They Hate Us For Our Freedoms

[Ganbare Gincun]

Update: The Pentagon wants to shut down Wikileaks as a threat to "national security", joining an illustrious list of countries such as China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam and Zimbabwe in their desire to shut down Wikileaks.org.

[The Lunatic Fringe]

...you are still missing that link.

Your (implied) argument is obviously faulty. Just because someone else does something terrible does not give you an excuse to do that same terrible thing. Especially when you are doing that terrible thing to an innocent third party. Was your childhood so deficient that you missed out on that principle?

Or maybe you just don't care. Please say so outright if that is the case.

[Zinegata]

Please. You only started this whole "I'm just presenting the news" bullshit whenever your flimsy arguments justifying this atrocity started getting torn apart like tissue paper. You're not doing me a public service - you're weakly trying to defend a war crime in the most passive-aggressive fashion possible.

You can't read and you're biased as shit.

My opening statement was:

"Dunno really. According to Al Jazeera (Yes, I watch it. Stop staring) the US Military cleared the pilots as they were following Rules of Engagement. Which remain classified.

*shrugs*"

If you want to argue that "Dunno really" is a glowing endorsement of the US Military's actions, you are ALSO a fucking idiot on top of not reading and being biased as shit.

Given the fact that their opinion in this matter is "it's totally cool to murder innocent people in the Middle East at any time without any justification" when the whole point of getting involved in Iraq was ostensibly to liberate the Iraqi people from the horrible tyranny of Saddam Hussein, their opinion is utterly and completely worthless.

My opinion on the matter is "Dunno really". And *shrug*.

If you want me to clarify further, I would say "It's combat and it's hard to tell if it was justified or not - I wasn't there". Instead of products of your insensible imagination.

Also, the whole point stated by the government for the overthrow of Iraw in 2003 was WMDs. Which did not materialize. Get your facts straight.

If they were, as you suggested, simply reporting the U.S. side of the story, then yes, I would lump them in with Fox News and their ilk. But since you didn't bother to provide me with a link to the "news" that you were so nobly trying to "report", I found the news story myself, and it was actually put together very well. So I withdraw my criticism of Al Jazeera and double down on my criticism of your attempts to "enlighten" us with your blathering.

Right. I am for the right-wing conservative US side of the story because I used Al Jazeera as a news source instead of Fox News.

You ARE fucking stupid.

And they even captured the stinger at the end of the video: It's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle. Priceless.

But since I'm just blathering, then maybe you should ignore the fact that I said the tape was authentic (based on Al Jazeera's report) and we can now have wild speculation on how that line was just added by some anti-American jihadist who wants to smear America's name.

I am just stating relevant facts from an Al Jazeera report I watched. My opinion on the matter is above, and nothing more. And the fact that you think it's more than that just makes you a bigoted ass more interested in being right than knowing all the facts. Seriously dude, you're making Al Jazeera look more objective than you are.

[Kaelik]

Seriously? It’s a camera with a long lens. No RPG is that short. The pilot wanted to see weapons. Ergo, he saw weapons. Weapons in the hands of people that were casually strolling down the street and were not making any moves to take "battle positions" at all whatsoever.

Seriously, ganny, stop being a hack for like eight seconds and read what I said.

I specifically pointed to the exact moment when they said "RPG" because at that moment the person was kneeling, like anyone about to fire an RPG would be, and was doing it with only part of his body peaking around the corner, and the camera trailed from a point past his body to his body, and the way you would know it was shorter than an RPG (because it stopped at his body) you can't see, because it's around a corner.

Note that I specifically said that they should have reevaluated that when they came around and saw them all standing in a group and no one kneeling and no long object. That's called, what I actually said instead of getting into a big hissy fit over anything said that isn't explicitly 100% condemnation.

