Samaritan. Most were tucked away as safely as they could possibly get under their stairs at home; in Anderson Shelters in their back gardens; in Tube Stations or in purpose built air raid shelters. Outside during the air raids you had the Auxiliaries; The Police; The Fire Service; the ambulance crews; the ARP.

Where the father was irresponsible was in driving his children into a situation that at the time was far from clear and what turned out to be the middle of an ongoing fire-fight. I would not have done it, as a parent, love for my children would dictate that my duty and sole responsibility lay in ensuring that they were safe.

As for the Pilots,... They did the job they were there for, their ROE allowed them to engage that group and that is precisely what they did.

Don T what exactly is your experience of men who are hunting a group of well armed and armoured modern troops?? From your contributions I would say that that experience is fairly minute, or more likely non-existent. Please tell us in the hour before they set up their ambush how would they be dressed?? How would they be "walking about"?? Where would their weapons be stowed?? How do they receive their instructions about where they should position themselves for the attack?? Or do you believe that all the above vis done by telepathy, after all ever since that bloody stupid US Congressman opened his big fat mouth they know better than to use the mobile phone networks.

Not Iraq, but Afghanistan, our ROE there dictate that a member of the Taleban carrying an AK-47 can be fired upon. He can fire a full magazine from his AK-47 at you and you can shoot back at him. If at any point in this exchange he puts that weapon down on the ground he is free to walk away, you are not permitted to fire, even although he could have just killed, or wounded, those standing to your right and left. Normal convention is that in fire-fights if Taleban come out to recover a dead or wounded comrade they are not fired upon, they are allowed to recover the body for burial, but if any one of them makes any attempt to recover the weapon the injured or dead man was using then they all get chopped, and believe me Don depending upon the circumstances there has been many a reported occasion where the snipers covering the activity are most definitely muttering "Please pick up a weapon, any weapon". It is not a bloody game, they realise it, our troops realise it, high bloody time that you did too.

For him the kids were just a twenty point bonus in his real life video game.

So is born the myth - US forces deliberately target and kill children - eh DonT?? Ignores the FACT that the crews of neither helicopter had any idea of who or what was in that van when they opened fire. They reported what they could see was happening and their controller gave them specific permission to open fire and engage the target, that is what they did. The wounded children were not discovered, i.e. their existence was not known, until about 10 -15 minutes after the arrival of US troops on the scene. Trouble is you cannot even tell yourself the truth.

Questions for you Charley Noble (they are mostly rhetorical as the answers are already known):

1. Were there armed men in the group engaged - YES

2. Were US Forces moving through, or about to move through this area? - YES

3. Had US Forces on patrol already come under attack elsewhere in the area? - YES

Sorry Charley, no tragic mistake, an ambush or an attack was being set up and those Reuters reporters were covering it, making no attempt at all to identify themselves as reporters, most likely at the insistance of the people who invited them to attend. In short Charley they paid the price for stupidity in a combat zone.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 08:03 AM

"Most were tucked away as safely as they could possibly get under their stairs at home; in Anderson Shelters in their back gardens;"

Why was that Teribus?

Was it because the planes were making a din overhead?

Was it because they has has warning from the airraid sirens?

Were they being examined by a cowardly machine gunner 5km away who was completely unknown and invisible to them?

No.

You're right.

The two situations are completely different.


"family groups did not drive round in vans during the middle of air raids looking for incidents in which they could play the Good Samaritan"


Teribus, was there an Air-raid going on?

No.

In WWII, did family groups go round when there were no airraids on?

Yes.

Just like the family in the van.

If you were driving down the road and you passed through an area that had been devastated by some unknown force, and you saw a man dying in the middle of it - would you not stop to help?

What if he was saying "Press" to you?

No you clearly wouldn't.

Wait - I know - they should have guessed that they were being observed by a bloodthirsty machine gunner from 5 km away.

They shold have considered you extensive knowledge of military hardware and factored that into their decision.

What?

They are civilians?

In their own neighborhood?

But that's no excuse - they should surely be informed about US military tactics and equipment ... shouldn't they teribus.

"an ongoing fire-fight"

Between a group of 7 dead men, one dying man and an invisible enemy 5 km away?

Is that really your idea of a firefight?

Delusional reasoning?

Mate - your denial is comparable to a computer virus - your operating system needs a good overhaul.

Which brings us to this.

"From that do I take it that you would rather allow the enemy to fire at our troops first before they are allowed to take steps to defend themselves?"

Are you trying to convince us that the helicopter pilots were defending themselves?

There were a million other options open to them.

I can think of at least ten strategies for capturing those guys IF THEY WERE MILITANTS.

As it is, two of them in the initial shot were carrying weapons.

What about the others?

Are they fair game too?

The Americans had the initiative and there was no excuse for that insult to humanity and you make yourself look like an apologist for murder when you defend it.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 08:22 AM

""So is born the myth - US forces deliberately target and kill children - eh DonT?? Ignores the FACT that the crews of neither helicopter had any idea of who or what was in that van when they opened fire.""

True fool, but they didn't express much regret, nor do I believe for one minute that they felt any.

As for the wounded and dying journalist, where exactly was the weapon he could have reached. He wasn't able to hoist himself up a six inch kerb to crawl to safety.

As to the danger to the chopper crew, well Mr Expert you really can't have it both ways. ""At best they might be vaguely aware that those aircraft were in the air, the Apaches are probably about 5,000 to 7,000 metres away"" (3 to 4 1/2 miles). Well which way do you want it T. Are they in, or out, of range of those weapons on the ground.

If you truly believe those bastards did their job in an acceptable way, and displayed an acceptable attitude to those they slaughtered, then you are as heartless and unprincipled a bastard as they.

But then, I've always suspected that to be the case, from your previous record.

And, BTW, you don't have a clue about my experience, or for that matter anything about my life.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 08:24 AM

"From that do I take it that you would rather allow the enemy to fire at our troops first before they are allowed to take steps to defend themselves? "

Funny you know, but that's JUST what all the politicians assured us WAS the case, to allay our fears that the troops would behave just the way they did in this case...

"take steps to defend themselves"

Now that's really clever dirty misleading debating - the troops can easily take reasonable steps to defend themselves without murdering everyone all over the place, just in case they MIGHT want to go anywhere. You didn't get discharged for 'mental disturbance', did you?


QUOTE
"So then why all the Official refusals to release this material that had to be dragged out thru FOI procedures. Only ONE answer - ONE BIG COVERUP."

Standard procedure Fool
UNQUOTE

Yep. Coverup = S.O.P.


QUOTE
As for the Pilots,... They did the job they were there for, their ROE allowed them to engage that group and that is precisely what they did.
UNQUOTE

Yep, the same S.O.P. that 'authorised' My Lai, and the subsequent coverup.


"Had US Forces on patrol already come under attack elsewhere in the area? - YES"

But not by THIS group, you admit.


"Were there armed men in the group engaged - YES"

By this logic, all US citizens may be murdered in cold blood by any other terrorist group because many US citizens carry weapons, often concealed. The US is 'at war with global terrorists' and 'in short they will all pay the price for stupidity in a combat zone'. Funny that's the same madness the Taliban spout... so by your logic THEY ARE justified too... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 08:44 AM

I am now convinced that Lox; Fool & Don T live in either Trumpton or Camberwick Green.

