Leaked video of U.S. Military killing civilians and Reuters journalists.

[Forrest Griffin]

Talk to journalists and find out they understand how dangerous it is for cameramen when they carries their equipments. Talk to policemen and find out how dangerous it can be for YOU if you hold something in your hand and point it at an armed officer.

good argument.

 

[gambit]

I for once want to say that wikileaks has little complained about surveillance and harassment and the editors haven't been labeled as traitors or "agents" in their country. This at least goes to show that whistleblowers are respected as noble people in many societies.

Under dictatorships, like the kind so common in the ME, whistleblowers are prosecuted and killed.

 

[sparklingway]

Under dictatorships, like the kind so common in the ME, whistleblowers are prosecuted and killed.

Not just the ME, in all conservative and old age societies, whistle blowers are labeled as traitors, harassed, prosecuted and killed.

 

[IBRIS]

CHEKK OWT MY AR PEE GEE.

CHEKK OWT DA AK-47 and RPG's. Are you blind. Can't you see the photos i uploaded weapons with militants. You gotta be blind hard headed dude to call this a pure crime. One can see 2 journalists with cameras but bunch others with guns. Now ask yourself who's carrying what?. Then think for a moment and look at the images and video again and again.

Here a guy crouching behind a wall loading either an RPG or rifle:

Guy with AK47, far left. If you watch the clip you can even see the shoulder strap.

If you are still having problems with these photos, then let me know.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

Under dictatorships, like the kind so common in the ME, whistleblowers are prosecuted and killed.

bad argument.

You always compare U.S. to the Middle East it makes no sense.

 

[sparklingway]

Enemy soldiers can also be rescuers.


Why should a vehicle need to visibly appeared armed? In war, the only vehicle, be it an automobile or an ship or an aircraft, that has protection is when it distinctly display either the Red Cross or the Red Crescent symbol. Everything else in a combat zone is assumed hostile.


No need to. See above.


Why is the burden upon them? Even medics understand that the burden of identification in order to have protection rests upon them, not on combatants.

While you can legitimately argue that under battle conditions making a bad decision in favor can be fateful (I mean considering somebody to be unarmed only to be shot at), there is no way one can defend the fact that it clearly is visible that the journalists were shot at even after their wasn't a danger to the soldiers. In fact the soldiers did not face any danger throughout.

Unprovoked massacre at its best.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

If you are still having problems with these photos, then let me know.

You are pointing out isolated photos which obscure the whole story.

With this post, are you implying the aviators were inattentive or incompetent?

 

[gambit]

While you can legitimately argue that under battle conditions making a bad decision in favor can be fateful (I mean considering somebody to be unarmed only to be shot at), there is no way one can defend the fact that it clearly is visible that the journalists were shot at even after their wasn't a danger to the soldiers. In fact the soldiers did not face any danger throughout.

Unprovoked massacre at its best.

Utter BS. The reason you NOW can say that among killed are journalists is because they were identified as journalists AFTER THE FACT. But when soldiers sees groups of armed men, their natural instincts will compel them to assume the worst -- that they are looking at men with hostile intents, not journalists. Like it or not, my young friend, the reality of a combat zone is to shoot first and shoot well. Questions are irrelevant.

I have seen enough in post-Saddam Kuwait to know that if it was possible for US to Youtube just a fraction of what I saw of what happened to Kuwaitis done by the Iraqi Army, it would make this little video pales in comparison. So you go right on and enjoy your little chance at making US look inhuman. For those of us who know the reality of war, the muslims in the ME are no better.

 

[IBRIS]

You are pointing out isolated photos which obscure the whole story.

With this post, are you implying the aviators were inattentive or incompetent?

So what you are implying is that those journalists were out on a picnic with gunmen. Watch the video my friend and then watch my photos. Might ring a bell.

