|
06 Apr 10 - 10:51 AM (#2880710) Subject: BS: In the end the truth comes out. From: Lox This video makes me so proud. Lets tie a yellow ribbon round the old oak tree and pray for our brave boys safe return. Brave Boys ... Teribus is right really - its a hard job but somebody has to be there to do it. |
|
06 Apr 10 - 10:58 AM (#2880713) Subject: RE: BS: In the end the truth comes out. From: Lox The best bit is when the Van with children in it comes to help an unarmed survivor and bring him to hospital. Makes me wanna holler ... The military and the monetary ... |
|
06 Apr 10 - 12:50 PM (#2880788) Subject: RE: BS: In the end the truth comes out. From: Little Hawk It's always "a hard job" trying to conquer the world. No one has yet succeeded. Not Caesar, not Tamerlane, not Hitler, not Napoleon, not Stalin, not the British, not the Spanish, not Tojo, not the USA either. But think of the money made for an elite few while the effort goes ahead. |
|
06 Apr 10 - 08:33 PM (#2881063) Subject: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Charley Noble Here's a video that I don't have the stomach to watch but documents how things can go very wrong when we're occupying a country and fighting off an insurrection: click here for report Here's the summary: The Web site WikiLeaks.org released a graphic video on Monday showing an American helicopter shooting and killing a Reuters photographer and driver in a July 2007 attack in Baghdad. Charley Noble |
|
06 Apr 10 - 09:22 PM (#2881079) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Riginslinger Gives new meaning to the concept of shooting the messenger, what? |
|
06 Apr 10 - 09:24 PM (#2881081) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: ichMael http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=wikileaks+baghdad&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= Been posted several places on youtube. Grab it while you can. They'll yank this one. The videos also show them shooting up a van with kids in it and then joking about how you shouldn't bring kids to a war zone. |
|
06 Apr 10 - 11:25 PM (#2881129) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity What a drag! |
|
07 Apr 10 - 01:26 AM (#2881166) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: GUEST,rvana 38 mins is too long to watch on flaky internet connection, so please how do you download it ? |
|
07 Apr 10 - 05:33 AM (#2881224) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Leadfingers In discussion (MudChat) some time ago , it transpired that US News Media had not said anything about "Friendly Fire incidents ! As far as I recall , American forces killed three times as many British soldiers as the Iraqis did in the First Iraq war |
|
07 Apr 10 - 06:09 AM (#2881237) Subject: RE: BS: In the end the truth comes out. From: Stu Ah - a mudelf removes a post. Censorship in the face of slaughter - wonderful.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
07 Apr 10 - 08:42 AM (#2881320) Subject: RE: BS: In the end the truth comes out. From: GUEST,Neil D The 39 minute video is actually almost 1 hour, if it's the same one I watched on Youtube last night. The timer pauses at 39:11 but the video keeps playing for 20 minutes. That same helicopter flies to another location after killing the people in the street and launches 3 missiles into a building where 6 armed men are purported to be hiding. |
|
07 Apr 10 - 09:09 AM (#2881326) Subject: RE: BS: In the end the truth comes out. From: Bobert Let's not forget Ike's warnings... |
|
07 Apr 10 - 09:18 AM (#2881330) Subject: RE: BS: In the end the truth comes out. From: Riginslinger But what happened to his party? |
|
07 Apr 10 - 01:29 PM (#2881493) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Joe Offer Well, this Wikipedia entry says 47 British soldiers were killed during the Gulf War. I suppose it's possible that the US killed 35 and others 12, but it seems a bit unlikely. Still, "friendly fire" IS a significant factor. I didn't see weapons in the hands of any Iraquis in the video - could it be they all were unarmed? -Joe- (rvana, if you go to YouTube and click on the play -> button, the video will begin to download and play. If you push the pause || button, the video will stop but will continue to download (you will see the download bar moving). When the download is complete, push "play.") |
|
07 Apr 10 - 04:46 PM (#2881629) Subject: RE: BS: In the end the truth comes out. From: Little Hawk What happened to both of those parties? |
|
07 Apr 10 - 04:53 PM (#2881632) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Charley Noble It was reported today in the newspapers that the U.S. Armed Forces are unable to find their own copy of the video so they compare it with what's running on-line. Well, that's what happens when someone orders the video destroyed. Too bad! Charley Noble |
|
07 Apr 10 - 05:19 PM (#2881647) Subject: RE: BS: In the end the truth comes out. From: Ebbie I hope these two threads get combined. |
|
07 Apr 10 - 05:32 PM (#2881662) Subject: RE: BS: In the end the truth comes out. From: McGrath of Harlow It appears from the only press stories I've seen about this is that the priority for the USA military authorities is finding out how this tape got leaked. They want to make sure it doesn't happen again. No more leaks, that is... |
|
07 Apr 10 - 05:38 PM (#2881667) Subject: RE: BS: In the end the truth comes out. From: The Fooles Troupe "Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work." Now we see why. |
|
07 Apr 10 - 07:34 PM (#2881747) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T "American forces killed three times as many British soldiers as the Iraqis did in the First Iraq war"" Digging into Wiki a little deeper, the following:- Enemy fire:- 38 killed. Friendly fire:- Courtesy of an A10 Tankbuster not recognising two British "Warrior" personnel carriers - 9 killed, 11 wounded. Looks like more than a reversal of the above statement to me. Don T. |
|
07 Apr 10 - 07:54 PM (#2881758) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T That video was stomach churning, and the worst of it was listening to that helicopter crew drooling over the prospect of shooting up a crowd (most of whom were clearly not carrying weapons, as they were in shirt sleeves, and couldn't have concealed anything more lethal than a hand gun), and begging their controller for permission to murder them all. The camera might have caused some doubt, but any British gunner would have made sure before firing, and been more selective in choosing targets. That Gung Ho arsehole chewed up the entire street with exploding munitions which were never meant to be used on human bodies, Isn't that a breach of the Geneva Convention? He kept shooting till nothing was moving. Then he proceeded to shoot up some guys who tried to take the sole remaining survivor of the first attack to safety. This survivor was the Reuters' journalist, and they killed him, shot up his rescuers, then riddled the van hitting two children inside. No wonder the US military wanted to cover it up. I reckon there are grounds for a number of Courts Martial, with twenty years in the stockade at the end. Sheer cold blooded murder, performed with the gleeful enthusiasm of a psychotic serial killer. Don T. |
|
07 Apr 10 - 07:55 PM (#2881759) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: akenaton In fairness to the scum doing the shooting, the guy looking out from behind the wall seemed to have a grenade launcher...but very difficult to be sure. More important was the demeanour of the victims before the shooting. they did not look suspicious or furtive...made no attempt to conceal themselves as they moved down the street. The attitude of the shooters to the wounded children was typical of people brutalised by war. I have read that killing becomes addictive, that was apparent in the shooter's wish for the wounded man to pick up a weapon....any weapon, just to give him the excuse to blow the wounded man to pieces! "liberalism" is in safe hands in Afghanistan....:0( |
|
07 Apr 10 - 09:30 PM (#2881805) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe My Dad was in the RAAF in WW II & my mother's dad was in both World Wars. They both knew many US serviceman personally, my mother's sister married one! They both had views which they would not shout out about about how'the only way not to be shot up by Yanks' was if they were not there... and that the Yanks couldn't be allowed to have full auto fire weapons cause they would run out of ammo too quickly... The more things change, the more they stay the same... just got more deadly weapons. I personally know many nice, intelligent Americans. |