Oh my giddy fuckin Aunt, DonT even thinks that the only people that you are allowed in a combat zone are people that pose a direct threat to you personally - That is not the case you muppet it never bloody has been. Comments such as - As to the danger to the chopper crew, well Mr Expert you really can't have it both ways. ""At best they might be vaguely aware that those aircraft were in the air, the Apaches are probably about 5,000 to 7,000 metres away"" (3 to 4 1/2 miles). Well which way do you want it T. Are they in, or out, of range of those weapons on the ground.

I will give you a hint Don as to why those helicopters were there. They were NOT THERE to take out direct threats to themselves. They WERE THERE to scout out in advance the ground through which US Troops were going to patrol and take-out any opposition doing exactly as this crowd was doing, setting up an attack or an ambush.

So from this one incident we have Lox wittering on about the London Blitz generaly wildly inaccurately and we have the Fool now going on about My Lai (Big difference between My Lai and the incident under discussion Fool is that My Lai concerned unlawful commands which those concerned should have refused to obey. This incident took placed in accordance with ROE in place at the time and in full view and knowledge of both Helo crews and their controller).

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:04 AM

""They WERE THERE to scout out in advance the ground through which US Troops were going to patrol and take-out any opposition doing exactly as this crowd was doing, setting up an attack or an ambush.""

Got your mind reading ability sorted then?

You know what their intentions were?
You know that they were aware of the approaching troops, though they were not(according to you) aware of the choppers circling the area. I wear specs, but I'm still pretty sure that a chopper circling slowly at a three mile range would catch my eye.
You believe that men setting up an ambush would naturally stroll about without seeking cover of any description, and gather in a bunch on a street corner for a quiet chat while the choppers circled in view.

Insurgents that bloody stupid have survived since 2003?....Pull the other one you MUPPET!

You are just another Nazi apologist who believes the ends justify the means, as long as it is others doing the dying, but when they plant IEDs for your boys, that's different isn't it.

There are terrorists and murderers on both sides of this conflict, and it's the other side that seems to be more honest about it.

That says everything about why the USA refused to join the International Criminal Court. There wouldn't be any way they could cover arses then.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:09 AM

"thinks that the only people that you are allowed in a combat zone are people that pose a direct threat to you personally"

No - that's what Teribus seems to think... if you didn't, then you wouldn't believe in "Kill them all - let God sort them out".

"They WERE THERE to scout out in advance the ground through which US Troops were going to patrol and take-out any opposition"

By begging dying people to touch a gun so they could shoot them again? :-)

QUOTE
about My Lai (Big difference between My Lai and the incident under discussion Fool is that My Lai concerned unlawful commands which those concerned should have refused to obey. This incident took placed in accordance with ROE in place at the time and in full view and knowledge of both Helo crews and their controller).
UNQUOTE

So if the local Sheriff tells his posse to murder someone, then they should obey - he IS the law.... the looney bloodthirsty video game trained pilots DELIBERATELY MISLED their 'controllers' to bully them in giving the order to commit murder on unarmed people - that's what the video shows, and that's why the military tried to hide the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 10:02 AM

Rules of Engagement and unlawful commands..........

I'm not agreeing with Teribus here but in the overall contest this is a "serpent and the maiden" tale. When you wage war for any reason it would be sheer folly to somehow believe this type of thing will not happen. As a matter of fact, I am amazed there aren't several of these storylines every week.

I find the whole incident disgusting at the very least and yet my greater fear is that much as I want to believe otherwise, I cannot say with assurity that given the same factors and put in the same position, I would have acted differently.

Understanding it though does not mitigate what happened.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 10:36 AM

"it would be sheer folly to somehow believe this type of thing will not happen. As a matter of fact, I am amazed there aren't several of these storylines every week."

Which is one of the main points - with wilful obstruction to stop release of the material, just how many other incidents have there been - oh and till the 'accidental' release of the 'under new management torture shop' previously run by Saddam, the public never knew about THAT either!

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 10:47 AM

""I cannot say with assurity that given the same factors and put in the same position, I would have acted differently.""

As to the actual shooting, possible, though I think you would have put more thought into the assessment, told your controller the truth that there were two armed men among six or seven unarmed civilians of unknown origin and purpose, and then, if authorised, carried out your task with a deal less relish and crowing satisfaction.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 12:49 PM

And there are probably still some unarmed Reuters Reporters out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: olddude
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 01:19 PM

The pilot is a highly trained and seasoned professional, more so than me. I watched this video several time. There is no way that I saw an AK-47 or a skinny(rpg) in anyone's hands. They looked like they were carrying camera's or other video equipment. In addition he has other equipment aboard that chopper that we are not seeing in this video to verify the threat or discount it. That said, I cannot justify the engage order,   I am sorry but there is no way from what I reviewed. He wanted to fire and that is the bottom line. A pilot has to make a split second decision in most cases. This also was not the case here. The situation was in complete control since he had the visual and the fire power to suppress any threat at that moment in time. This is a cowboy case and the results are a disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 02:38 PM

"Lox wittering on about the London Blitz generaly wildly inaccurately"

Is that your best answer?

Bit feeble if you ask me.


"I am now convinced that Lox; Fool & Don T live in either Trumpton or Camberwick Green."

I don't even know where these places are.

So either you're wrong, or you need to explain why this comment is so clever.

The former would be consistent with your position so far, and the latter would in fact also apply to your other comments.

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

No, Terribus never backs down. Don't hold your breath waiting.

The gunner in the copter saw what he wanted to see, and he blasted away minimizing the risk that the reporters were actually armed insurgents. Evidently the US Military agreed that his action was reasonable.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 05:20 PM

Dealing with Lox first:

Baghdad July 2007 & London November 1940

No.

You're right.

The two situations are completely different.

Thank you very much for admitting that so why the fuck did you make the comparison?? Totally irrelevant.

In WWII, did family groups go round when there were no air raids on?

Yes.

Just like the family in the van.

Well no actually they didn't, it would have been considered extremely unpatriotic and counter to the war effort had they even attempted to. I know from what you have written that you did not live through those times and have at best a BBC/ITV picture of life in those times. Families did not go for "outings", they did not have the money, transport and travel were generally very restricted. Most Dads were away serving in the armed forces, or both parents were working every bloody hour God sent, so "family outings" were suspended for the duration, a sacrifice that I know you would not even begin to appreciate.

As for the rest of your idiotic post Lox - If you are fighting a war then there is only one rule, there is only one guiding principle -YOU FUCKIN' WELL WIN IT - nobody is going to give you any accolades for coming second whilst obeying all the imaginary "rules" that you seem to think exist, and that everybody else supposedly adheres to, the opposition out in both Iraq and Afghanistan obeys no rules, we kill them, or they kill us, at least I know whose side I am on. That chum is reality get used to it.

Are you trying to convince us that the helicopter pilots were defending themselves?

No not for one milli-second, the crews of those Attack Helicopters were there to destroy those who wished to inflict harm on any US troops operating in that area - That is what they did, and in that objective, on that particular day they were 100% successful.

Now on to Don T:

If you truly believe those bastards did their job in an acceptable way, and displayed an acceptable attitude to those they slaughtered, then you are as heartless and unprincipled a bastard as they.

Did they do their job in an acceptable way - Yes without any shadow of a doubt.

