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

[CurveLight]

Ok... now that Curvelight has been totally schooled....

Something else is bothering me. It is very likely that these dudes that got killed by the Apache were engaging United States military.

Why were Reuters photographers with them? Does that bother anyone else? The military investigation, I believe, found that they were not wearing anythign that identified them as photographers.

I am not claiming they deserved to die. But are photographers and reporters photographing and reporting from the side of the enemy?

Where is the documentation showing who they were?

What the **** are you talking about?

Who the fuk you think Einstein? There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified. That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.

 

[Nonelitist]

Where is the documentation showing who they were?

What the **** are you talking about?

Who the fuk you think Einstein? There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified. That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.

Wow.. you truly are hopeless and ignorant.

I am done with this thread.

You are a supporter of terrorists and have a dislike of America. I truly feel sorry for you and hope that you haven't reproduced.

 

[CurveLight]

Curve... people are pretty much ignoring what you say now, so move on to another topic where you can hate America.

Dikwad ***** like you ignore any information you don like and replace available facts with fantasies. You just proved that by saying it is "likely these guys were engaging US military" when.....not only do you have no evidence of that...but while we have actual video showing they were casually walking around when they got shot! You fuxxing dumass! Keep ignoring that with your middle school tactics of "nobody likes you."

Are you really this stupid?

The investigation showed that the military in the area was being engaged. These dudes had weapons and were acting in a manner that suggested they were about to engage.
They were carrying weapons.

So move on from that argument. As a human being, you are embarassing me. I know it is hard to admit that this incident isn't what you had hoped it would be. Just admit it and move on. There will be other instances where you can assume your fellow Americans are worse human beings that homocidal terrorists.

Where in the video are they making any tactical moves?

How the fuk is a group of ten guys with a minimum of 7 unarmed going to engage anyone?

 

[CurveLight]

What the **** are you talking about?

Who the fuk you think Einstein? There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified. That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.

Wow.. you truly are hopeless and ignorant.

I am done with this thread.

You are a supporter of terrorists and have a dislike of America. I truly feel sorry for you and hope that you haven't reproduced.

ROTFL! When you know you cannot provide evidence for your claim you run like a ***** so nobody is surprised you're running.....

 

[geauxtohell]

Know what's sad? People are so fuxxing immature they don't care combat vets are accused of lying if they don't like the Vet's opinions. I'm at odds with ollie on a bunch of issues but when people tried to be dishonest about his service I smacked em down for that bullshit.

No, what's sad is that you felt the need to embellish in order to judge these pilots with you "I've been in similar situations" comment.

As I said, you brought it up, we called you on it.

Now go off and rant again about how dishonest I am.

 

[geauxtohell]

Quote the post where I said I handed out mre's to surrendering iraqi troops you lying ****.

You didn't. I was being snarky.

 

[geauxtohell]

Where is the documentation showing who they were?

What the **** are you talking about?

Who the fuk you think Einstein? There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified. That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.

You see, shit-for-brains, that's why you don't use an area kill weapon to engage point targets.

Or maybe you just think the American forces should have miracled a fuckign sniper up on the roof to selectively engage the guys with weapons.

Or maybe you can just get it through your dense skull that innocent people are inadvertently killed in combat.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Where is the documentation showing who they were?

What the **** are you talking about?

Who the fuk you think Einstein? There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified. That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.

That doesn't even correlate to the question you asked. You have spent this entire thread talking yourself in circles and haven't convinced anyone of anything.

 

[Liability]

What the **** are you talking about?

Who the fuk you think Einstein? There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified. That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.

That doesn't even correlate to the question you asked. You have spent this entire thread talking yourself in circles and haven't convinced anyone of anything.

bent tight is bent so tight he curves back on himself forming a circle -- a hole, so to speak.

 

[geauxtohell]

Who the fuk you think Einstein? There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified. That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.

That doesn't even correlate to the question you asked. You have spent this entire thread talking yourself in circles and haven't convinced anyone of anything.

bent tight is bent so tight he curves back on himself forming a circle -- a hole, so to speak.

I have no idea what bent-dick wants or is advocating for. Does he want the pilots prosecuted? Does he want all Apaches in Iraq permanently grounded? Does he want to further restrict the ROE?

What?

The only thing I know is that he's really, really pissed off about this.

 

[geauxtohell]

What the **** are you talking about?

Who the fuk you think Einstein? There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified. That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.

That doesn't even correlate to the question you asked. You have spent this entire thread talking yourself in circles and haven't convinced anyone of anything.

If only they had fired warning shots, the guys with weapons would have automatically dropped them and surrendered and the other unarmed people would have been so grateful for our benevolence that they would have started shitting gold bricks that were stamped and addressed to the U.S. Treasury.

And when CL was loading up AH-1s in the first Iraq War, he sprinkled his magic pixie dust on the rounds so they only hit bad guys. The other errant rounds spontaneously turned into rose petals.

 

[Liability]

That doesn't even correlate to the question you asked. You have spent this entire thread talking yourself in circles and haven't convinced anyone of anything.

bent tight is bent so tight he curves back on himself forming a circle -- a hole, so to speak.

I have no idea what bent-dick wants or is advocating for. Does he want the pilots prosecuted? Does he want all Apaches in Iraq permanently grounded? Does he want to further restrict the ROE?

What?

The only thing I know is that he's really, really pissed off about this.

I cannot tell you what's on bent tight's "mind," precisely, since my ability to translate his gibberish into English is limited by the fact that he's really quite incoherent.