|
07 Apr 10 - 10:47 PM (#2881847) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: CarolC I reckon there are grounds for a number of Courts Martial, with twenty years in the stockade at the end. I tend to doubt that they will be punished in any way. |
|
07 Apr 10 - 10:50 PM (#2881848) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: CarolC Keep in mind that this happened a few years ago. If the military and the government had any problem whatever with what these people did, they would have had the courts martial a long time ago rather than burying this video like they did. It was a whistle blower in the military who leaked the video. The military people didn't want anyone to see it. |
|
07 Apr 10 - 11:36 PM (#2881860) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: GUEST,TIA Just asking Akenaton... What the fuck does "liberalism" have to do with any of this? |
|
08 Apr 10 - 02:09 AM (#2881884) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "What the fuck does "liberalism" have to do with any of this?" Nothing other than distracting 'spin'. |
|
08 Apr 10 - 05:32 AM (#2881962) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Stu "that was apparent in the shooter's wish for the wounded man to pick up a weapon....any weapon, just to give him the excuse to blow the wounded man to pieces!" I noticed that too - sickening doesn't even begin to describe it. |
|
08 Apr 10 - 06:04 AM (#2881973) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: CarolC I tend to think that the behavior of that guy who was wishing the wounded man would pick up a weapon is very common in the US military. We apparently have a lot of people in our military who enjoy killing other people. I'm the admin for the Code Pink Facebook group (I'm not a member of Code Pink, myself, I'm just the admin for the Facebook group). There is another Facebook group called, "Fuck Code Pink", in which members of the US military and their friends and family describe numerous times, almost daily, all of the ways in which they would like to kill members of Code Pink. And like the shooter who was hoping the wounded man would pick up a weapon, they're looking for reasons to want to kill Code Pink members. Someone photoshopped a picture of some Code Pink members holding a banner that originally said, "Women Say No To War", and they changed it to say, "We Support The Murder of American Troops", which of course, attracts even more people who express a desire to kill members of Code Pink. |
|
08 Apr 10 - 06:37 AM (#2881993) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "We apparently have a lot of people in our military who enjoy killing other people." I'm not sure it's confined to just the US military... there's lots of US nutters with guns NOT in the military. |
|
08 Apr 10 - 06:59 AM (#2881999) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: CarolC Yes, that's true. It does seem to be a part of our national culture. Which probably explains why it's so much of a problem in our military. |
|
08 Apr 10 - 09:26 AM (#2882080) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Charley Noble "any British gunner would have made sure before firing" And I seriously doubt if this behavior is unique to US military. It's common behavior that surfaces in any insurrection, whether it is the Battle of Algiers, Bosnia, Malaysia, Ruanda/Rwanda, or Columbia. Sad but true. And the individuals responsible should be court-martialed. Charley Noble |
|
08 Apr 10 - 01:37 PM (#2882222) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: akenaton "Just asking Akenaton... What the fuck does "liberalism" have to do with any of this?" Well Tia,Its called irony. Our respective governments would have us believe that we are in Afghanistan to fight terrorism and promote our brand of "liberal democracy", but as you can see from the video, we "liberals" are just as adept at practicing terrorism as the "towel heads". BTW...I dont think the US forces are any worse than other nationalities, the problem is modern warfare. It's conducted at a distance we dont get our hands bloody anymore, there is no longer the chance that the natives get lucky and spear a couple of our guys Modern "sanitised" warfare is a definate step down the ladder of human behaviour. What we saw on video was bad enough, but the unmaned drones which target houses and groups of people with very little idea of who those people are, or if there are women and children in the buildings, are ten times worse. Isn't it disgusting what we allow to take place in our name, then salve our consciences with talk of tolerance and equality and human rights......Oh doesn't it feel GOOD to be a "liberal"! |
|
08 Apr 10 - 03:49 PM (#2882313) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: McGrath of Harlow The US forces may well be no worse than other nationalities - but, unlike most countries, the USA - alongside China, Russia, and Israel - has refused to sign up to the International Criminal Court, so there is no effective prospect of prosecutions for any war crimes, even in theory. |
|
08 Apr 10 - 08:23 PM (#2882499) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Charley Noble I also seriously doubt if the copter crew is sleeping well thee days either. What a record to have posted on the internet for all to view. Of course they are still alive. Charley Noble |
|
09 Apr 10 - 06:09 AM (#2882689) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus July 2007, the height of the "insurgency" in Baghdad and central Iraq. Having watched through the long version of the gun camera footage, we have coverage by two Apache Attack Helicopters acting in support of at least two US ground elements, one dismounted who have been under attack and the second one still in their vehicles moving through the area. The Apaches are "looking ahead". At 03:39 into the recording - you see a group of four men two of whom are clearly armed (Man standing on the extreme left is carrying an AK-47 one of the men in the centre of the group is carrying an RPG-7) At 04:06 into the recording - this group of four men move behind a building out of sight, the Reuters cameraman and Reporter had moved there earlier. At 04:08 the man previously seen carrying the RPG-7 is seen crouched down looking round the corner, in this shot can be seen the exhaust cone at the rear of the RPG-7. Number of points raised by the article linked to by Charlie Noble: 1. Reuters employees were allowed to view the video on an off-the-record basis two weeks after the killings, but they were not allowed to obtain a copy of it. So since at least August 2007 Reuters have known all about the incident and had actually viewed the incident. So there has been no cover-up. 2. On the day of the attack, United States military officials said that the helicopters had been called in to help American troops who had been exposed to small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades in a raid. "There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force," Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad, said then. But the video does not show hostile action. Instead, it begins with a group of people milling around on a street, among them, according to WikiLeaks, Mr. Noor-Eldeen and Mr. Chmagh. The pilots believe them to be insurgents, and mistake Mr. Noor-Eldeen's camera for a weapon. They aim and fire at the group, then revel in their kills. That the US ground elements had come under fire is not disputed, although they had not yet come under fire from the group that the Apaches were observing, a group positioned "up ahead" of the advancing US Patrols. No-one contributing to this thread so far has addressed those circumstances or even acknowledged them as being contributing elements in what transpired. While calls for courts-martial and demands for lengthy prison sentences have been loudly called for, no-one has asked about, or gone to any effort to determine exactly what "Rules Of Engagement" were in force at the time. There will be no courts-martial, and neither should there be as judging by traffic between Callsign Hotel 26 (Controller?) and Crazy Horse 18 (Helo) the former would have live-feed and he would witness and sanction the action. From the opening coverage the situation as shown justifies the actions taken depending upon the ROE in force at the time. 3. A short time later a van arrives to pick up the wounded and the pilots open fire on it, wounding two children inside. "Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle," one pilot says. This is