Did they display an acceptable attitude - To my mind no they did not, but I do not know the full story, and I am unaware of exactly what these guys had been through, so I would reserve my judgement on that until such time as I am aware of all the facts. You on the other hand jump to conclusions all too readily.

Now as one of the unmounted US squaddies approaching that position in Baghdad on that afternoon in July 2007 you ask me if I would rather have YOU Don T looking after my security as I advanced through the area, or one of those heartless and unprincipled bastards in the Apaches, I am pretty sure where my vote would go. Results speak louder than words, they are there to make sure I do not get killed. Your choice, if you wish to take up the gun expect fully to die by it. If you are some twat of a journalist who wants a scoop that involves people getting killed - at least have to common sense to pick the winning side to photograph it from.

Got your mind reading ability sorted then?

Damn sight better than you have.

You know what their intentions were?

Don't need to know what their intentions were sunshine, all you need to to know is:
1. They are armed
2. Our guys are moving that way
1 (above)+2(above) = Legitimate target

You know that they were aware of the approaching troops, though they were not(according to you) aware of the choppers circling the area. I wear specs, but I'm still pretty sure that a chopper circling slowly at a three mile range would catch my eye.

Not a clue Don, what these clowns were or were not aware of, none of that matters, YOU (Helo Pilot) know where YOUR troops are going to go and if these fuckin idiots are on that line of march then they automatically become a threat and you act accordingly - you take them out before they can kill any of your troops.

By the bye, Don T, in a city environment, a helicopter, could be hovering less than 1000 metres from your position and you would not see it, you would not hear it. I will give you an idea of the optics these machines have. A camera pod fitted to a Torando at 65,000ft over the Ilse of Wight, can read (through cloud cover and haze) the time, to the minute, on the face of the clock on the Tower of Houses of Parliament.

You believe that men setting up an ambush would naturally stroll about without seeking cover of any description, and gather in a bunch on a street corner for a quiet chat while the choppers circled in view.

Refer to the above, these clowns had no idea that the helos were there. I asked previously for you to benefit us with your extensive experience in guerilla warfare and tell us where and when these guys would have been briefed, personally I still believe that you think that all that sort of shit is done by telepathy - Believe me you Prat it is not, those setting the ambush have to meet to discuss exactly how it is going to be sprung, if you do not acknowledge that then you are a bigger idiot than even I can imagine.

Insurgents that bloody stupid have survived since 2003?

Well by and large DonT they haven't. Taking into account Foreign Jihadi Fighters; Ba'athist Insurgents; Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, since 2003 round about 50,000 of them have died, doing exactly what the prats shown on the film did. Doubt that then ask Al-Qaeda's No.2 whether or not Al-Qaeda "won" in Iraq? He declared it a massive defeat and a campaign that was completely counter-productive.

From the FOOL we get:

So if the local Sheriff tells his posse to murder someone, then they should obey

Classic example of an unlawful order, that any member of the said posse should by all rights refuse to obey. YOU FOOL obviously have no concept of what constitutes a lawful command and what DOES NOT - I DO, in my time in the armed forces I have refused to obey two direct orders that I deemed to be unlawful, in both instances MY interpretation was upheld against my senior officers.

the looney bloodthirsty video game trained pilots DELIBERATELY MISLED their 'controllers' to bully them in giving the order to commit murder on unarmed people - that's what the video shows, and that's why the military tried to hide the evidence.

Number of points here FOOL:

1. Callsign Hotel 26 would be able to see through a relay the real time pictures being viewed in both Attack Helicopters, nobody was being misled deliberately or otherwise by anybody.

2. Within the group there were at least four armed men that I could see. Run that footage through enhancing software and it would become even clearer.

3. Within fourteen days of the incident taking place Reuters in Baghdad had seen everything there was to see - hardly a cover up. The Military made no attempt at all to hide anything either from senior commanders or from the employers of those killed.

Now come on FOOL tell me why those Reporters were not wearing their "flak-jackets", tell me why they were not wearing their helmets?? Tell me why the fact they were not wearing conspicuous items of clothing that could have identified them as "non-combatants" was not a contributing factor in their deaths?

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:20 PM

""As for the rest of your idiotic post Lox - If you are fighting a war then there is only one rule, there is only one guiding principle -YOU FUCKIN' WELL WIN IT - nobody is going to give you any accolades for coming second whilst obeying all the imaginary "rules" that you seem to think exist, and that everybody else supposedly adheres to, the opposition out in both Iraq and Afghanistan obeys no rules, we kill them, or they kill us, at least I know whose side I am on. That chum is reality get used to it.""

Is that right Heinrich? Alot of other Nazis who had the same attitude got hanged at Nuremberg, remember.

Have you ever heard of a little thing called the Geneva Convention.

THERE ARE RULES, PRAT!

It's just that some bastards ignore them.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 08:00 PM

"Thank you very much for admitting that so why the fuck did you make the comparison?? Totally irrelevant."

No - you make yourself sound thick when you say things like that, as if you don't understand the point.

Why the fuck don't you stop wriggling out of it?

Maybe you are that thick.

Are you that thick Teribus?


No - here's the truth!

Your son is in afghanistan, and you think that by admitting that there is any wrongdoing by "our" side that you are letting him down.

You will back up every move by "our side" so as to show solidarity with him, and you will pour hate, scorn and derision at anyone who points out the fucking obvious.

In this case that a bloodthirsty scumbag with a whole range of options available to him, chose to blow a load of people away without first making any effort to find out who they were or what they were doing - from 5km away.

You're backing him up because it could just as easily be your son at the controls.

I'm refusing to back him up because it could just as easily be anyones kids, including yours, in the van.

The van drove into a square, with no knowledge of what had happened there, and no knowledge of any apache gunshipsbuzzing on the horizon.

It saw devastation, and the people on board, who were civilians and knew NOTHING of military procedure, risk or hardware, saw a wounded journmalist probably screaming in pain and begging for help.

They stopped and helped.

But You say its somehow their fault?

"I take it then Don T that your reference to the two children who were wounded in the attack on the van indicates that you as a parent would have done exactly the same as the driver of that van? I know for an absolute bloody certainty that I would not have done had they been my children."

Yes - that is what you are saying!

Do you know why they were drining that way teribus?

Do you know where they were going?

NO!

YOU HAVE NO CLUE!

So are you in a position to make any judgement about them?

NO!

They were civilians trying to live their lives normally.

There was no air-raid, nor any sign of aircraft as they were 5km away.


I do NOT blame the dad.

I blame the bloodthirsty helicopter crews.

Only an idiot would blame an innocent passer by.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:12 PM

Terribus-

"If you are some twat of a journalist who wants a scoop "

And it doesn't help the tone of this thread when you indulge in name-calling.

And, I suppose, that criticism also goes to several other posters who seem to practice the old adage:

"Never leave a turn unstoned."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 01:08 AM

It's a good point that the press people should have had the proper indentifying clothing and etc. I wonder why they did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 03:38 AM

There's a lot of truth in what Teribus says.

The incontravertible truth is that war is brutal and sickening, one cant blame those involved in trying to eliminate everything they see perceive as a danger to themselves and their comrades....that is what soldiers are taught above anything else.

The problem now, is that military technology is so weighted in favour of one side in these conflicts, that it can all look like indiscriminate slaughter.

It all seems too easy for our side, especially for those of us who were opposed to military action right from the start.

The deployment of "smart" weapons, like drones, dehumanises the process even further.....I fear we are slipping into a real life horror movie, where human life and human values become as nothing.

