Wikileak'd video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children

[geauxtohell]

So you are backing away from this statement?:

Soldiers can do whatever they want because they were sent? Hmmm....might wanna ponder that.

Good. Lets keep it honest here.

You said you don't blame the pilots because they didn't cut the orders to be combat deployed. That means you assessed their actions by being deployed and not their specific choices.

I said I don't blame soldiers for making mistakes when they are thrown in a meat grinder if their intent was honest.

If I am going to blame anyone, it will be the politicians that sent them into the meat grinder.

I didn't say they are criminals. I clearly said they failed their Oath and Commissioned or not, they are still Officers.

Not all officers are created equal, and not all officers have the same burdens.

At any rate, so I understand you, you believe that any officer that went to Iraq failed their oath?

You know, an officer tried to play that card and it turned out badly for him.

I hate and hated our involvement in Iraq, but I never would claim it was something that an officer had the latitude to protest under the color of their rank. The military works for the people, the people elected Bush, Bush got us in this war, the people re-elected him.

How about we be realistic, here?

 

[Terral]

Hi Mayya:

That's very sad. Mistakes happen, but I think those boys were way too bloodlusty.

I just uploaded the uncut version of the Wikileaks video (see www.collateralmurder.com) to my Youtube Channel:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9A_-JU08Q0"]U.S. Military Murdering Innocent Reuters Journalists[/ame]

The U.S. Military is supposed to be fighting 'uniformed combatants' in a 'declared war' on the battlefield and NOT murdering innocent Reuters Journalists (story) on city streets sent there to cover the illegal invasion of another sovereign nation. There is no sign of any guns, but these reporters are carrying cameras. No American Soldier is under fire and nobody is shown in these pictures except innocent civilians. Every U.S. Citizen should be outraged that our U.S. Military, for our common DEFENSE, is being used against innocent civilians in other countries.

If Americans are willing to murder civilians in plain sight overseas, then U.S. Citizens can be murdered just as easily right here at home. America has transformed into a terrorist state and there is no rest and no peace for anyone in the Middle East. This murder of innocent reporters is no mistake at all, but each person was murdered very much on purpose. This is what happens when the military is allowed to 'police' civilians in any country (home or abroad) ...

GL,

Terral

 

[Liability]

Hi Mayya:

That's very sad. Mistakes happen, but I think those boys were way too bloodlusty.

I just uploaded the uncut version of the Wikileaks video (see www.collateralmurder.com) to my Youtube Channel:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9A_-JU08Q0"]U.S. Military Murdering Innocent Reuters Journalists[/ame]

The U.S. Military is supposed to be fighting 'uniformed combatants' in a 'declared war' on the battlefield and NOT murdering innocent Reuters Journalists (story) on city streets sent there to cover the illegal invasion of another sovereign nation. There is no sign of any guns, but these reporters are carrying cameras. No American Soldier is under fire and nobody is shown in these pictures except innocent civilians. Every U.S. Citizen should be outraged that our U.S. Military, for our common DEFENSE, is being used against innocent civilians in other countries.

If Americans are willing to murder civilians in plain sight overseas, then U.S. Citizens can be murdered just as easily right here at home. America has transformed into a terrorist state and there is no rest and no peace for anyone in the Middle East. This murder of innocent reporters is no mistake at all, but each person was murdered very much on purpose. This is what happens when the military is allowed to 'police' civilians in any country (home or abroad) ...

GL,

Terral

Upon closer inspection, it is abundantly clear that the guy peeking around the corner at and just before the time mark of 1:29 is carrying a ******* weapon. I see no basis to believe that the guys identified as carrying cameras were actually known to be carrying cameras (even if those were cameras). I heard nothing indicating that the guys on our side thought they were doing anything but taking out some shit armed with RPGs.

 

[eagleseven]

It's obvious that they believed the group of individuals had an RPG, and one of them damn well looked like he was preparing to fire (crouched behind cover). Given how a single RPG can take down a helicopter, I don't blame those men for firing.

Just watching the video, my heart jumped into my throat when one of the men crouched into a firing stance.

 

[geauxtohell]

It's obvious that they believed the group of individuals had an RPG, and one of them damn well looked like he was preparing to fire (crouched behind cover). Given how a single RPG can take down a helicopter, I don't blame those men for firing.