And what about the van full of unarmed civilians (with children) that tried to help the wounded in the aftermath that they proceeded to gun down? What's the justification for blowing away those guys? Shooting at people trying to help the wounded is a war crime in and of itself. We're supposed to be helping the Iraqi people, not blowing them away in the fucking streets for shits and giggles.

What about the people who rolled up in a van, and attempted to steal all the evidence? You know how we know that those people were journalists? It's not because the camera view proves it. It's because we looked at their bodies afterword, we the US military. If they had taken him off, it would just be a mystery, and we wouldn't even know.

It's not like you can tell there are any kids in that van, or that those men didn't just leave their AKs in the fucking van when they got out to pull their accomplice to safety.

I'd be much more willing to accept that line of reasoning if the person in question was an actual threat, as opposed to some hapless journalist that was crawling and bleeding out, dying in the street like a dog, that posed absolutely zero threat to his murderers. Was he gonna eat a fucking Senzu Bean and go Super Saiyan? No, I think they just wanted to explode what was left of his broken body, like a bunch of punk kids with a frog and an M-80.

Or, alternatively, they didn't know he was a journalist, and they had radioed for ground support to come to the scene, ground support that could you know, get shot by an AK 47.

But sure, demand total omnipotence from everyone at all times.

[Zinegata]

I specifically pointed to the exact moment when they said "RPG" because at that moment the person was kneeling, like anyone about to fire an RPG would be, and was doing it with only part of his body peaking around the corner, and the camera trailed from a point past his body to his body, and the way you would know it was shorter than an RPG (because it stopped at his body) you can't see, because it's around a corner.

According to Al Jazeera's live report (reading off the US Military Report), the camera was "aimed" at a Humvee down the street, which wasn't visible with the gun camera but was visible to the pilots via eyeball.

They also did not dispute the journalist hadn't clearly marked himself as a member of the press.

Make of it what you will.

[Ganbare Gincun]

My opening statement was:

"Dunno really. According to Al Jazeera (Yes, I watch it. Stop staring) the US Military cleared the pilots as they were following Rules of Engagement. Which remain classified.

*shrugs*

If you want to argue that "Dunno really" is a glowing endorsement of the US Military's actions, you are ALSO a fucking idiot on top of not reading and being biased as shit.

You're content to simply accept the explanation that the U.S. Military has provided with a shrug and a whatever, despite the fact that both the link I provided and the report that you are citing are clearly showing behavior that would typically be classified as "war crimes". You're not directly arguing on the behalf of the perpetrators of this war crime, but your apathetic acceptance of their half-assed explanation for this event and your willing to parrot the "official explanation" of events despite the fact that the report in question clearly *condemns* the soldiers for their actions and does not support their version of events at all clearly shows where your sympathy lies. It basically amounts to half-assed, apathetic, intellectually dishonest concern trolling.

Also, the whole point stated by the government for the overthrow of Iraw in 2003 was WMDs. Which did not materialize. Get your facts straight.

That was the original explanation for the war, but once we actually got there and - surprise - there weren't actually any WMDs to be found, the Bush Administration decided to flip the script and start crowing about how we were supposedly there to save the Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam. Remember them pulling down the statues and all that jazz?

You shouldn't be asking me to get my story straight - you should be asking GWB and his crew why they couldn't get their story straight.

Right. I am for the right-wing conservative US side of the story because I used Al Jazeera as a news source instead of Fox News.

No, you tried to pass off their report as an half-hearted endorsement of what the U.S. Military did instead of linking to the actual report. And hey, if Al Jazeera is cool with it, Wikilinks must be blowing it completely out of proportion, right?

[Ganbare Gincun]

I specifically pointed to the exact moment when they said "RPG" because at that moment the person was kneeling, like anyone about to fire an RPG would be, and was doing it with only part of his body peaking around the corner, and the camera trailed from a point past his body to his body, and the way you would know it was shorter than an RPG (because it stopped at his body) you can't see, because it's around a corner.