taken from the article Charlie linked to, and is an example of the bias in reporting this incident. Watch through the "long version" and you will find out that it is only some time after the ground troops arrive on the scene that the actual presence of the two children is even detected, by those ground troops themselves. The Helo is ordered to open fire on the van to prevent removal of personnel and weapons. At the time of opening fire the crew of the firing Apache had no idea whatsoever about who, or what was inside the van. As to the pilot's remarks? OK folks or any of you that are parents had you been driving that van with your two kids beside you and you had seen what had happened, would you have driven up there to help? Options open to you would be to call an ambuance; get the kids out of the car and in a safe place, then gone and helped; Or would you all have done exactly as this blithering idiot did just barrel up there jump out discuss the situation, hang about chatting then decide to take the guy to hospital? Action zones are dangerous places, it pays you in spades to keep well clear of them as bad things can happen, and often do. 4. Reuters said at the time that the two men had been working on a report about weightlifting when they heard about a military raid in the neighborhood, and decided to drive there to check it out. In other words "Curiosity killed the cat". Where were their blue "PRESS" Flak-Jackets and Helmets? Exactly how did they "hear about a military raid in the neighbourhood"? I take it that being locals these guys knew which end was up? If covering a story one would think that they had all their kit in their car or van. Being experienced, or supposedly experienced, I would count myself to be the biggest C**T in creation were I to amble into a situation such as that without wearing anything to clearly identify me as a Reporter and accredited member of the international press and an even bigger C**T to wander about carrying anything that looked even remotely like a weapon in a position in advance of US Troops who had already been under attack. I mean just what the hell were they thinking about?? And the answer to that rhetorical question of course is that they were just not thinking at all. 5. "There had been reports of clashes between U.S. forces and insurgents in the area but there was no fighting on the streets in which Namir was moving about with a group of men," Reuters wrote in 2008. "It is believed two or three of these men may have been carrying weapons, although witnesses said none were assuming a hostile posture at the time." Reports of clashes yet these men are improperly dressed to meet a posible encounter situation? I take it that their transport was "Marked Up" so that it could be identified as a vehicle carrying "Press" representatives? No "believed" about it some of those who greeted these two reporters were carrying arms, as reported later weapons were recovered from the scene. Where does this crap about assuming a hostile posture come into the equation? It cannot be in ROE as it is a nonsense as it takes less than a second to shift a weapon from non-hostile to hostile position (People spend hours practicing exactly that skill with whatever weapon it is that they carry). 6. The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees "made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them." Again from the article linked by Charlie - Just about covers it all. As an exercise in demonstrating poor judgement and monumental stupidity the actions of those Reuters employees beggars belief and to totally condemn those members of the US armed forces out of hand is monstrous. What these guys did acting in the manner that they did was tantamount to committing suicide, they should have know better. |
|
09 Apr 10 - 06:47 AM (#2882709) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Stu Teribus, sometimes you just have to admit something was wrong. |
|
09 Apr 10 - 07:20 AM (#2882722) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "to wander about carrying anything that looked even remotely like a weapon" Well as other films have shown, carrying cameras, stretchers and all sort of things look remarkably "like weapons" to drugged up spaced out pilots with itchy trigger fingers - and even being in Allied Tanks with all the magic identifying paraphernalia never stopped US "blue on blue". "in a position in advance of US Troops who had already been under attack" Unlike you they did not posses infallible telepathy that informed them of where US troops were. "I take it that their transport was "Marked Up" so that it could be identified as a vehicle carrying "Press" representatives?" So that has not always saved journalists before now - just how many have died? |
|
09 Apr 10 - 09:26 AM (#2882804) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus Question for you Foolestroupe (This from the article linked to by Charlie Noble) 4. Reuters said at the time that the two men had been working on a report about weightlifting when they heard about a military raid in the neighborhood, and decided to drive there to check it out. The words "military raid" not much telepathy required to guess what it was they thought that they were going to check-out. If you are going to carry a camera in such a situation make fuckin' sure that it looks like a camera to the world and its dog whether they are watching or not - That would have saved them from being identified as potential insurgents all sort of things look remarkably "like weapons" to drugged up spaced out pilots with itchy trigger fingers You know that, I know that, are you trying to tell me that two experienced Reuters Reporters did not know that?? If they did they didn't pay an attention to the application of commonsense on that particular occasion and they paid the price for it. Responsibility and duty of those flying those helicopters was the safety and security of the forces they were protecting, they looked to that responsibility, no US forces were injured or killed. Armed insurgents amongst that party on that street corner intent on killing US forces however were killed. Drive around in a big white van marked with PRESS in as large lettering as can be used on both sides; the rear; bonnet and on the roof - That would have saved them from being identified as potential insurgents |
|
09 Apr 10 - 10:08 AM (#2882844) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""In fairness to the scum doing the shooting, the guy looking out from behind the wall seemed to have a grenade launcher...but very difficult to be sure."" I would have agreed with that, Ake, but for the fact that they had just circled him, as they watched him walk across the street, with the camera slung over his shoulder. No military man would have thought that was a grenade launcher, neither did he ever point it in the direction of the chopper, which would have been a prerequisite for a British Gunner to engage. Also, when they opened fire, the group had gathered round the Cameraman, and were simply talking. At that point it would have been impossible for him to use an RPG, without producing five or six crispy critters with the back blast. Sorry mate. For me, still cold blooded murder. Don T. |
|
09 Apr 10 - 10:15 AM (#2882851) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I also seriously doubt if the copter crew is sleeping well thee days either. What a record to have posted on the internet for all to view. Of course they are still alive."" Sorry to burst your bubble Charlie, but, knowing there is no chance of retribution, those guys have probably been dining out on that story ever since, and are almost certainly pleased that others than their mates can see what rough, tough, heroes they are. To call them scum is insulting to scum. Don T. |
|
09 Apr 10 - 10:26 AM (#2882859) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""At 03:39 into the recording - you see a group of four men two of whom are clearly armed (Man standing on the extreme left is carrying an AK-47 one of the men in the centre of the group is carrying an RPG-7)"" Nice try Teribus, but in the shorter version of that video, the cameraman and the journalist were clearly identifed as being in that group crossing the open space. The one you describe with an RPG-7 was the cameraman, and it was he that was seen kneeling at the corner, with his camera pointing across the street. At no point did the "barrel" lift toward the chopper, he simply panned left and right. When the shit hit the fan, he was one of the two men who ran to the gunner's right. Neither man was carrying anything. The gunner walked his tracers right into them. Twist it how you like, that gunner wanted to kill everything in sight, and finished off with a callous dismissal of shooting two kids. Making excuses for them would, in my opinion, make you as bad as they were. Don T. |