 

[Abdussamad]

Its just a fraction of the war crimes that have been committed in Iraq.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

Utter BS. The reason you NOW can say that among killed are journalists is because they were identified as journalists AFTER THE FACT. But when soldiers sees groups of armed men, their natural instincts will compel them to assume the worst -- that they are looking at men with hostile intents, not journalists. Like it or not, my young friend, the reality of a combat zone is to shoot first and shoot well. Questions are irrelevant.

I have seen enough in post-Saddam Kuwait to know that if it was possible for US to Youtube just a fraction of what I saw of what happened to Kuwaitis done by the Iraqi Army, it would make this little video pales in comparison. So you go right on and enjoy your little chance at making US look inhuman. For those of us who know the reality of war, the muslims in the ME are no better.

Post traumatic stress disorder...

 

[sparklingway]

Utter BS. The reason you NOW can say that among killed are journalists is because they were identified as journalists AFTER THE FACT. But when soldiers sees groups of armed men, their natural instincts will compel them to assume the worst -- that they are looking at men with hostile intents, not journalists. Like it or not, my young friend, the reality of a combat zone is to shoot first and shoot well. Questions are irrelevant.

I have seen enough in post-Saddam Kuwait to know that if it was possible for US to Youtube just a fraction of what I saw of what happened to Kuwaitis done by the Iraqi Army, it would make this little video pales in comparison. So you go right on and enjoy your little chance at making US look inhuman. For those of us who know the reality of war, the muslims in the ME are no better.

Neither did I make a comparison between Saddam's army nor did I claim that they should have known better.

I said that you can legitimately claim but the consequences and the results must force you to wonder what has happened. That introspection is missing from your posts.

I never argued that any other army has had a better record or that the US is the most evil nation on earth. You are putting words in my mouth and I'm okay with accepting the fact that you must have to deal daily with dozens, if not hundreds, of members shouting at you about what they perceive as US imperialism and injustice. The fact of the matter is that armies from other countries have had worse track records (Imperial Japanese Army in China and many other cases) but you have to accept that this specific case clearly demonstrates both the ease with which the soldiers were killing (dare I say with disregard to human life) and error of judgment.

Firstly, it can be argued that in the war zone, a soldier has less to care for the lives of the enemies for he has to deal with killing humans and has to toughen himself. This is the reality of war and I agree with you almost entirely. But the pilots here were cracking half jokes as they were killing in some videogame. That is downright inhumane.

Secondly, the split second decision can indeed lead to error of judgement. In this case though, they had time, ample time, at their hands and the civilians were visible throughout from the helicopter gun sight. Nobody cared trying to verify the "RPG" or the "AK 47s".

There is nothing wrong in accepting the fact that soldiers made a grave mistake and killed civilians and journalists. If found guilty of intentional murder, they should face the music. If on the other hand, they are found to have violated the rules of engagement and killed the civilians while misinterpreting them as armed, they obviously have no sentence to worry about; they should focus on dealing with what they did and coming to terms with their huge mistake.

Defending such an act and hiding the facts was all but natural and expected from the DoD. They won't go public saying that they're soldiers had killed civilians. But as the facts have come out, be boys and accept the mistakes. Review your rules of engagement and be sorry for what you did. Ask forgiveness from the heirs of the dead (and god if somebody believes in one).

 

[Thomas]

This is pretty messed up. How many similar cases do we have like this. Helicopters just flying around shooting at gatherings of people.

In a war zone if you are a civilian and carry a weapon. Or you hang out with insurgents who have weapons. you can expect to be fired on with no warning. Even if those insurgents were not firing their weapons.

 

[gambit]

Neither did I make a comparison between Saddam's army nor did I claim that they should have known better.

Am always ready to make such comparisons to inject a dose of reality. People like you needed it.

I said that you can legitimately claim but the consequences and the results must force you to wonder what has happened. That introspection is missing from your posts.

For anyone who publicly made known his introspection, there are tens of thousands or more who have no problems with their conduct and performance in war. Am one of those who have none.