That “RPG” is a fucking camera. Notice how it’s about a foot long and gets real wide at the far end? That’s called a lens. At 4:18 it looks like Namir peeks around the corner with his camera with a long lens on, trying to take a picture down the street. It's clearly too short to be an RPG.

What about the people who rolled up in a van, and attempted to steal all the evidence? You know how we know that those people were journalists? It's not because the camera view proves it. It's because we looked at their bodies afterword, we the US military. If they had taken him off, it would just be a mystery, and we wouldn't even know.

The only reason that we know that this event happened is not because of the work of the U.S. Military, but because of the people at Wikilinks. If the military had their way, all of this footage would have never been released to the public, and we would have never known what transpired. If anything, the perpetrators may have gunned down the folks in the van in attempt to eliminate any evidence of their heinous actions.

It's not like you can tell there are any kids in that van, or that those men didn't just leave their AKs in the fucking van when they got out to pull their accomplice to safety.

You don't think that if there were actually insurgents in that van that they wouldn't have at least one or two people taking point and laying down some suppressive fire while they recovered their comrade? They may be terrorists, but they aren't stupid. And you don't think that maybe our troops could have waited for some APCs to roll in and secure the scene before opening fire on the van and its occupants? I realize that "Iraq Is A War Zone" and all that, but, you know, people still actually live there, and you have to take those things into account before going gun crazy.

Fun fact: did you know that it is legal for Iraqis to own AK-47s? Everyone in Iraq is armed to the fucking teeth, and many people openly display their weapons in public. Simply owning a weapon in Iraq is not sufficient cause to immediately determine if someone is a member of the insurgency, which makes the decision to open fire on some random people in the street that may or may not have had AK-47s all the more suspect. A father carrying a rifle to protect his family from looters doesn’t deserve to be a target. A journalist going into a community to talk with locals, and carrying a gun for his own protection, doesn’t deserve to be a target. Are American soldiers walking next to locals with guns also legitimate targets?

So much for our reverence for the "right to bear arms", I guess.

Or, alternatively, they didn't know he was a journalist, and they had radioed for ground support to come to the scene, ground support that could you know, get shot by an AK 47.

Seriously? The sole survivor of their original hail of gunfire was in no condition to walk, much less handle an AK-47, or hell, even a handgun. You try taking a couple of rounds from a 30 mm chain gun and let me know if you're ready to hop in a gunfight with a squad of American soliders, an APC, and an Apache gunship.

But sure, demand total omnipotence from everyone at all times.

I don't demand total omnipotence from everyone at all times, but I do expect our military to conduct themselves in a fashion that reflects the ideals of our country and the goals of the mission to which they have been committed. Randomly gunning down people in the street with barely contained glee and then conspiring to cover up the incident is not the reason why I have a "Support Our Troops" ribbon on my car. I'm willing to support the troops - just not the ones that gun down innocent civilians on a lark.

[Kaelik]

That “RPG” is a fucking camera. Notice how it’s about a foot long and gets real wide at the far end? That’s called a lens. At 4:18 it looks like Namir peeks around the corner with his camera with a long lens on, trying to take a picture down the street. It's clearly too short to be an RPG.

Once again, you can't tell how fucking long it is, because the silhouette terminates at his body, which is behind the fucking wall.

2) You can't see that it's a camera. You are full of shit. It's a vaguely black object.

only reason that we know that this event happened is not because of the work of the U.S. Military, but because of the people at Wikilinks. If the military had their way, all of this footage would have never been released to the public, and we would have never known what transpired. If anything, the perpetrators may have gunned down the folks in the van in attempt to eliminate any evidence of their heinous actions.

You are fucking insane. The only reason we know what happened is because Wikileaks reported the US MILITARY REPORTS. If some random Iraqi said "they shot some people, and then we took their bodies and survivors, and drove off with them, and we can tell you for sure, they were just civilians" the response would be "What the fuck, we don't believe you." And that's why people in vans should not randomly attempt to grab people the US military has been shooting at, and cart them off, because that's a good way to get shot.