Just watching the video, my heart jumped into my throat when one of the men crouched into a firing stance.

Yeah, I noticed that too the first time I saw it. Since the odds of an RPG taking down a helicopter are slim (though it has happened), It didn't make my heart jump.

Whether there were RPGs or not, the only thing relevant is that the helicopter pilots perceived that there were RPGs and engaged.

 

[CurveLight]

So you are backing away from this statement?:

Soldiers can do whatever they want because they were sent? Hmmm....might wanna ponder that.

Good. Lets keep it honest here.

You said you don't blame the pilots because they didn't cut the orders to be combat deployed. That means you assessed their actions by being deployed and not their specific choices.

I said I don't blame soldiers for making mistakes when they are thrown in a meat grinder if their intent was honest.

If I am going to blame anyone, it will be the politicians that sent them into the meat grinder.

I didn't say they are criminals. I clearly said they failed their Oath and Commissioned or not, they are still Officers.

Not all officers are created equal, and not all officers have the same burdens.

At any rate, so I understand you, you believe that any officer that went to Iraq failed their oath?

You know, an officer tried to play that card and it turned out badly for him.

I hate and hated our involvement in Iraq, but I never would claim it was something that an officer had the latitude to protest under the color of their rank. The military works for the people, the people elected Bush, Bush got us in this war, the people re-elected him.

How about we be realistic, here?

There is a difference between making a mistake and what they did. The audio makes it clear not only were they not under the stress of fire but they were actually jubilant.

Everyone who takes the Oath has an obligation to stand by it and the UCMJ clearly states every order given is to be questioned for it's legitimacy. I know of two officers who refused deployment, the first was 6 years ago, and considering what they were facing, both were victorious.

You obviously don't know the UCMJ very well. It doesn't matter if you are an E-1 or a Five Star. Every soldier has the duty to question orders.

 

[CurveLight]

Hi Mayya:

That's very sad. Mistakes happen, but I think those boys were way too bloodlusty.

I just uploaded the uncut version of the Wikileaks video (see www.collateralmurder.com) to my Youtube Channel:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9A_-JU08Q0"]U.S. Military Murdering Innocent Reuters Journalists[/ame]

The U.S. Military is supposed to be fighting 'uniformed combatants' in a 'declared war' on the battlefield and NOT murdering innocent Reuters Journalists (story) on city streets sent there to cover the illegal invasion of another sovereign nation. There is no sign of any guns, but these reporters are carrying cameras. No American Soldier is under fire and nobody is shown in these pictures except innocent civilians. Every U.S. Citizen should be outraged that our U.S. Military, for our common DEFENSE, is being used against innocent civilians in other countries.

If Americans are willing to murder civilians in plain sight overseas, then U.S. Citizens can be murdered just as easily right here at home. America has transformed into a terrorist state and there is no rest and no peace for anyone in the Middle East. This murder of innocent reporters is no mistake at all, but each person was murdered very much on purpose. This is what happens when the military is allowed to 'police' civilians in any country (home or abroad) ...

GL,

Terral

Upon closer inspection, it is abundantly clear that the guy peeking around the corner at and just before the time mark of 1:29 is carrying a ******* weapon. I see no basis to believe that the guys identified as carrying cameras were actually known to be carrying cameras (even if those were cameras). I heard nothing indicating that the guys on our side thought they were doing anything but taking out some shit armed with RPGs.

You're a fuxxing Snitch *****. Don't even insult everyone here because we all know you reached a decision even before looking at the evidence.

 

[CurveLight]

It's obvious that they believed the group of individuals had an RPG, and one of them damn well looked like he was preparing to fire (crouched behind cover). Given how a single RPG can take down a helicopter, I don't blame those men for firing.

Just watching the video, my heart jumped into my throat when one of the men crouched into a firing stance.

What is the T mark for the "crouching behind cover?"

 

[Dr Grump]

You dems want to let the bad guys walk around in a war zone with rpgs and weapons and you don't know why you are considered to be weak on defense?

You want them to shoot at our soldiers first and you wonder why you are considered weak?

HA


You claim that you care about the soldiers hurt or killed in Iraq and it is you and those like you that make it harder for them to be successful.

These men were carrying weapons.. that has been confirmed. They did what they were supposed to do.

Pull your heads out of your asses and stop hating the US so much... you really are sickening.

"America, America uber alles..."