Power and survival are all that matters, exactly the ideology that Teribus quite rightly attributes to the present military mindset.

We have indeed become "worse than animals"

Perhaps, if some here, would spend a little time contemplating the real problems facing humanity, rather than running round in ever decreasing circles digging up new "rights" to grant to behavioural minorities, we might be able to change things

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 03:57 AM

1. And it doesn't help the tone of this thread when you indulge in name-calling. (Charley Noble)

Seems Charley that name calling is perfectly permissible as long as those being called names are those of the US armed forces – You did not seem to object early on in this thread when mud was being slung at them – typical populist Mudcat double standard.

2. Talking about people being thick Lox?? It is not me making the bloody idiotic comparisons between the London Blitz during the Second World War and a street patrol operation in Baghdad in July 2007.

3. Your truth Lox is that whatever action the US forces takes is automatically wrong. On this particular thread the usual fellow travelers just jumped in, ignoring the reports and the evidence and started ranting away about "bloodthirsty scumbags" (your words not mine)

4. By all means let us point out the fucking obvious:
a) A group of armed men were observed congregating at a street corner in an area that was being patrolled by two groups of US forces.
b) None of the men were in uniform.
c) There were no US or official Iraqi Army or Police units in that location.
d) The movements of this group were reported and evaluated as a group of insurgents in the process of setting up an ambush and as such they presented a legitimate target to the Officer controlling both helicopters.

5. Please tell us Lox what were the "whole range of options available to" the helicopter pilots, or more importantly their controller.

6. "You're backing him up because it could just as easily be your son at the controls."

Oh no Lox, I am backing up the decisions made by both the controller and the pilots because it could just as easily be my son that is about to walk into the ambush that this crowd was setting. And I would far rather watch gun camera footage of these insurgents being killed, than watch Reuter's coverage of my son being killed.

7. As to where people were driving to and from and why Lox, let me point out another thing that is patently fuckin obvious if you bother to watch the full video coverage. What were traffic conditions like in the area Lox? Would you describe the flow of traffic as being – A. Heavy; B Moderate; C Light; D NON-EXISTENT. The van was driven up to evacuate wounded, collect bodies and pick up weapons, that van was driven by someone who had seen exactly what had occurred. That the driver of the van had no idea what had opened fire on the insurgents is obvious, otherwise he would not have acted as he did.

8. Don T from Camberwick Green draws my attention to the "Geneva Convention", unfortunately our enemies, formerly in Iraq and currently in Afghanistan, have no intention at all of adhering to those Conventions, no guerrilla force ever does. Now in Don's world the referee hands out "Yellow Cards" and tells the opposition not to be naughty boys and to "play fair". By and large in combating insurgents the stipulations of the Geneva Conventions are observed when and wherever possible, The "Rules Of Engagement" that my son and his colleagues are subject to would astound you Don T (I doubt very much if you are aware their nature and extent - you are too bloody busy jumping to ill-informed conclusions, whilst ignoring the evidence on the ground. They are however Conventions they are not hard and fast rules and for them to work both sides in any conflict have to follow them. Those Conventions Don are under constant review and change to meet circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Stu
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 05:12 AM

Seeing as you agree shooting kids is legit under certain circumstances Teribus, what about the decision the commander on the ground made NOT to medivac those kids to the nearest aid post but simply send them to an Iraqi hospital already struggling with the number of casualties in it's wards? Do you think this sort of complete abdication of responsibility to the people they're supposed to be 'liberating' is helping win hearts and minds?

"Where the father was irresponsible was in driving his children into a situation that at the time was far from clear and what turned out to be the middle of an ongoing fire-fight. I would not have done it, as a parent, love for my children would dictate that my duty and sole responsibility lay in ensuring that they were safe."

This might be difficult for you to believe, but there is are things as humanity and compassion and this man was demonstrating those in trying to help an unarmed, wounded man. At no time did any of the people in this video look towards the helicopter. One assumes its so far away they can't see or hear it, or it seems to distant to be a threat and therefore it's entirely probable the chap in the van had no idea it was even there.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 05:31 AM

""And it doesn't help the tone of this thread when you indulge in name-calling.

And, I suppose, that criticism also goes to several other posters who seem to practice the old adage:""

If you check back through the posts on this thread, you will find, as usual, that the first ad hominem posts were from Teribus, calling others "Muppet", Prat, Fool, and several other pejoratives.

Like begets like, I'm afraid.

I'm not prepared to let pass comments by someone who has the same moral compass as some of the worlds worst criminals, having in the 1940s lost two uncles fighting against his kind.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 07:02 AM

Let us have an honesty check Sugarfoot:

1. "Seeing as you agree shooting kids is legit under certain circumstances Teribus"

Who exactly knowingly shot at any children? - Nobody

Who knew that there were children in the van? – The people who were in the van, certainly neither of the Helo Pilots or their controller knew who or what was in that van.

When was it that the children were discovered injured in the van, before or after the van was hit? Clearly it was after the shooting had stopped and US ground patrol had arrived on scene.

End result of all that Sugarfoot is that nobody has said that it is alright to shoot kids. Now was the van a legitimate target? Yes it was. Bottom line the "kids" should not have been put in that position, and there is only one person who put them in that position – the driver of the van. On that van, the time difference between the first phase of shooting ending and the van pulling up was just over one minute. With two helos in the air observing the area closely, had this van been innocently driving along, either one or both of the helos would have spotted it and reported that movement earlier. They didn't, because the van had been parked close by, someone who saw what had happened went to the van and brought it up to a position that they thought was out of the line of fire.

2. "what about the decision the commander on the ground made NOT to medivac those kids to the nearest aid post but simply send them to an Iraqi hospital already struggling with the number of casualties in it's wards?"

Tell me Sugarfoot, how do you know that the US medical facility at Rustamiyah WAS the nearest medical facility to the scene?

US forces would definitely know where their facilities were but not necessarily the locations of any local hospital or clinic, which may have been located a lot closer to the scene. Or are you trying to tell us that the driver of the van was going to take the wounded man to the US facility at Rustamiyah for treatment? I somehow doubt it, and the reason the destination was changed and the decision to hand the wounded over to the Iraqi Police was made because there was a local facility much closer. Now tell me how you KNOW for a fact that that was not the case? Or did you just go along with the spin applied by MSM to sensationalize this story and put as black as possible reading on the situation.

3.   "Do you think this sort of complete abdication of responsibility to the people they're supposed to be 'liberating' is helping win hearts and minds?"

Number of US troops actively engaged on front-line security operations in Iraq today is what Sugarfoot? Oh that's right it is NONE and that has been the case for some time time now, most MNF contingents have left the country and the security situation is being handled entirely by Iraqi National Forces (Army & Police).

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 08:19 AM

"Your truth Lox is that whatever action the US forces takes is automatically wrong"

Sorry Teribus, this is a figment of your imagination.

I am talking specifically about this clip.


"c) There were no US or official Iraqi Army or Police units in that location."

Oh really?

But I thought there was a danger of American forces "about to walk into the ambush that this crowd was setting."

So who were they going to ambush?

You're contradicting yourself.

"5. Please tell us Lox what were the "whole range of options available to" the helicopter pilots, or more importantly their controller."

Well one (of many) options off the top of my head comes from the fact that the US forces (who might or might not have been in the area depending on which bit of Teribus's post you read) ghad the initiative.