|
09 Apr 10 - 11:56 AM (#2882916) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus No, the cameraman and the reporter were identified as targets potentially armed because of what they were carrying on straps over their shoulders. In the video they walk directly over to the shadow of building. As they cross the street that is when you see the group of four men at 03:39 into the video coverage, as stated before the one on the extreme right is holding an AK-47, while one of the men in the centre of the group is holding an RPG-7. Please do not say that they weren't, remember the weapons were found and photographer in situ when the US forces arrived at the scene. But let us take your version of events: Your cameraman, what was he doing? What was he expecting to see round that corner? Why did he at no time at all raise the eye-piece of the camera to his face and look down the viewer? No military man would have thought that was a grenade launcher: Look at the video again and compare the dark object projecting round the corner to the tail-end of this http://poznanie.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/rpg-7aa.jpg neither did he ever point it in the direction of the chopper, which would have been a prerequisite for a British Gunner to engage. Firstly the guys hanging around that street corner had no idea that they were under observation of two helicopters. 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. Our, i.e. UK ROE would have directed the mission in exactly the same manner, where on earth did you get this crap about weapons having to be aimed or pointed at you before they are regarded as being threatening? Our ROE stipulate if they are carrying a gun then they are fair game and a legitimate target. Also, when they opened fire, the group had gathered round the Cameraman, and were simply talking. At that point it would have been impossible for him to use an RPG, without producing five or six crispy critters with the back blast. When the guy with the RPG looked round the corner he was just checking, he had no intention of firing at that point, which was why the RPG-7 was still slung over his shoulder. 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. |
|
09 Apr 10 - 01:19 PM (#2882976) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: McGrath of Harlow ...remember the weapons were found... That's pretty well standard operating procedure when unarmed civilians have been shot. |
|
09 Apr 10 - 02:58 PM (#2883035) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: GUEST,CS The most interesting thing for me was the assertion by the authorities that this was perfectly normal behaviour for military forces. All quite normal and usual, nothing out of the ordinary going on here - move along folks. This is the most troubling thing. It begs the question, if this isn't anything unusual how many regular civilians who do not happen to have the support of a major organisation like Reuters are being routinely blasted by brain-dead jerk-offs with big 'bam bam'? |
|
09 Apr 10 - 04:05 PM (#2883092) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus Kevin, have a look at the video from about 03:39 onto 04:08 a group of four men three of them are clearly carrying weapons (two with AK-47's and one with an RPG-7) so so much for the standard-operating-procedure-when-unarmed-civilians-have-been-shot crap. More likely than not your two reuters men were probably invited along, or at least tipped the wink, by some insurgent group that a bunch of Americans were going to get whacked and asked if they wanted a ring-side seat. Unbeknown to this bunch of insurgents the Apaches were already onto them and the hunters became the hunted. To try and pass this thing off as being 100% the fault of the US Military is ridiculous, there were a large number of contributing factors that would have made recognition plain as a bloody pikestaff and the Reuters guys ignored them all. One thing is for certain, going by attitude and body language the two Reuters guys were well known by the group they approached. As for the guns and grenades photographed at the scene, those photographs were shown to Reuters Staff within two weeks of the incident and there did not seem to be any questions from them then. The inference of the whole recent disclosure appears to attempt to foster the lie of some sort of cover up when in fact there was no cover up and as with any instance of live firing there is a debrief and investigation to analyse the action from start to finish, immediately the guys come in from patrol or land. |
|
09 Apr 10 - 05:15 PM (#2883156) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe Ah teribullbus - again ...:-) "Our ROE stipulate if they are carrying a gun then they are fair game and a legitimate target." Oh I see - shoot first & ask questions later. You admit it. "Drive around in a big white van marked with PRESS in as large lettering as can be used on both sides" 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... "those photographs were shown to Reuters Staff within two weeks of the incident ... The inference of the whole recent disclosure appears to attempt to foster the lie of some sort of cover up when in fact there was no cover up" "The most interesting thing for me was the assertion by the authorities that this was perfectly normal behaviour for military forces. All quite normal and usual, nothing out of the ordinary going on here - move along folks." 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. The US Military wants to prevent 'the softening of public moral fibre' that happened when the truth started to leak out in the Vietnam conflict. |
|
09 Apr 10 - 05:35 PM (#2883171) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: GUEST,David E. "More likely than not your two reuters men were probably invited along, or at least tipped the wink, by some insurgent group that a bunch of Americans were going to get whacked and asked if they wanted a ring-side seat." I am agreeing with Teribus on this one. David E. |
|
09 Apr 10 - 05:45 PM (#2883183) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "Just asking Akenaton... What the fuck does "liberalism" have to do with any of this?" It allows Ake to be the centre of attention. Instead of talking about the thread topic, we all end up, for the ten thousandth time, wasting time reading about how this is just an example of Akes fully comprehensive world socio/political/economic theory. In fact, just abut everything that has ever happend in history if proof of Akes theory, and as noone would pay any attention to a thread entitled "Liberalism - the new Fascism" he is forced to hijack every thread going and turn it into a diatribe anaginst the "liberal fascists". When noone is paying any attention, he throws us a bit od conroversy to stir things up - stuff like "the bnp have a point" or "my goan mate says moslems think they're bettr than us" or " gays are a scourge" or "immigrants take our jobs and our benefits" or "tinkers are dodgy" etc etc etc. I think that sums it up once and for all for me. |
|
09 Apr 10 - 06:06 PM (#2883194) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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." This is pesumably based on your deep end extensive experience as a resident in a warzone where people you know have been mutilated and killed. In the Blitz, while the rest of London was helping each other to survive, Teribus would have refused to stop his van and help a guy dying on the ground. Or maybe teribus thinks that the father was irresponsible bringing his kids into a warzone ... ... er ... I think the warzone was brought to their home Teribus ... They were residents, passing through their own neighbourhood, helping a dying man. By the way, the oject being pointed around the corner was not an RPG. It was a camera completely exposed so you could see the full length of the lens, the camera itself, and a gap where the hands were holding it. As for the Pilots, they are lusting for blood. No amount of circumstance or pomp may change that. They lust for it and they enjoy spilling it. Are you really backing them up? |
|
09 Apr 10 - 07:55 PM (#2883288) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
09 Apr 10 - 08:10 PM (#2883304) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Charley Noble 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 |