 

[geauxtohell]

There is a difference between making a mistake and what they did. The audio makes it clear not only were they not under the stress of fire but they were actually jubilant.

I am not understanding the disconnect here. You seem to think that an American Soldier has to first allow themselves to be pinned down by a hail of bullet fire before justifiably acting to counter it. That has never been how things have worked, and you should know it. Helicopters on a search and destroy mission don't have to be fired on before they fire back. No insurgent in their right mind would fire at an Apache. They fired because they believed they had identified some "bad guys". That's it. They may have been wrong, but their intent was to kill insurgents to protect the infantry and not to kill reporters.

Of course they were jubilant. They were under the impression they had killed insurgents. When the Union jubilantly screamed "Fredericksburg!" after they had butchered the South at Pickett's Charge, did that make them villains?

Do you object to what they did, or the fact that they were jubilant about it?

Everyone who takes the Oath has an obligation to stand by it and the UCMJ clearly states every order given is to be questioned for it's legitimacy. I know of two officers who refused deployment, the first was 6 years ago, and considering what they were facing, both were victorious.

And the other was Watada. If you consider a discharge under other than honorable circumstances as a "victory" then good on you. 99.99999999% of the military sees it as a massive black mark on a career.

Furthermore, the fact that their claims were never validated (that is to say the military never said: "You are right LT Watada! Iraq is illegal!") it means that the UCMJ did not buy their legal arguments.

You obviously don't know the UCMJ very well. It doesn't matter if you are an E-1 or a Five Star. Every soldier has the duty to question orders.

Okay, whatever. So now the entire military that deployed to Iraq without questioning the legitimacy of the war violated the UCMJ and their oaths?

Get real.

 

[Dr Grump]

. You seem to think that an American Soldier has to first allow themselves to be pinned down by a hail of bullet fire before justifiably acting to counter it.

Which has what to do with the OP in this thread? Hint: Nothing....

 

[Dr Grump]

Just watching the video, my heart jumped into my throat when one of the men crouched into a firing stance.

you must be a drama queen in your spare time. The thing I love about this video is its clarity. When I saw the guy crouching it looked like somebody hiding behind a wall and looking down the street. IOW, he was keeping most of his body behind a solid object..

anybody who watches that video (and therefore the airforce personal unless they were morons) will note the only time they even were aware of the copter was after it started shooting.....

Murder is murder and those guys are murderers....

 

[geauxtohell]

. You seem to think that an American Soldier has to first allow themselves to be pinned down by a hail of bullet fire before justifiably acting to counter it.

Which has what to do with the OP in this thread? Hint: Nothing....

You are right. The thread has evolved, as they tend to do, and I am addressing CL's points, which is considered the polite thing to do.

 

[CurveLight]

There is a difference between making a mistake and what they did. The audio makes it clear not only were they not under the stress of fire but they were actually jubilant.

I am not understanding the disconnect here. You seem to think that an American Soldier has to first allow themselves to be pinned down by a hail of bullet fire before justifiably acting to counter it. That has never been how things have worked, and you should know it. Helicopters on a search and destroy mission don't have to be fired on before they fire back. No insurgent in their right mind would fire at an Apache. They fired because they believed they had identified some "bad guys". That's it. They may have been wrong, but their intent was to kill insurgents to protect the infantry and not to kill reporters.

Of course they were jubilant. They were under the impression they had killed insurgents. When the Union jubilantly screamed "Fredericksburg!" after they had butchered the South at Pickett's Charge, did that make them villains?

Do you object to what they did, or the fact that they were jubilant about it?

Everyone who takes the Oath has an obligation to stand by it and the UCMJ clearly states every order given is to be questioned for it's legitimacy. I know of two officers who refused deployment, the first was 6 years ago, and considering what they were facing, both were victorious.

And the other was Watada. If you consider a discharge under other than honorable circumstances as a "victory" then good on you. 99.99999999% of the military sees it as a massive black mark on a career.

Furthermore, the fact that their claims were never validated (that is to say the military never said: "You are right LT Watada! Iraq is illegal!") it means that the UCMJ did not buy their legal arguments.

You obviously don't know the UCMJ very well. It doesn't matter if you are an E-1 or a Five Star. Every soldier has the duty to question orders.

Okay, whatever. So now the entire military that deployed to Iraq without questioning the legitimacy of the war violated the UCMJ and their oaths?

