Originally posted by couch-potato
off Lews. Either stand for something you believe in or be a fag.
I believe in PLUR. Isn't that enough? :(
Halcyon+On+On
quote:
Originally posted by wing
H.E.A.L(Human.Education.Against.Lies)
:stongue: :stongue:
w_ashley
quote:
Originally posted by Jackson
Most people in this thread are trying to pass blame onto one of the parties. You cannot blame the journalists, they were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. You also cannot fully blame the pilots - in the theatre of war I am sure they have seen many things,
Who the cares, you pull the trigger you better know it is an enemy combatant. In this case they only identified their forces as not being in the vicinity, this does not automatically designate someone with a weapon an enemy combatant. It does make them potentially hostile, but until they point that gun or resist detention they are not "enemy combatants" read the freaken rules of war idiots. There was no positive identification, and if you call that positive identification I call it faulty training or bad soilders.
The military ed up end of story. You DO NOT fire on civilians unless aboslutely required to stop even greater harm. This was not the case. It was a war crime.
Don't condone this bull.
quote:
where in the past an item with a shoulder strap was believed to be an innocent object but turned out to be a weapon. Granted, more time could have been taken to get a positive ID on the weapons and to determine the suspects intentions, but under pressure time is not a luxury.
You are wrong time was a luxury and the nearest friendly forces were 8 minutes away by mobile transport. Don't around the DOD ed up admit it and move on.
quote:
This is just a severe case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. RIP to those killed in the video - RIP to the 1,000s more that we don't know about.
This is not wrong place wrong time, this is wrong training, wrong orders, wrong instincts.
THE KEY ELEMENT THAT MADE IT A WAR CRIME IS
"a person who has engaged in hostilities " they had not.. it was a war crime.
Halcyon+On+On
quote:
Originally posted by ********
Who the cares, you pull the trigger you better know it is an enemy. There was no positive identification, and if you call that positive identification I call it faulty training or bad soilders.
The military ed up end of story. You DO NOT fire on civilians unless aboslutely required to stop even greater harm. This was not the case. It was a war crime.
Don't condone this bull.
Convenient armchair opinion. This is a conflict where any person on the street could be your enemy - they do not wear uniforms nor do they identify themselves as an enemy until they have a gun pointed at you, and you're probably dead by that point. Imagine being a soldier, yourself, where yes, the slightest mistake in who your enemy is could result in an innocent person being killed, or likewise, the slightest hesitation could mean your own death. It's a situation any way that you look at it, and as usual, the people who suffer the most are the ones who have to deal with the gamble every day of their lives; all the while politicians and internet goons can opine however they like because their lives are at no time at risk in the slightest.
I am not saying the US should be there (or anywhere) in the slightest, but if you think a soldier's job is as easy a solution as 'don't shoot at civilians' then you're not thinking about it at all.
wing
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
:stongue: :stongue:
:toothless :toothless
Sonic_c
quote:
Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
Name me one war where civilians were not killed.....it sucks but it happens.
You are right....I might think differently if it was my family but I would also get my family the hell out of here if there was any news suggesting there would be a war here.
Just for the record i have had time to chill and i'm sorry for all the insults. The video really stirred some passions in me and you making a joke put you right in the way of me letting it all out. So sorry again and hope i didn't cause too much offense. I meant the sentiments behind it but i think it wasn't nice to direct it at you.
wing
Just wanted to point out how the Marines kept referring to the one guy(Saeed)they chased down the street as "bodies"
Ah, Weapons. We originally went to Iraq in search for Weapons of mass destruction. A Graffiti Writer with a SLR Camera in hand will usually be lifted of all suspicions, whether he's on top of a roof or in an abandoned building. Catch my drift? Not to say there aren't any weapons around there, hell those guys in the van could very well have been looking for weapons.