|
10 Apr 10 - 03:20 AM (#2883467) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus "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) "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) "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." 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. |
|
10 Apr 10 - 08:03 AM (#2883576) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
10 Apr 10 - 08:22 AM (#2883582) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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 |
|
10 Apr 10 - 08:24 AM (#2883583) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "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... :-) |
|
10 Apr 10 - 08:44 AM (#2883589) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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). |
|
10 Apr 10 - 09:04 AM (#2883595) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
10 Apr 10 - 09:09 AM (#2883596) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "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. |
|
10 Apr 10 - 10:02 AM (#2883617) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: catspaw49 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 |
|
10 Apr 10 - 10:36 AM (#2883637) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "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! |
|
10 Apr 10 - 10:47 AM (#2883645) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
10 Apr 10 - 12:49 PM (#2883712) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Riginslinger And there are probably still some unarmed Reuters Reporters out there. |
|
10 Apr 10 - 01:19 PM (#2883723) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: olddude 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. |
|
10 Apr 10 - 02:38 PM (#2883766) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
10 Apr 10 - 05:05 PM (#2883852) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Charley Noble 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 |
|
10 Apr 10 - 05:20 PM (#2883862) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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? |
|
10 Apr 10 - 07:20 PM (#2883924) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
10 Apr 10 - 08:00 PM (#2883943) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
10 Apr 10 - 09:12 PM (#2883976) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Charley Noble 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 |
|
11 Apr 10 - 01:08 AM (#2884027) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Riginslinger It's a good point that the press people should have had the proper indentifying clothing and etc. I wonder why they did not. |
|
11 Apr 10 - 03:38 AM (#2884050) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: akenaton 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 |
|
11 Apr 10 - 03:57 AM (#2884054) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
11 Apr 10 - 05:12 AM (#2884076) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Stu 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. |
|
11 Apr 10 - 05:31 AM (#2884082) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
11 Apr 10 - 07:02 AM (#2884118) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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). |
|
11 Apr 10 - 08:19 AM (#2884163) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
11 Apr 10 - 10:56 AM (#2884226) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus "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. |
|
11 Apr 10 - 11:18 AM (#2884241) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
11 Apr 10 - 11:33 AM (#2884248) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
11 Apr 10 - 01:59 PM (#2884317) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
11 Apr 10 - 03:54 PM (#2884369) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
11 Apr 10 - 04:17 PM (#2884375) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
12 Apr 10 - 01:08 AM (#2884597) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
12 Apr 10 - 07:28 AM (#2884724) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
12 Apr 10 - 10:02 AM (#2884787) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: olddude 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. |
|
12 Apr 10 - 10:43 AM (#2884810) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
12 Apr 10 - 11:21 AM (#2884838) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
12 Apr 10 - 01:15 PM (#2884907) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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?? |
|
12 Apr 10 - 02:29 PM (#2884950) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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! |
|
12 Apr 10 - 03:02 PM (#2884968) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Stu "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. |
|
12 Apr 10 - 04:33 PM (#2885017) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox 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. |
|
12 Apr 10 - 05:07 PM (#2885039) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox 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 ... |
|
12 Apr 10 - 05:33 PM (#2885061) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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?? |
|
12 Apr 10 - 07:57 PM (#2885137) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T 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. |
|
12 Apr 10 - 08:30 PM (#2885180) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox 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. |
|
13 Apr 10 - 12:28 AM (#2885320) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
13 Apr 10 - 03:54 AM (#2885381) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "Why was nobody apart from the Reuters men carrying any form of identification?" It's not really a Police State yet? |
|
13 Apr 10 - 05:02 AM (#2885411) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
13 Apr 10 - 05:26 AM (#2885416) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe 100 |
|
13 Apr 10 - 08:35 AM (#2885499) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Charley Noble 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 |
|
13 Apr 10 - 12:15 PM (#2885655) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
13 Apr 10 - 01:07 PM (#2885690) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox 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. |
|
13 Apr 10 - 04:21 PM (#2885794) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
13 Apr 10 - 04:38 PM (#2885818) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
13 Apr 10 - 04:41 PM (#2885821) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
13 Apr 10 - 05:39 PM (#2885861) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Charley Noble 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 |
|
13 Apr 10 - 06:10 PM (#2885886) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "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... |
|
13 Apr 10 - 06:13 PM (#2885888) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "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? |
|
13 Apr 10 - 06:28 PM (#2885894) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "War is God's way of teaching Americans Geography" - Ambrose Bierce |
|
13 Apr 10 - 06:42 PM (#2885909) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T 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. |
|
13 Apr 10 - 06:53 PM (#2885924) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "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? |
|
13 Apr 10 - 07:00 PM (#2885934) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe US forces in the Pacific WWII did practice 'take no prisoners' - this is just the modern example. |
|
13 Apr 10 - 08:12 PM (#2885991) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Charley Noble 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 |
|
13 Apr 10 - 08:21 PM (#2885997) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Charley Noble 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 |
|
14 Apr 10 - 03:36 PM (#2886632) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
14 Apr 10 - 08:11 PM (#2886823) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Charley Noble 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 |
|
15 Apr 10 - 12:39 AM (#2886946) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