I agree he does appear to be worked up over the fact that sometimes innocents get killed in time of war.

I can speculate that you will be on the receiving end, now, of one of his patented "you stoopid fuxxing ****" messages. Naturally, I'm even more likely to get one of those messages from him, now.

Oh, the horror. The horror.

 

[CurveLight]

Know what's sad? People are so fuxxing immature they don't care combat vets are accused of lying if they don't like the Vet's opinions. I'm at odds with ollie on a bunch of issues but when people tried to be dishonest about his service I smacked em down for that bullshit.

No, what's sad is that you felt the need to embellish in order to judge these pilots with you "I've been in similar situations" comment.

As I said, you brought it up, we called you on it.

Now go off and rant again about how dishonest I am.

Someone forgot to send me the memo that says I'm supposed to get all upset by your repeated accusations. I said what needed to be said on that in 116.

 

[CurveLight]

What the **** are you talking about?

Who the fuk you think Einstein? There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified. That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.

You see, shit-for-brains, that's why you don't use an area kill weapon to engage point targets.

Or maybe you just think the American forces should have miracled a fuckign sniper up on the roof to selectively engage the guys with weapons.

Or maybe you can just get it through your dense skull that innocent people are inadvertently killed in combat.

These people were not inadvertently killed you dumfuk. How can you make such a bowlshit statement?

 

[CurveLight]

What the **** are you talking about?

Who the fuk you think Einstein? There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified. That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.

That doesn't even correlate to the question you asked. You have spent this entire thread talking yourself in circles and haven't convinced anyone of anything.

It speaks directly to the point you reetarwd. We know at best there were 3 weapons, and I've yet to see any solid evidence weapons were present. (We know the camera equipment was blamed for the mistake). So think about it dumfuk....even giving your argument the benefit of the doubt and saying there were three weapons for the group of civilians, what is the evidence they were all insurgents? Did you even think to ask that? Minus the reuters journalists you've got more than 50% of unarmed civilians on the scene. What were they going to do? Throw hummus?

 

[geauxtohell]

Who the fuk you think Einstein? There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified. That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.

You see, shit-for-brains, that's why you don't use an area kill weapon to engage point targets.

Or maybe you just think the American forces should have miracled a fuckign sniper up on the roof to selectively engage the guys with weapons.

Or maybe you can just get it through your dense skull that innocent people are inadvertently killed in combat.

These people were not inadvertently killed you dumfuk. How can you make such a bowlshit statement?

Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

[CurveLight]

You see, shit-for-brains, that's why you don't use an area kill weapon to engage point targets.

Or maybe you just think the American forces should have miracled a fuckign sniper up on the roof to selectively engage the guys with weapons.

Or maybe you can just get it through your dense skull that innocent people are inadvertently killed in combat.

These people were not inadvertently killed you dumfuk. How can you make such a bowlshit statement?

Reading comprehension is your friend.

The pilots targeted every single person in their sights you reetawrded spunk funk. What in the hell is "inadvertent" about putting your crosshairs on people and pulling the trigger.

I understand you have this adolescent undertow compelling you to try and convince yourself you were correct when you said the apache gun can't be used to fire warning shots but that does not change nor dismiss the fact I've already proven it has been used in a similar situation where civilians were present and the pilots didn't know if they were friendly or not.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Unlike you, I admit my errors and rely on valid information so no wonder you are constantly whining about me. Maybe one day you too can learn to admit mistakes.....but I doubt it.

So you whine that you made a mistake and admitted it, but I don't admit mine?

If you were mistaken, that means I was CORRECT you dumb shit. There is no mistake of mine to admit.

But congrats on embracing your stupidity wholeheartedly.

 

[CurveLight]

Finally! Okay, my apologies for my misunderstanding. There are some problems with the claim. Gawker says 30 minutes is missing while jawa says 20. While I've tried I cannot clearly see the time stamp on the video. How does this system work? Is it Zulu? Mission? Looped? Jawa is claiming the segment was purposefully edited but with no evidence. From all available evidence the 38 minute version is all the contents leaked from the Pentagon so wiki has not edited. Jawa plucks a sworn statement and claims that was cut out from the video....but has absolutely no evidence the statement fits with the missing 20 minutes....if 20 minutes is actually missing. Jawa is a fuxxing joke of a source.....it's the extreme Right version of prison planet and is clearly partisan driven. These bozos make claims without anything to back it up.

Unfortunately the constant harping of "edited" versions all send the same message: your ilk is looking for justification because if what the available video shows exonerates the pilots then an edited version would be irrelevant. You can't have it both ways. You know the video shows an abuse of power and that is why you guys are desperately searching for different versions.

Unlike you, I admit my errors and rely on valid information so no wonder you are constantly whining about me. Maybe one day you too can learn to admit mistakes.....but I doubt it.

So you whine that you made a mistake and admitted it, but I don't admit mine?

If you were mistaken, that means I was CORRECT you dumb shit. There is no mistake of mine to admit.

But congrats on embracing your stupidity wholeheartedly.

I could point out your fuk ups but whatz the point? You'd ignore them and whine like the stoopid ***** you love to be.

You have not proven your claim dipfuk.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Where is the documentation showing who they were?

What the **** are you talking about?

Who the fuk you think Einstein? There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified. That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.

When Mao fought his revolution, most of his soldiers were unarmed. It was said that there was one rifle for every 3-5 men.

Does that mean that the men waiting to pick up the weapon, who were shot during fights against the KMT, were murdered innocents as well?