...you have to accept that this specific case clearly demonstrates both the ease with which the soldiers were killing (dare I say with disregard to human life) and error of judgment.

A soldier is supposed to kill. How much more disregard for the enemy's life, or human life if you prefer, can one has? And yes, like it or not, ALL soldiers want to kill with as much ease as possible.

Firstly, it can be argued that in the war zone, a soldier has less to care for the lives of the enemies for he has to deal with killing humans and has to toughen himself. This is the reality of war and I agree with you almost entirely. But the pilots here were cracking half jokes as they were killing in some videogame. That is downright inhumane.

No...That is normal. Am going to repeat the same phrase: Like it or not. You can find all sort of psychology discourses on why 'black humor' is necessary but having a disregard for enemy lives is a necessity if a soldier is to survive.

Secondly, the split second decision can indeed lead to error of judgement. In this case though, they had time, ample time, at their hands and the civilians were visible throughout from the helicopter gun sight. Nobody cared trying to verify the "RPG" or the "AK 47s".

Here is where you have been misled. The source presented to you only a part of the entire event -- the shooting. You have no idea of whether or not that part of the city have been declared as secured and safe, meaning free of enemy combatants or not. You have no idea on whether or not US forces have been cleared in anyway that if they see any armed men, those armed men are to be assumed as hostile. The clearance could have come from faulty intel or it could have come from strong sources but that is besides the point.

Soldiers do not like to fight against an uncertain combatant and this is why the Geneva Conventions stresses on having clear distinctions between combatants and noncombatants. A 'civilian' can be a legal combatant and if he made it clear that he is a combatant, he is accorded full Geneva Conventions protection. A 'civilian' who picks up a rifle and shoot then tosses it away to claim 'civilian' immunity is an illegal combatant and any soldier who kill him will not be prosecuted. Like it or not, that is the reality of war as much as we can codify and regulate the conduct of war. In a combat zone where combat have been authorized, no soldier is under the burden of proving to himself and to any authority that he is facing a combatant holding a genuine weapon instead of a farm implement that happen to look like a weapon from a certain angle under certain lighting condition.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

Am always ready to make such comparisons to inject a dose of reality. People like you needed it.


For anyone who publicly made known his introspection, there are tens of thousands or more who have no problems with their conduct and performance in war. Am one of those who have none.


A soldier is supposed to kill. How much more disregard for the enemy's life, or human life if you prefer, can one has? And yes, like it or not, ALL soldiers want to kill with as much ease as possible.


No...That is normal. Am going to repeat the same phrase: Like it or not. You can find all sort of psychology discourses on why 'black humor' is necessary but having a disregard for enemy lives is a necessity if a soldier is to survive.


Here is where you have been misled. The source presented to you only a part of the entire event -- the shooting. You have no idea of whether or not that part of the city have been declared as secured and safe, meaning free of enemy combatants or not. You have no idea on whether or not US forces have been cleared in anyway that if they see any armed men, those armed men are to be assumed as hostile. The clearance could have come from faulty intel or it could have come from strong sources but that is besides the point.

Soldiers do not like to fight against an uncertain combatant and this is why the Geneva Conventions stresses on having clear distinctions between combatants and noncombatants. A 'civilian' can be a legal combatant and if he made it clear that he is a combatant, he is accorded full Geneva Conventions protection. A 'civilian' who picks up a rifle and shoot then tosses it away to claim 'civilian' immunity is an illegal combatant and any soldier who kill him will not be prosecuted. Like it or not, that is the reality of war as much as we can codify and regulate the conduct of war. In a combat zone where combat have been authorized, no soldier is under the burden of proving to himself and to any authority that he is facing a combatant holding a genuine weapon instead of a farm implement that happen to look like a weapon from a certain angle under certain lighting condition.

Where do you get your information from?

You write some ridiculous stuff.