28 Apr 10 - 07:55 PM (#2896306) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe Posted in another thread Why Iraq Was a Mistake Apache helicopter gunners talk good game 'so the people don't seem real' 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
|
|
28 Apr 10 - 08:02 PM (#2896311) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Charley Noble Makes sense to me. Charley Noble |
|
29 Apr 10 - 06:15 PM (#2896916) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe 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. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 12:13 PM (#2897349) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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." |
|
30 Apr 10 - 02:56 PM (#2897446) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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! |
|
01 May 10 - 01:18 AM (#2897847) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "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.... :-) |
|
01 May 10 - 10:44 AM (#2898005) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
01 May 10 - 11:06 AM (#2898014) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
01 May 10 - 01:02 PM (#2898074) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) "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. |
|
01 May 10 - 06:06 PM (#2898227) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "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... |
|
01 May 10 - 06:31 PM (#2898246) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus "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. |
|
01 May 10 - 06:43 PM (#2898253) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe " 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. |
|
01 May 10 - 08:56 PM (#2898329) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox 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" |
|
02 May 10 - 03:39 AM (#2898437) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
02 May 10 - 05:02 AM (#2898451) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "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. |
|
02 May 10 - 05:36 AM (#2898457) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
02 May 10 - 06:05 AM (#2898465) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
02 May 10 - 06:48 AM (#2898473) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
02 May 10 - 07:03 AM (#2898475) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
02 May 10 - 07:08 AM (#2898476) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "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? |
|
02 May 10 - 11:30 AM (#2898560) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
02 May 10 - 01:21 PM (#2898626) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: 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"? 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 ... |
|
02 May 10 - 03:12 PM (#2898671) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: olddude 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. |
|
02 May 10 - 03:25 PM (#2898686) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: olddude 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 |
|
02 May 10 - 06:37 PM (#2898773) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "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? |
|
02 May 10 - 06:46 PM (#2898778) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
02 May 10 - 06:55 PM (#2898787) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
02 May 10 - 07:06 PM (#2898792) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox 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. |
|
02 May 10 - 07:07 PM (#2898794) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
02 May 10 - 07:13 PM (#2898798) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus 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. |
|
02 May 10 - 07:17 PM (#2898803) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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. |
|
02 May 10 - 07:19 PM (#2898808) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus "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!! |
|
02 May 10 - 07:23 PM (#2898812) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus PS Lox - Ever heard of commonsense?? You and the "father" of those children in Baghdad seemed to have left it at home behind them them, in reviewing the events of the 12th july 2007 That I say as a parent. |
|
02 May 10 - 07:24 PM (#2898814) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "As a parent, they did not ring true with me" Food and water aren't high priorities for you when you raise kids? Maybe you need a little reality check. I've been in a situation where money was extremely tight, and I was worried about the risks to my daughters well being as a result. I came very close to having nothing and believe me mate, I had 2 priorities. 1. a secure home for my daughter 2. hot dinners on the table. Everything else is an afterthought. Suffice to say that she never knew anything about the uncertainty of our situation, and her memory consists of nothing but security, safety, a full stomach and happiness. So don't dare to lecture me on the priorities of a parent. |
|
02 May 10 - 07:27 PM (#2898816) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus PPS Lox: Applying commonsense to the events of the 12th July 2007 had I been the father of those children they would both still be alive as would, in all probability, the Reuters man who was crawling along the pavement. |
|
02 May 10 - 07:34 PM (#2898822) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "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." Wriggle wriggle. Innaccurate emotive crap? Well you seem to be the master of inaccurate ... ... emotive? your veins are sticking out, you've gone purple and there's steam coming out of your ears to the point that you have to resort to abuse and feeble attempts to get under my skin to shore up your useless assault. That looks pretty emotional from where I'm sitting. |
|
02 May 10 - 07:37 PM (#2898824) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus "As a parent, they did not ring true with me" Food and water aren't high priorities for you when you raise kids? Maybe you need a little reality check. Now let me see Lox you live where?? Certainly nowhere where your children, or taking what you say at face value, your daughter, live is she going to be deprived of food and water - so please stop the meaningless emotive crap - It is you who need the reality check - get back to me when your daughter has completed her second degree and is doing the job she always wanted to do - I in those respects have passed the test of parenthood. You, according to your own principles, with your daughter in a van in Baghdad on the 12th July 2007 would have suceeded in getting both you and your daughter killed. I on the other hand would have made sure all my children were safe, primarly because that is my job and my primary responsibilty as a parent - TRUE?? |
|
02 May 10 - 07:48 PM (#2898830) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox Stop it. You have stated that food and water are not priorities for a parent. They are a parents first priorities. Do you disagree? There's no point being somewhere safe if you die there of thirst or starvation. By the way, how do you know that the van wasn't fleeing violence somewhere else? How do you know whether those kids had to leave their 'safe hideout' or not? You don't. You have no idea about me or the people in the Van. And judging by your wildly inaccurate 'deductions' about my history and circumstances, it seems that you are no sherlock holmes. You have been so consistently wrong that it really is time to give up. |
|
02 May 10 - 07:54 PM (#2898832) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "Your priorities are those of someone who has no children FOOD is your Number 1 priority??" I get it - your wife did the cooking and went to the shops didn't she. You were the brave soldier stabnding guard at the garden gate. You really have very little clue of what it means to bring up a kid. I do it on my own - so I know what a parents priorities really are. By the way, I'm not enjoying this. You're probably a nice guy when you're not being such a stubborn git. I know I'm hurting you - as macho as you are - and I do not wish to do so any more. I sincerely wish you well. |
|