The US forces were watching the actions of the crowd, without the crowds knowledge.

It would have been very easy to organize a counter ambush, in which a more selective use of force could, if necessary, have been employed.

"It is not me making the bloody idiotic comparisons between the London Blitz during the Second World War and a street patrol operation in Baghdad in July 2007"

Neither am I.

I was comparing life for local people whose homes are in the middle of a warzone.

Basically, the things you think are different about it are in fact the same, and the the things that you think are the same about it are diffferent.

The similarity is that people who live in a warzone often show great bravery and compassion when they are presented with the opportunity to help others, and that they don't all spend their time hiding and never going out.

This is true in many wars throughout history including WWII.

The difference is that when there was no airraid going on, residents of cities and towns all over Britain that had been bombed by the Germans were able to do what they needed to do to make life liveable without being shot up by snipers from 5 km away. Kids did play on bomb sites during lulls, and people did go about the business they needed to go about.

Just like the Dad who was driving by with his kids.

"The van was driven up to evacuate wounded, collect bodies and pick up weapons"

Something to pay attention to in the video teribus is that the people in the van NEVER at any point attempt to pick up ANY wepons.

They are focussed SOLELY on helping the wounded man.

So there is no evidence to support your assertion.

"that van was driven by someone who had seen exactly what had occurred."

Ohhh ... I seeee .... so to make room, and to ensure that the weapons and wounded were well looked after, he put his two kids in the back.

Yes Teribus - that makes perfect fucking sense doesn't it.

You dare to speak of idiotic wittering when that is your synopsis?

"And I would far rather watch gun camera footage of these insurgents being killed, than watch Reuter's coverage of my son being killed."

This is understandable.

If my Daughter was in a warzone, I would have my tired sore eyes pressed to the screen wishing and hoping that she was ok every minute of every day.

Knowing that some people who might or might not be dangerous to her had been needlessly murdered would not however make me feel any better about it.

I would be thinking "what the fuck are you doing there" and "please send her home"

I would also feel tremendous empathy with the families of dead Iraqis and Afghanis.

specially those whose children were killed due to negligence which has been born directly out of a thirst for blood.

I would not direct my fear and anger at innocent victims, but at the people responsible for my daughter being in that ridiculous situation.

I would not confuse unconditional love and support for my daughter with support for my Governments and the US governments malicious and dishonest foreign policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 10:56 AM

"c) There were no US or official Iraqi Army or Police units in that location." (Teribus)

Oh really?

But I thought there was a danger of American forces "about to walk into the ambush that this crowd was setting."

So who were they going to ambush?

You're contradicting yourself.

The location I am talking about was the one under observation, a group of 8 men some of whom were armed, looking at the video footage I detected four (three armed with AK-47 Assault rifles and one carrying an RPG-7 launcher) Now as the Helo Pilots, their controller, the Iraqi Authorities and the US Forces patrolling the area knew that they had no units in that particular position, what does that leave us with by way of deduction as to determine who these clowns were? Insurgents

No contradiction whatsoever.

What was that traffic like round that location that day Lox, you were asked, could it be described as being Heavy, Moderate, Light or Non-Existent.

It would have been very easy to organize a counter ambush, in which a more selective use of force could, if necessary, have been employed.

In your dreams, this is real life we are talking about here not the script of some bloody action movie. Although again like the other residents of Camberwick Green I imagine like Don T you think that sort of stuff is done by telepathy.

The difference is that when there was no air raid going on, residents of cities and towns all over Britain that had been bombed by the Germans were able to do what they needed to do to make life liveable without being shot up by snipers from 5 km away. Kids did play on bomb sites during lulls, and people did go about the business they needed to go about.

Which is why more died when people started getting hit by V1's and V2's particularly the latter as they fell without warning albeit that they were launched from more than 5 km away. Those in the group that were targeted were targeted for a reason, they were not making their everyday lives liveable, after all that would not really have been all that news-worthy as far as Reuters were concerned. the more I look at the role and behaviour of this reporter/cameraman team the more their behaviour stinks to high heaven.

Just like the Dad who was driving by with his kids.

Look at the video Lox, there was no dad driving by with his kids, had that been the case the helicopters would have seen and reported the van approaching long before they did (Timeline: 05:54 initial firing ends; 07:07 Van seen drawing up at the spot where the wounded man is lying on the pavement; 09:34 Van is disabled all shooting at this location stopped). On that timing, the van was parked close by, somebody ran to it and brought it up to the man who was still moving, a man that they thought had crawled out of the line of fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 11:18 AM

"What was that traffic like round that location that day Lox, you were asked, could it be described as being Heavy, Moderate, Light or Non-Existent."

Irrelevant.

The rest of the van evidence is infinitely stronger and tells us a different story.

"you think that sort of stuff is done by telepathy."

No, the same way that they sorted out the shooting.

With two video cameras and a radio link.


Its you who seems to think the father of the kids should have been telepathic.

"the more I look at the role and behaviour of this reporter/cameraman team the more their behaviour stinks to high heaven."

So now they dserved it too?

"Look at the video Lox, there was no dad driving by with his kids, had that been the case the helicopters would have seen and reported the van approaching long before they did"

Ok - looked at the video ...

The cameras are trained on the crowd of men - hence they were too busy to see anything else.

There is no evidence of where the Van came from, where it was going or whether it had been on the road for 1 minute or 2 hours before getting there.

"Van is disabled"

No - Van is pulverized along with its occupants, for picking up a wounded man and showing no interest in any weapons.

As if it would have 'remained enabled' if it hadn't been 'disabled'

Was this Van hiding teribus? packed full of insurgents ready to sneak out and pick up survivors and weapons in case they got blown up?

were the kids already on board?

Or , in the two minutes between 0554 an 0707 did some guy quickly round up a group of mates, AND HIS KIDS and then drive the 50 yard from his house to where he had just seen a crowd of men demolished by machine gun fire?

This suggestion is delusional in the extreme.

When the attack happened, the Van was already on the road with the children inside it.

Te driver had no idea what had happened, he simply saw a wounded man crying for help and stopped to help.

Your idea that he was nearby watching the crowd, saw them blown to smithereens, and got his friends and kids to jump in the van before nipping over to collect weapons and survivors of a failed ambush attempt that you insinuate he probably knew about all along is utterly preposterous.

It is particularly preposterous as if he did see it he would have seen that they were splattered by rapid fire, and he would have gone nowhere near the place for a long time by himself, let alone with kids.

Sorry mate, but your powers of deduction are letting you down on this occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 11:33 AM

"Which is why more died when people started getting hit by V1's and V2's particularly the latter as they fell without warning albeit that they were launched from more than 5 km away"

What is the point here - that like the driver in the Van they bear responsibility for their own death?

And what about the anderson shelters that were flattened by V2's?

I think the death toll increase which correlated with the use of V2's had as much to do with the V2's horrendous destructive power as with the elemant of surprise.

However, the part of the comparison which does apply is that the people who were killed by V2's were civilians in their own homes, being subjected to ruthless attacks from an invisible foreign force.

The similarity is that neither the heli crews in the video, nor the launchers of V" rockets gave a monkeys about civilians being killed. I imagine the German missile crew laughed in much the same way as the Americans.

Sadly, unable to see the carnage they had inflicted, they were unable to comment "nice" as they sat back and and enjoyed their "engagement" party.