Get real.

"I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."
-- Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, presiding at Pablo Paredes' court-martial
Http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/05/13_cohn_navy-judge-protest.htm


That info is only about five years old so maybe in 2015 you'll be more caught up so we can discuss this topic on a more level playing field.

 

[Dr Grump]

They fired because they believed they had identified some "bad guys". That's it. They may have been wrong, but their intent was to kill insurgents to protect the infantry and not to kill reporters.

1) They were gung ho
2) They had plenty of time to identify these guys
3) Then again all sand ******* look the same don't they.
4) I'm sick to death of you jingoistic, nationalist 'patriots' who give a free pass to your guys no matter how disgusting their actions due to some misguided belief that if you criticise them you are somehow dissing the US military...

 

[geauxtohell]

Just watching the video, my heart jumped into my throat when one of the men crouched into a firing stance.

you must be a drama queen in your spare time. The thing I love about this video is its clarity. When I saw the guy crouching it looked like somebody hiding behind a wall and looking down the street. IOW, he was keeping most of his body behind a solid object..

anybody who watches that video (and therefore the airforce personal unless they were morons) will note the only time they even were aware of the copter was after it started shooting.....

Murder is murder and those guys are murderers....

? The video was shot by the Apache. The Airforce had nothing to do with this.

The point of CAS is to not be on top of whatever element they are going to engage. Hence the whole element of surprise thing.

The fact is that these Apaches were flying support for the infantry unit that was 300 meters away. They were taking them them out for the infantry, not for self preservation.

 

[Dr Grump]

? The video was shot by the Apache. The Airforce had nothing to do with this.

The point of CAS is to not be on top of whatever element they are going to engage. Hence the whole element of surprise thing.

The fact is that these Apaches were flying support for the infantry unit that was 300 meters away. They were taking them them out for the infantry, not for self preservation.

Fair enough re who the Apache belongs to. Down here there is no air attachment to the army.

Why they took them out still does not excuse what happened. It was premeditated murder as far as I'm concerned. And, no I'm not one of those people who hope for a perfect world where there will be no civilian casualties. That is inevitable in a war. But these circumstances were sickening. If those guys on the ground had been chanting, pumping AK47's into the air, looking up at the Apache etc, that would have been one volatile situation for sure, and it MIGHT have excused their actions. This was just gung-ho soldiers, and you can tell by what they were saying...

 

[CurveLight]

. You seem to think that an American Soldier has to first allow themselves to be pinned down by a hail of bullet fire before justifiably acting to counter it.

Which has what to do with the OP in this thread? Hint: Nothing....

It has a lot to do with the op. ROE are an essential element in debating the validity of the shooting.

My main beef with it is the pilots actively tried to justify what they knew was being recorded. The first time a pilot mentioned an rpg he was fishing for confirmation to justify firing. These assholes were jubilant before they killed the civilians.

 

[geauxtohell]

1) They were gung ho

Good. That's exactly what I'd want Apache pilots to be. We don't train them to sing Kum ba yah.

2) They had plenty of time to identify these guys

And they identified them as a threat to the ground unit. That might have been a mistake, but in a combat zone, it doesn't elevate to a criminal offense or even misconduct or dereliction of duty.

3) Then again all sand ******* look the same don't they.

That's pejorative and does nothing to buoy your claim.

4) I'm sick to death of you jingoistic, nationalist 'patriots' who give a free pass to your guys no matter how disgusting their actions due to some misguided belief that if you criticise them you are somehow dissing the US military...

Then you are talking to the wrong guy. I have opposed Iraq since the beginning.

Here's what I am sick of: arm chair quarterbacks who want to lynch our soldiers for doing their duty to the best of their ability and to the reasonable person standard because they disagree with the larger conflict.

 

[geauxtohell]

It has a lot to do with the op. ROE are an essential element in debating the validity of the shooting.

My main beef with it is the pilots actively tried to justify what they knew was being recorded. The first time a pilot mentioned an rpg he was fishing for confirmation to justify firing. These assholes were jubilant before they killed the civilians.

Then you've got larger issues. The military found, long ago via a 15-6, that these pilots acted in accordance with the ROE.

If you want to believe these pilots scripted their lines to justify killing innocents, I won't even try to dissuade you as you have stepped into the conspiracy zone.

I'll go with Occam's razor.