02 May 10 - 08:20 PM (#2898840) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe "And the terrorist organisation that claimed responsibility for this crime was who Fool??" So only 'official terrorist organisations' approved by you are allowed to terrorise civilians now w*nker? And so now you claim my experience of terror in a quiet city street is not 'relevant' - well your formal 'military experiences' where you were trained to deal with death and destruction aren't 'relevant' here either - have YOU walked down your street where you lived and death and destruction suddenly assailed you? I had left the house 5 min earlier and gone back cause I had forgotten something. If I had not, i would have probably been right in the middle of it, chatting to the girl serving in the shop. And to claim that a looney jealous ex-boyfriend publicly murdering a 15 year old and spraying bullets around all over the place is NOT TERROR - you are GENUINELY insane. You' a mindless bullying lunatic - not reading this thread anymore - goodbye f*ckw*t! |
|
02 May 10 - 08:29 PM (#2898846) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: olddude Teribus you do every US soldier discredit by your comments. How about this ... 1st gulf war ... 4 special forces personnel in a spider hole deep behind lines monitoring a major transport road. How about 2 iraq kids coming into the field kicking a soccer ball into the spider hole. The special forces told to do whatever they need to so they would not be found. All of the men saying we didn't come here to kill no kids ... the two girls went to town told everyone about Americans ... and the shit hit the fan ... probably 200 guys heavily armed against 4 .. almost of of ammo .. one shot up ... an apache came over and sprayed cannon and rocket fire on the field of bad guys or no one would be out ... That is the US soldier I know .. NOT one that fires on a van with KIDS HOT ZONE, yea you engage, was this a hot zone ... where you there?? I ask the question ... otherwise you don't engage even with weapons, unless ordered or fire upon. You know what the fuck you are talking about guy ... |
|
03 May 10 - 12:36 AM (#2898961) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus That is the US soldier I know .. NOT one that fires on a van with KIDS Point is Olddude, up until Ethan McCord looked into the inside of the van NOBODY KNEW WHO OR WHAT WAS INSIDE THAT VAN, certainly not the crews of those helicopters. I know that the wikileaks article tried to give every impression that they DID KNOW they were firing on children, but then that was the whole purpose behind the article, to paint as black a picture as possible. Now as you were moved to responding to what I have written perhaps you will answer the questions I specifically asked you: 1. Do you now concede that there were armed men in the group that was fired on? 2. Do you believe that the Rules Of Engagement in force on that day dictated that US Forces actually had to be fired upon before they in turn could respond? Now Olddude, I KNOW the answers to both of those questions, I want to know if you do, because until you honestly realise exactly what the US Forces were confronted with on that day, there is little point in discussing anything about it, now try dealing with reality. Deflecting the argument again Lox now address the point I made: You, according to your own principles, with your daughter in a van in Baghdad on the 12th July 2007 would have suceeded in getting both you and your daughter killed. I on the other hand would have made sure all my children were safe, primarly because that is my job and my primary responsibilty as a parent - TRUE?? |
|
03 May 10 - 12:45 AM (#2898967) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus Apologies Olddude your question: I ask the question ... otherwise you don't engage even with weapons, unless ordered or fire upon. You know what the fuck you are talking about guy ... Not only is your eyesight defective, your hearing must also be impaired - you don't engage even with weapons, unless ordered or fired upon Now if you are actually interested in the truth of what happened that day go back and read the transcripts, watch the video and listen to the conversation. At every point in the process the crews of Helos Hotel Two-Six and Crazy Horse One Eight inform as to what they are seeing and request permission to open fire from their Controller. All, repeat ALL, debriefings of this incident and subsequent reviews and investigations have proved that correct procedure and application of ROE in force WERE FOLLOWED to the letter. |
|
03 May 10 - 07:46 AM (#2899073) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: olddude teribus your point is well taken. i will review it again closer . i would like to read the full account |
|
03 May 10 - 06:04 PM (#2899378) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "You, according to your own principles, with your daughter in a van in Baghdad on the 12th July 2007 would have suceeded in getting both you and your daughter killed. I on the other hand would have made sure all my children were safe, primarly because that is my job and my primary responsibilty as a parent - TRUE??" Teribus - Neither you or I can say what we would have done in the same circumstances as the driver of the Van as neither of us has any clue about what those circumstances were. All we know is that it stopped to pick up a wounded man, who was probably screaming for help, and then as soon as that man was in the van, all the men who had helped get him on board jumped on board with him at which point the Van, which was already turning to go, tried to leave. Everything else that you have asserted has been fantasy that has utterly disintegrated in the face of the most shallow scrutiny. Your cruel attitude towards ALL the people in the van is based 100% on projection. |
|
03 May 10 - 09:44 PM (#2899502) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: olddude too much conflicting info on the web. the action taken still doesn't jive with my knowledge of engagement. the reason they are supposed to be so careful, you kill a civilian, you now have 10 more recruits to fight. i wasn't there but i would have lots of questions if it happened on my watch. doesn't appear legit on the surface. i wasn't there so i leave it |
|
04 May 10 - 10:49 AM (#2899789) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I know that the wikileaks article tried to give every impression that they DID KNOW they were firing on children, but then that was the whole purpose behind the article, to paint as black a picture as possible."" They certainly knew they were firing on an unarmed man, too badly wounded to crawl into cover, who was being carried by two more unarmed men. They knew that they had blown all the "armed" men to hell, including the one who was armed with a camera. And they knew that any weapons were down on the deck, and many yards out of reach of both the journalist, and the men from the van. There was nobody alive in sight, who constituted any threat to anyone this side of the grave, and they knew that too! Nobody, in or out of the van, had a weapon pointed at them, five k distant, and nobody moved one pace towards the weapons which were in sight. How could the article make them look any blacker than in fact they were, in their eagerness for another kill? Don T. |
|
04 May 10 - 05:50 PM (#2900093) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus Plain truth pure and simple. The crews of Helicopters Hotel Two Six and Crazy Horse One Eight did the job they were supposed to do. At every stage of of the incident they reported what they were witnessing and on each target as it was identified they requested permission to engage, they sought clearance to fire. They did all that knowing full well that there were US ground troops in the area who had already come under attack. They did that knowing full well that their conversations and their reports were being recorded and that their gun camera footage would be reviewed during debrief after landing. They did that knowing everything they said and di would be put under a microscope and examined. I will say it again - I would rather watch gun camera footage of insurgents and those who help them being killed than watch Reuters footage of US Forces and Iraqi Policemen being killed. No war crime - No murder. |
|
05 May 10 - 05:47 AM (#2900424) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I will say it again - I would rather watch gun camera footage of insurgents and those who help them being killed than watch Reuters footage of US Forces and Iraqi Policemen being killed. No war crime - No murder."" Tell us oh wise one, just which US troops and Iraqi policemen were under threat of destruction by an unarmed and wounded man, being carried by two also unarmed men, who made no attempt to reach any weapons, and were in the process of leaving the area when they were cut down by your slimy gloating hero. Your support of that action, which also led to the "collateral" (what a weasel word that is , to justify the careless killing of innocents) shooting of two children, is sickening in the extreme. Don T. |