The difference is, that the Americans in this case could see everything and could have done it differently. the similarity, so the evidence shows, is that neither the heli crews in the video, nor the launchers of V2 rockets gave a monkeys about civilians being killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 01:59 PM

Lox it becomes obvious that you have neither looked at the full video, or read the transcript.

So the two, two man crews of those helicopters cannot chew gum and walk at the same time? What do you think that they are trained to do? they are trained to observe and note movement, it is their operational function. If that van was on the move before and during that incident and it was approachiing the spot then the crews of the helicopters would have seen it and reported it.

By the bye whgat's your guess for why the Reuters men were not wearing their helmets and jackets? Dying to hear that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 03:54 PM

""What do you think that they are trained to do? they are trained to observe and note movement, it is their operational function. If that van was on the move before and during that incident and it was approachiing the spot then the crews of the helicopters would have seen it and reported it.""

Ther might have been some mileage in this comment were it not for the fact that the arseholes were totally focussed on the men they were itching to kill, as evidenced by the fact that they hovered waiting to put more lead into any of the victims who showed any sign of life, and spent the last minutes of the action pleading with a dying man to "Please pick up a weapon, Any Weapon", and begging their controller (what a joke, they were out of control) for permission to fire.

They were so engrossed that they wouldn't have noticed anything on the road until it came into sight of the camera of the camera. That is why the first mention of the van is made as it comes to a halt.

Even if it had been parked round the corner, they should have noticed it sooner than that. They saw only what was in their gunsights.

And I don't give a flying fuck what you think of me, Teribus, because I don't think your opinion as to the proper treatment of foreigners has much, if anything, to do with military procedure. Your views obviously correspond rather well with those of the men who were tried at Nuremberg.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 04:17 PM

"By the bye whgat's your guess for why the Reuters men were not wearing their helmets and jackets? Dying to hear that one."

Indeed Teribus.

You assert that they were knowingly about to photograph an ambush on some American troops.

So why weren't they wearing their protective gear?

That sounds like a pretty dangerous operation!

You've shot yourself in the foot with that one I'm afraid.

In the words of the Heli pilot: " ... ha ha ... nice ... "


"the crews of the helicopters would have seen it and reported it."


Well then they must have seen here it came from ...

... or did it just materialize out of thin air ...

that's how they saw it. It caught them completely by surprise.

Why didn't they see a crowd of men and children getting into it if their observational skills are that good?

Were they too busy chewing Gum and walking and shooting up journalists simultaneously?

How good are the US military at multitasking?

Should they have had a woman on board?

No wait ...

IRAQI insurgents must be using TARDIS technology nowadays?

Oh my God!

One of them could have had a sonic screwdriver on his person!

Phew! Just as well The Yanks got them before they started tampering with the fabric of spacetime!!


Teribus, I feel I am finally entering a sphere of reality in which your comments make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:08 AM

As I said in my last comment Lox, it is obvious that you have not bothered to look at the video or read the transcript. Like the way that the timeline difference of 05:54 to 07:07 equates in your mind to two minutes, according to my calculations it amounts to just over a minute, 1 minute 13 seconds to be exact. By the way who arrived on the scene first the van or someone on foot who appeared to be directing the dirver of the van? Watch the video. Until you have there is no point addressing issues such as dead ground and blind spots, no point bringing to your attention remarks made about the advance of the US ground forces and the fact that there was no civilian traffic using the roads in the area at the time of the incident.

This priceless gem we get from Don T:

They were so engrossed that they wouldn't have noticed anything on the road until it came into sight of the camera of the camera. That is why the first mention of the van is made as it comes to a halt.

Even if it had been parked round the corner, they should have noticed it sooner than that. They saw only what was in their gunsights.

The helicopter gunship/ assault helicopter was primarily designed to take on armoured formations in Europe. During the Cold War, were it ever to go "Hot" we were told that the life-expectancy of any aircraft flying above 200ft inside the combat area would be something like 15 seconds. Bear that thought in mind Don when you then consider what you have to train the crew of such a machine to do operationally. A two man crew Don T, how do you think they split up their responsibilities, or do you think that they both single-mindedly stare transfixed down their "gunsights". Ever heard of multi-tasking Don or do you just leave that sort of thing to your wife. Also make some attempt to explain the comments regarding the off camera approach of US ground forces if the crews of the helicopters were so transfixed, explain why they can see two groups moving yet nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 07:28 AM

"A two man crew Don T, how do you think they split up their responsibilities, or do you think that they both single-mindedly stare transfixed down their "gunsights"."

If I remember rightly, one was talking and the other was shooting ...

"I'll talk and you shoot"

"By the way who arrived on the scene first the van or someone on foot who appeared to be directing the dirver of the van?"

Oh - so the driver was actually going somewhere else and was flagged down?

He didn't know where any incident had happened, and the person who asked him to help had to show him?

Well that is interesting.


Teribus - you are displaying a level of incomprehension not seen since Baldrick from the comedy show Blackadder.

IN 1 MINUTE 13 SECONDS ARE YOU REALLY SUGGESTING THAT THE DRIVER QUICKLY ROUNDED UP A GANG OF ASSOCIATES AND CHILDREN, GOT THEM INTO A VAN AND THEN KNOWINGLY DROVE THEM INTO AN AREA THAT HAD JUST BEEN STRAFED WITH MACHINE GUN FIRE?

HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO GET YOUR KIDS INTO A CAR IN A HURRY?

HOW QUICK COULD YOU GET YOU KIDS INTO A VAN IF YOU WERE DELIBERATELY GOING INTO AN AREA THAT HAD JUST BEEN STRAFED BY MACHINE GUN FIRE?

What utter bollocks

the van was already on the road and your attempts to prove otherwise are utterly insane.

It reminds me of the old joke:

Q: How many police officers does it take to break an egg?

A: It fell down the stairs Sir.

In this case, how much of your family can you squeeze into your van before driving round the corner into bombsite, all in 1 minute and 13 seconds.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: olddude
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 10:02 AM

Without name calling which is not productive here are my thoughts for what they are worth.

1) Any reporter working in a war zone is required to inform the military units they are assigned to as to where they will be ... clearly this was not done or if it was done, a major screw up occurred.   Failure to do so will get them sent home by the military. In this case it cost them their lives

2) In urban warfare every soldier, pilot or any member of the military is taught that at any moment in time there will be on the ground, bad guys, CIA agents, civilians, and civilian medical personnel religious groups and the list goes on. That is why a confirmation of an order to engage is necessary.

3) The pilot believed there was a threat, however reviewing the film I cannot see weapons after reviewing several times. Was the pilot justified, yes he was given the order to engage. Was the engagement necessary ... No not from what I seen. They were too quick to pull the trigger since they were not under fire at the time and the situation was being monitored.

War is a terrible thing and mistakes happen, but this mistake should not have happened in my opinion. And I do know a thing or two about urban warfare and counter terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 10:43 AM

And you KNOW all of this how Lox??

What do you think that the van was there for Lox??

What were the children doing in the van Lox??

Why were they both sitting in the front passenger seat??

Have children been used in the past in terrorist attacks in Iraq involving cars/vans?

1. The group of so called civilians were armed insurgents about to set up an ambush. Reuters had been invited there to film it.