The Marines repeatedly requested for permission to engage the van because they were picking up "bodies". Stress must not be the only factor for their offbeat judgement because clearly they left their glasses at home, but that can't be:
Delusional? You can come up with your own conclusion
The only kind acts by the Marines here(intentional or not) would be:
1. Marine(s) on standby, waiting for Saeed to pick up a weapon so he/they can end his misery. The military would've been in for some , had Saeed lived through this predicament to tell the story from HIS perspective. Either way, the truth is finding its way through the
thick fog.
2. After shooting the out of the van and people, the Marine(s) give the victims a final moment of silence on Earth before they pierce them again with a second round of bullets, out of the blue. What.
^ This was a little after the first attack...I guess blind firing to be on the safe side isn't a bad idea in this case :p
All of my posts have been extracted from the short video. I'm curious to know how much of it is edited and if it was purposely edited in a biased manner to obtain a certain reaction as The17sss said. But apparently the full 40 minute video on Youtube is the raw unedited gun-camera footage, rendering it as viable source would it not? I'll have to check it out sometime.
--
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0374165734/
^I think that's the book the editor of Wikileaks was talking about. Can someone photocopy the chapter about the "Collateral Murder" in Baghdad?
---
Wikileaks screencap analysis
http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/photos-1.html
---
From that birds eye view, it must have been like a game of Grand Theft Auto, just shooting away at ants. No need to feel sorry since you can't see the emotion on their faces from that height anyway
----
Yes....A 1 sided battle..
Jackson
quote:
Originally posted by ********
We all know you are full of bull - point and example below...
zag2me
I've looked into this a little and yes they were carrying weapons but just about everyone is in Iraq at the moment, even the journalists need security to travel.
Absolutely shocking they murdered these people :(
w_ashley
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Convenient armchair opinion. This is a conflict where any person on the street could be your enemy - they do not wear uniforms nor do they identify themselves as an enemy until they have a gun pointed at you, and you're probably dead by that point. Imagine being a soldier, yourself, where yes, the slightest mistake in who your enemy is could result in an innocent person being killed, or likewise, the slightest hesitation could mean your own death. It's a situation any way that you look at it, and as usual, the people who suffer the most are the ones who have to deal with the gamble every day of their lives; all the while politicians and internet goons can opine however they like because their lives are at no time at risk in the slightest.
Doesn't mean you can use war crimes. If you can't fight a war without resorting to war crimes maybe you shouldn't have invaded the country and toppled the government in the first place. A few people put to death in the old regime versus mowing down civilians on the street don't seem like a much less repressed population to me.
Condoning war crimes has you abet the act and you yourself are a war criminal.
Would americans do this to their own people, have apaches mow down the general public when they see someone carry something that looks like a gun. Hell no. Yet the homeland is a warzone too, it is just total ignorance and neglect of responsibility. Bad operations and lazyness is no excuse for war crimes. Nor is hate, decensitization, or vengence.
quote:
I am not saying the US should be there (or anywhere) in the slightest, but if you think a soldier's job is as easy a solution as 'don't shoot at civilians'
It is actually far more complex. But it really is don't shoot at civilians - if they arn't hostiles then you arn't suppose to kill them. These people did NOT appear to be hostiles.
There is far more too it, but it isn't just this one story you hear about the US doing this type of thing all the time. They are just doing shoddy work.
------
bottom line Stupid operations isn't an excuse for war crimes.
There is a reason soilders arn't meant to be police. You have a potential breach of civil law you have the police respond. You have an actual act of war you bring in the military. This was not a military situation.
They edited out the profanity and a bit of the dialogue. Too much for my liking. No mention of the Children or the false claims of how the military didn't know how the children got injured & the other claims. The attack is too hardcore for the average citizen apparently so they block it out with a black rectangle lol.
THIS is what I call ty ing editing The17sss. One can't make a proper final judgement off of the little amount of footage & information provided by CNN. What the . that.
saluyamo
quote:
Originally posted by bas
With a quick glance at the screen it could very well have been an honest mistake. I'd say the massive coverup is much worse than the actual incident.