The part where you think that they did it to hide the evidence is fucking hilarious, because their main concern was keeping the evidence there.

You don't think that if there were actually insurgents in that van that they wouldn't have at least one or two people taking point and laying down some suppressive fire while they recovered their comrade? They may be terrorists, but they aren't stupid. And you don't think that maybe our troops could have waited for some APCs to roll in and secure the scene before opening fire on the van and its occupants? I realize that "Iraq Is A War Zone" and all that, but, you know, people still actually live there, and you have to take those things into account before going gun crazy.

Fun fact: did you know that it is legal for Iraqis to own AK-47s? Everyone in Iraq is armed to the fucking teeth, and many people openly display their weapons in public. Simply owning a weapon in Iraq is not sufficient cause to immediately determine if someone is a member of the insurgency, which makes the decision to open fire on some random people in the street that may or may not have had AK-47s all the more suspect. A father carrying a rifle to protect his family from looters doesn’t deserve to be a target. A journalist going into a community to talk with locals, and carrying a gun for his own protection, doesn’t deserve to be a target. Are American soldiers walking next to locals with guns also legitimate targets?

So in other words, you think that it would behoove insurgents to shoot at a helicopter with AK 47s, before trying to pull a guy into their van, but you also think that helicopters should not shoot at people who don't shoot at them first, even when those people are pulling bodies into vans?

They would have to be stupid to have guys trying to "suppress" an Apachi helicopter, instead of trying to look harmless.

Seriously? The sole survivor of their original hail of gunfire was in no condition to walk, much less handle an AK-47, or hell, even a handgun. You try taking a couple of rounds from a 30 mm chain gun and let me know if you're ready to hop in a gunfight with a squad of American soliders, an APC, and an Apache gunship.

1) all the shots missed him, we know that because he was still alive. They don't know his status as a threat, because they are not omnipotent. As such, a good threat indicator would be if he tried to pick up a weapon. You'll also note that when he didn't, they didn't shoot at him, until they thought he was going to escape.

I don't demand total omnipotence from everyone at all times, but I do expect our military to conduct themselves in a fashion that reflects the ideals of our country and the goals of the mission to which they have been committed. Randomly gunning down people in the street with barely contained glee and then conspiring to cover up the incident is not the reason why I have a "Support Our Troops" ribbon on my car. I'm willing to support the troops - just not the ones that gun down innocent civilians on a lark.

Once again:

1) They didn't randomly gun down people in the street, they gunned down suspected insurgents who they felt threatened by and believed had weapons, and were aiming those weapons at a nearby humvee after they got permission.

2) They did not do it with any more Glee than anyone else guns down nazis or japs or anyone else who they consider to be a threat.

Did they make an incorrect evaluation? Yes, almost certainly. Is that unfortunate? Yes. Does it suck that they covered it up, whether they went along willingly or were pressured into it? Sure. But fuck you, maybe it was the guy in the gunner chair who after discovering the truth felt so guilty that he reported it to wikileaks.

But at no point did they gleefully gun down (to their knowledge) innocent civilians.

And you portraying it as such is really just more evidence that you are so into your roll as partisan hack that every time you are right about anything is just incidentally, because you happen to be a hack for the side that is right more often, and not because you have any actual desire to investigate things objectively.

[Crissa]

That's a terrible argument, Kaelic. Ambulances just don't show up on battlefields beacause they'll get shot up, too. And it's not like the guy in the van knew who was doing the shooting or if they were even intending to hit the journalists.

Notice the dates and where this was released. Why aren't US generals on national news apologizing?

-Crissa

[mean_liar]

I think Kaelik is correct. I'm not going to judge the craziness that happens when people are killing each other. Stupid shit happens all the time. If those gunship pilots thought their allies were going to get shot at then they were going to have to make split-second decisions about life and death. I won't begrudge them that.