2. The van was parked up close to where the incident took place, I say that as neither helicopter saw it approach the area, but they could see the approaching US & Iraqi Patrols.

3. The reason the van was there was to provide a get away vehicle for those taking part in the ambush.

4. The children were in the vehicle seated as they were to be obvious to anyone manning any check-point the van might approach after initially getting away from the scene of the ambush. The children Lox were camouflage. In Baghdad there have been instances of children being left in car bombs that the insurgents park and walk away from, the car is then detonated by the "freedom fighters" when they are a safe distance away. In this instance Lox what sex were the children, male or female? My guess both were female, I know that at least the first one discovered was, could that be significant in any way??

All the above is supposition, but it is borne out more by what happened and the reaction to what happened at the time, than your fairy tale of innocent bystander just bimbling across the mother of all fire-fights in his van with his two children and who then decides to risk not only his own life but the lives of his supposed children (lets face it we do not know for certain who the children belonged to) for complete and utter strangers who could for all he knew turn out to be a sectarian militia out to kill his branch of the muslim religion (Or let me guess Lox, you know for a fact that they were all Sunni Arabs, oddly enough I haven't seen that information posted anywhere)

Reading down through this thread I appear to be the only person who as looked at this incident with anything that would be described as an inquiring mind and I have thrown up some questions that really do need to be answered if the party line as told by MSM and Wikileaks wants to stand up to serious scutiny - The rest of you have just followed your own particular bias and swallowed an inaccurately reported story presented to paint as black a picture as possible hook-line-and-sinker.

All that apart. The crews of those two Apache Helicopters on the day did the job that they were there to do, and as such no blame attaches. The Reuters employees behaved like bloody idiots considering the situation, they knew that they were getting into. Those on the ground believed that they had been hit by ground fire, note none of them are ever seen looking upwards to see the aircraft firing at them. The man directing the van, was pointing out where it appeared not to be safe for the van to go.

"HOW QUICK COULD YOU GET YOU KIDS INTO A VAN IF YOU WERE DELIBERATELY GOING INTO AN AREA THAT HAD JUST BEEN STRAFED BY MACHINE GUN FIRE?"

I answered that question a lot further down the thread Lox. As a parent there is no way on God's earth that I would ever load my children into a van and deliberately drive them into an area that had just been straffed by machine gun fire, I would be doing my utmost to get them out of there in the opposite direction as quickly as possible, or getting them behind the biggest and most solid all round cover that I could find.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:21 AM

""A two man crew Don T, how do you think they split up their responsibilities, or do you think that they both single-mindedly stare transfixed down their "gunsights". Ever heard of multi-tasking Don or do you just leave that sort of thing to your wife. Also make some attempt to explain the comments regarding the off camera approach of US ground forces if the crews of the helicopters were so transfixed, explain why they can see two groups moving yet nothing else.""

Two men, one begging to be allowed to shoot an unarmed dying man and focussed entirely on his gunsight, the other occupied with controlling a very complex helicopter (not an easy task), avoiding power cables, buildings, and other potential dangers, and therefor focussed on the immediate surroundings of his aircraft.

Normally the observer/gunner would be directing the pilot, and warning him of potential dangers, but he had other things on his mind, didn't he?

In supporting these actions, you emphasise what I had already realised, that you are one sick bastard, and not worth the bother of talking to.

Bye
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:15 PM

Ah Don T your extensive experience coupled with that of Lox have missed one important point.

The "You shoot, I'll talk" remark was made from the one helicopter observing because it was not in a position to fire to the second helicopter that was in a position to fire, and the person being talked to was the Air Controller and the CO of the troops on the ground. It was not simply the Pilot of one Helicopter talking to his Gunner/Weapons System Operator.

In supporting these actions, you emphasise what I had already realised, that you are one sick bastard, and not worth the bother of talking to.

Not at all Don T I read an account and challenged what that account said and the way it was presented. You, Lox & Co swallowed the story "hook-line-and-sinker" at face value because it pandered to your particular set of prejudices. If ever you are on trial before a Jury, Don T best hope for Juror's like me, who actually question what they read and what they are told. With a Jury packed with clowns like yourself you'd be as good as hung before you even entered the Dock.

It's the mindless acceptance of the other sides propaganda and the idiotic assumption that they always tell the truth while your side always lies that is so bloody idiotic - as I said earlier in the thread our enemies know that they are at war, our servicemen and women know that we are at war, I know we are at war, the sooner that you realise that we are at war the better - in war BOTH SIDES LIE, BOTH SIDES USE PROPAGANDA, get used to it and question what you have been told, especially by a media hell bent on making as much profit as they can out of the situation by taking every opportunity they can to pour petrol on the fire. It has been decades since ever I took at face value anything that I have read in the western press. Within fourteen days of this incident happening Reuters had seen every bit of evidence and every scrap of coverage that existed on what happened that day. OK the period was July 2007, what has been Reuters subsequent coverage of this story? Had they thought that anything was amiss they would have been screaming it from the roof-tops for over two-and-a-half years by now. They haven't - ask yourself WHY??

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 02:29 PM

""It's the mindless acceptance of the other sides propaganda and the idiotic assumption that they always tell the truth while your side always lies that is so bloody idiotic - as I said earlier in the thread our enemies know that they are at war, our servicemen and women know that we are at war, I know we are at war, the sooner that you realise that we are at war the better - in war BOTH SIDES LIE, BOTH SIDES USE PROPAGANDA,""

So what are you saying Teribus?

That the Media dubbed that slimy gloating gun crazy commentary from the gunner?

Propaganda?.....A gunner who would have fired on that poor dying journalist if he had picked up a stone to throw. In fact was pleading with him to pick up a weapon, and give him an excuse.

A scenario more in keeping with a Clint Eastwood movie........"Go on Punk! Make my day. And it really did make his day, didn't it?

He got the chance to kill the journo, and shoot up a van.

And that's all propaganda, is it?

I'd have thought there might be something in the training along the lines of "When your target is so full of lead he can't even turn onto his back to see who murdered him. When he can't haul himself five yards into cover. When the nearest weapon might as well be twenty miles away, for all the chance of his reaching it. THAT is the time to stop shooting him, not the time to beg for permission to finish him off.

That "propaganda" was an execution!

Don T.

Sheesh!

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

"OK the period was July 2007, what has been Reuters subsequent coverage of this story? Had they thought that anything was amiss they would have been screaming it from the roof-tops for over two-and-a-half years by now. They haven't - ask yourself WHY??"

They did. From 2007.

The problem here Teribus is this war happened where ordinary people live. For all your slightly hysterical defence of this atrocity (even defending the shooting of unarmed people) you can't seem to accept that this was simply wrong. They didn't look at the helicopter because they probably didn't know it was there; the van driver went to the aid of Nameer Noor-Eldeen out of compassion and a desire to help and in all likelihood would not have driven his children into the path of a trigger-happy cowboy had he known it was there.

From the transcript:

"Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle."

Defend that comment - I dare you. This could have been said in any theatre of war since the year dot and it would still be wrong, unless you sanction the killing of children in battles.

You said: "On that van, the time difference between the first phase of shooting ending and the van pulling up was just over one minute"

How far can you travel in a van in a minute? A mile? Half a mile in city streets? In a van half a mile away when the shooting happened in a built up area and you expect the guy to drive past a dying man?

From the Press Gazette.