|
05 May 10 - 09:45 AM (#2900527) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox Well there you have it ... ... Teribus has retreated to a strategy of sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating slogans. 'LA LA LA - I'm not listening' In his case, he has closed his ears and reverted to a modified version of a point he made earlier. "And I would far rather watch gun camera footage of these insurgents being killed, than watch Reuter's coverage of my son being killed." He therefore confirms my comments concerning the blind spot created by his sons circumstances. And that is basically the premiss of every argument you are going to hear from him. It is therefore unrealistic to expect an unprejudiced analysis from him. His opinion is better viewed as testimony, and evidence of some of the subtler consequences of these wars. |
|
05 May 10 - 04:49 PM (#2900801) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus Lox, Don T, neither of you has ever been in any situation in your lives where people have been desperately trying to kill you have you? Now the pair of you fuck off and ask the US soldiers on that patrol if they would have either preferred to fight through that ambush with the in-built risk of them being killed or seriously injured, or whether they would rather have had the crews of those helos do their job. Face it and live with it: 1. The two Reuters men fucked up badly by not wearing what they should have been wearing, but what the hell they were on to some award winning story showing US troops getting theirs eh? what the hell, perfectly understandable had their gamble paid of eh? 2. The driver of the van fucked up by driving into a whole rake of trouble, that anybody with even a modicum of commonsense would never have gone anywhere near as long as their arses pointed downwards Both part and parcel of the same ambush that was undoubtedly being set. I know you guys don't believe it but once the shit hits the fan it does become remarkably black and white, and depending upon what side you are on, the other guys ARE the bad guys along with anyone who is prepared to help them. For you to survive they all become targets. |
|
05 May 10 - 05:59 PM (#2900853) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Lox "Face it and live with it" Because that's what you have to do? No Thanks. I'll face it and react my own way, though I recognize that it is easier for me to be non partisan as my baby hasn't been dropped in it ... yet ... |
|
05 May 10 - 09:59 PM (#2901003) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Both part and parcel of the same ambush that was undoubtedly being set. I know you guys don't believe it but once the shit hits the fan it does become remarkably black and white, and depending upon what side you are on, the other guys ARE the bad guys along with anyone who is prepared to help them. For you to survive they all become targets."" Oh well, that explains it all. It was combat, so killing off a man too badly wounded to crawl, let alone fight, is fully justified. And please don't try to convince anyone here that he would not have been killed, even if the van had never come into the picture. That bastard's trigger finger was itching so bad, he was always going to find a reason to shoot. If you believe what you are saying, perhaps you would like to compose a letter of apology to all those executed Germans, for what our countries did to them. After all, you heartily endorse the kind of actions for which they were tried, convicted, and hanged. Don T. |
|
06 May 10 - 01:12 AM (#2901064) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus please don't try to convince anyone here that he would not have been killed, even if the van had never come into the picture. Had he been wearing what he should have been wearing there is every possibility that left on the pavement until the troops arrived he would have reached hospital and survived. That bastard's trigger finger was itching so bad, he was always going to find a reason to shoot. And if he had, he would have been charged, faced a court martial and been found guilty, because during the debrief on landing it would have been established that he had opened fire and engaged a target outwith his Rules Of Engagement without permission. |
|
06 Jul 10 - 12:17 PM (#2940700) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: GUEST,number 6 U.S. soldier to be charged for leaking this video biLL |
|
06 Jul 10 - 01:09 PM (#2940721) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Q (Frank Staplin) Pfc. Manning currently is being held in Kuwait awaiting decision on possible courtmartial for leaking the video. |
|
06 Jul 10 - 01:30 PM (#2940734) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: GUEST,number 6 yup ... The war machine keeps rolling on .... sad to say biLL |
|
07 Jul 10 - 10:22 AM (#2941180) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""And if he had, he would have been charged, faced a court martial and been found guilty,"" Yeah, Right! The only reason there is any discussion at all is that the attempt to brush the affair under the carpet was circumvented by a pfc with a sense of right and wrong, who now faces the court martial which by rights should be trying the trigger happy killer. But for pfc Manning, we wouldn't even know about it, so your assertions as to likely punishment don't exactly convince. Don T. |
|
07 Jul 10 - 10:39 AM (#2941190) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus Well Don, in the military you are judged by your actions. In the case in point: The Helicopter Crews 1) Those debriefing the pilots and the US ground troops on patrol that day had no problem with it. 2) Within fourteen days of the incident happening Reuters saw every scrap of coverage that MNF had of the incident, they saw every transcript and read all the reports and they had no problem with it. Hence no charges and no Court Martial Pfc Manning 1) An Analyst with Top Secret Security Clearance 2) Copied classified material onto his own computer knowing that to be in breach of regulations 3) Passed that classified material on to a foreign national knowing that to be in breach of regulations Hence Pfc Manning finds himself under arrest, charged and about to face Court Martial Seems pretty fair to me. |
|
07 Jul 10 - 09:17 PM (#2941517) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Well Don, in the military you are judged by your actions."" You reckon? If there were the slightest bit of truth in that, the American Military Hierarchy would, to a man, be on trial for permitting the torture and humiliation of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and the tacit agreement to torture by proxy after extreme rendition, to name just two of many instances. Both of those would have remained hidden, and continued unchecked, had it not been for whistle blowers with a conscience. Wrong guy on trial mate, and you are wasting your breath trying to make out these situations are acceptable. Don T. |
|
07 Jul 10 - 09:26 PM (#2941520) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: GUEST,Number 6 If it wasn't for Hugh C. Thompson, Jr. .. the My Lai Massacre might never have been known Hugh C. Thompson is a hero in my books. biLL |
|
07 Jul 10 - 09:28 PM (#2941521) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: GUEST,number 6 ... and I have to stress he's one hell of a hero. biLL |
|
08 Jul 10 - 09:36 AM (#2941726) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus I would agree with you 100% on that Guest Number 6 |
|
08 Jul 10 - 09:51 AM (#2941735) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: The Fooles Troupe So Mr T agrees that the same heroic action by two separate whistle blowers should result in one in history being decorated and the other current one being shot for treason... wibble, wibble.... |
|
08 Jul 10 - 03:00 PM (#2941924) Subject: RE: BS: Video of US Killing of Reuters Reporters From: Teribus If the current "whistleblower" committed treason then he should be charged and tried on that charge. I assume he took the action that he did knowing full well that what he was doing was committing an offence. the former "whistleblower" took his complaint up via the military chain of command. Different thing entirely. wibble, wibble indeed. |