At the word each fiend advances,
Iraq's blood yet dimmed their lances;
Entering hamlet, town or village,
Marked their way with blood and pillage.

Some things don't change and it seems so many are unable to learn from history.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 04:33 PM

Jack,

But Teribus had explained all that ... no really ...

The Van, with all its occupants, including the children, wwa hiding round the corner like a little cat, ready to jump out and pick up the group of 8 men.

Thats why the Van was full of people.

Its much easier to get 8 armed men into a van when its already full of people than when its empty, and of course they move so much faster that way too.

Teribus,

I haven't bought any story.

I've watched a video and been disgusted by it.

The only account I have had the privilege of commenting on has been yours.

And it stands up to about 1 minute and 13 seconds of scrutiny.

And your Aggressive bullish way of arguing is not going to change the fact that you are talking out of your arse, nor is it going to save your preposterous hypothesis from utter collapse.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 05:07 PM

Oh yes Jack - I forgot, the driver of the Van had no sense of direction, since, even though he was hiding round the corner, he neded to be shown the way ... according to Teribus ...

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 05:33 PM

More over emotional claptrap from Don T that brings nothing whatsoever to this discussion. The crews of those helicopters were doing their job which at the time was to protect US and Iraqi ground forces from an ambush that was being set for them on their line of advance. Get over it.

Sugarfootjack:

"OK the period was July 2007, what has been Reuters subsequent coverage of this story? Had they thought that anything was amiss they would have been screaming it from the roof-tops for over two-and-a-half years by now. They haven't - ask yourself WHY??"

You gave us two links "They did. From 2007" and "From the Press Gazette" SugarFoot those links refer to articles written on 20th July 2007 and the 16th July 2007 calling for an investigation into the incident that occurred on Thursday 12th July 2007.

Now what did subsequent reports state again??

Within 14 days of the incident taking place all evidence, all camera footage, voice tapes and photographic evidence was reviewed by Reuters Staff in Baghdad

14 days on from the 12th of July gives you what date SugarFoot - one that comes after the 20th of July possibly?? OK now give us the Reuter reports providing the hue and cry that post date the 26th July, 2007.

Lox, if the van was on the move how come neither helicopter (And I am assuming here that you do realise that there was more than one helicopter present) spotted its approach?? Yet in the transcript both crews can see and comment on the approaching US troops and vehicles who are also off camera. Apart from those vehicles moving not another vehicle is commented on apart from the van as it drew up next to the wounded man, so any vehicle making a longer approach to the scene would have stood out like a ball on an billiard table.

Of your eight men the Reuters crew had their own transport so would not need a lift would they - so we are now down to six

How many of those involved lived immediately local to the ambush site?? I do not know but there again neither do you. But for some reason you seem to automatically discount the possibility - Bias and willingness to always believe the worst. There would be locals there to take and hide the guns, you cannot after all risk having them found in the van at some check-point during the getaway had things gone to plan.

From what I could see on the video there were four armed men, three with AK-47's and one with an RPG-7 Grenade Launcher, it would be those men who would have needed a lift out of there in a hurry, so it is not eight people who had to get into the van only four.

Now here is another odd thing about incident K6936 as recorded by Iraq Body Count.org, this covering the initial attack on those setting up the ambush; those killed when the van appeared on the scene; and finally those who fled the initial attack location and who ran into the building under construction who were killed by the three "Hellfire" missiles:

Of the 10 deaths recorded here, some personal information was reported for 3 of the dead. (These include the two Reuters Staff)

Only demographic information, without any identifying details, was available for 3 other people recorded killed.

Neither personal nor demographic information was reported for 4 other people killed in this IBC entry.

So these were all peaceful law abiding locals out for a stroll were they?? But yet there is only real information on three of them, sketchy information on three others and no information at all on the remaining four - Oh how many had I estimated would have required a lift out of the area pdq as soon as the ambush had been sprung - 4 wasn't it??

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 07:57 PM

More of the same crap, supporting an avid, eager, gloating killer.

Won't wash mate! Whatever justification you offer for following ROE, it doesn't cover shooting unarmed dying men, who are no possible threat to anyone, and it doesn't cover the attitude displayed by this US psychopath.

And no matter how YOU choose to categorise my posts on this subject, I am entitled to my opinion, and the more crap I see from you, the more I think you are worse than the killers, and I would be willing to bet that I am more in tune with the majority of right thinking people than you will ever be.

Whether you like it or not, what separates us from the terrorists is our refusal to accept their methods. On that basis, the gunner on that chopper was a murdering terrorist.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 08:30 PM

Teribus,

Your last post is full of even more contradictions than your previous ones.

It is also the most wildly imaginative.

The only thing that you have said that i agree with is something I said long before, which is that there is no evidence to show where the Van came from or where it was going.

Your supporting argument seems to be that the crew didn't see it, therefore it must have been waiting nearby.

and on that premiss you have built a whole imaginary scenario.

It no longer merits attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 12:28 AM

No more imaginary than the one you and Don T have constructed, in fact on evidence there is more to support my contentions than the fiction that the US killed a group of innocent unarmed civilians (Both known and shown to be untrue) that included two Reuters employees.

I have no doubts at all that the van was parked nearby, otherwise its approach would have seen and commented on long before it pulled up by the kerb.

Innocent locals just out strolling about? Then why were the Reuter's men summoned to the scene? Why was nobody apart from the Reuters men carrying any form of identification?

Don may froth at the mouth and call me names and attribute to me beliefs and codes of behaviour that are just pure guesswork on his part, but the pair of you have accepted as the gospel truth a story that has more holes in it than a collander, I have questioned it, and guess what Lox, the more I look and examine the situation, the circumstances and known facts of the incident, the more it looks like I have a better grasp of the facts than either of you have. None-the-less you will believe whatever concoction the Press will throw up provided that it paints the US forces in a bad light, I will rely on reason, logic and what the evidence supports to make my mind up about the incident.

End result is that the crews of those helicopters did not commit murder, they engaged three targets fully in accordance with the ROE in force at the time, and they did the job that they were supposed to do. If Don should bother to check, I am on record on this thread disapproving the attitude shown by those commentating on the events from the helicopters, but even then the full story and background is not known, so I reserved judgement on the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 03:54 AM

"Why was nobody apart from the Reuters men carrying any form of identification?"

It's not really a Police State yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: Lox
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 05:02 AM

"None-the-less you will believe whatever concoction the Press will throw up provided that it paints the US forces in a bad light"

Teribus,

You haven't been reading have you.

I have already informed you that I have bought into no story, but made comments based on the video.

As for the story thet i have allegedly concocted, which story is that?

That the Van was a convenient coincidence?

Well first - that was said in response to your concocted story, so to suggest that I have put forward any kind of hypothesis of my own is highly misleading.

Secondly, I have repeatedly stated that You and I know NOTHING about the whereabouts of the Van before it drove into the square.

And Third, the list of ridiculous circumstances surrounding the Vans occupants and manner of arrival shows that any idea that it was part of a planned operation is just plain delusional twaddle.

This is borne out by the fact that the vans numerous occupants made no attempt to gather up any weapons.

Why is that Teribus?

Why none of this crack team of van borne militants run and gather any weapons?

Your hypothesis is that that is what they were there to do.

Did they forget?

Just as the Crack Getaway driver forgot the way and had to be shown where to go ...

Actually, I think its Teribus whos been at the Crack.

Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 05:26 AM

100