Now, I think there's ample room - and I believe Kaelik would agree - that even being there in a war in the first place was fucking dumb. And the coverup was another helping of awful, just like with Tillman and I'm guessing a thousand other stories like this one.

This kind of inhumane shit is just part of war. My real concern with stuff like this is that the US public has by-and-large been quarantined from the reality of what happens in war and they continue to be, by design. The US government cannot really afford to fight as many wars as they think are necessary for the American interest while simultaneously keeping the US public informed as to what they're doing in their name.

[mean_liar]

Similarly:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/05

[Zinegata]

You're content to simply accept the explanation that the U.S. Military has provided with a shrug and a whatever, despite the fact that both the link I provided and the report that you are citing are clearly showing behavior that would typically be classified as "war crimes".

As I already said: "It's a combat situation. I wasn't there."

That's not apathy. That's knowing that I am not an omnipotent God who sits on a pulpit judging other people.

You're not directly arguing on the behalf of the perpetrators of this war crime, but your apathetic acceptance of their half-assed explanation for this event and your willing to parrot the "official explanation" of events despite the fact that the report in question clearly *condemns* the soldiers for their actions and does not support their version of events at all clearly shows where your sympathy lies. It basically amounts to half-assed, apathetic, intellectually dishonest concern trolling.

Yeah, yeah. Fuck you too.

That was the original explanation for the war, but once we actually got there and - surprise - there weren't actually any WMDs to be found, the Bush Administration decided to flip the script and start crowing about how we were supposedly there to save the Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam. Remember them pulling down the statues and all that jazz?

You shouldn't be asking me to get my story straight - you should be asking GWB and his crew why they couldn't get their story straight.

Thank you for admitting the original explanation for the war was, in fact, WMDs.

And you are indeed a fucking idiot for citing "liberating the Iraqi people" as a reason for the war when you know it's just GWB post-war spin.

No, you tried to pass off their report as an half-hearted endorsement of what the U.S. Military did instead of linking to the actual report. And hey, if Al Jazeera is cool with it, Wikilinks must be blowing it completely out of proportion, right?

Note my first statement about Al Jazeera: They confirmed the tape was authentic. Is that an endorsement of what the military did? No, I just said the tape was real.

Moreover, again, I watched it on TV. You're citing the website version which I haven't even read.

Again, you are a fucking moron for not reading what people are attempting to explain in a reasonable manner an instead act like a baby screaming for candy/

Were you there? No. Did you take into account all of the evidence other than the tape? No.

I merely provided the US Military version (reported from Al Jazeera) which *supposedly* took a look at more than just the tape. Is their version the right one? I don't know.

But neither do you.

[Zinegata]

That's a terrible argument, Kaelic. Ambulances just don't show up on battlefields beacause they'll get shot up, too. And it's not like the guy in the van knew who was doing the shooting or if they were even intending to hit the journalists.

Notice the dates and where this was released. Why aren't US generals on national news apologizing?

-Crissa

It's combat. And the van wasn't exactly a marked ambulance.

And US generals aren't apologizing because 1) Nobody is reporting this except for Al Jazeera, and 2) Because as far as the military was concerned the camera crew had endagered their own lives by not putting up Press signs.

Whether that is right or wrong, I don't know. All I know is that it happened in combat and shit happens.

[Zinegata]

Similarly:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/05

The article itself vascilates between condemning the troops and calling it an unfortunate accident. Probably because nobody's really sure what happened and it wasn't just a case like Abu Ghuraib where a bunch of retards decided it was fun to off some defenseless prisoners.

[Starmaker]

Update: The Pentagon wants to shut down Wikileaks as a threat to "national security", joining an illustrious list of countries such as China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam and Zimbabwe in their desire to shut down Wikileaks.org.

Thanks for the generalization. Russia doesn't give a fuck about Wikileaks. Moar info about the Evil(tm) Americans would always be good and welcome, except that we have the "America is evil" quota covered by locally produced bullshit, facts are unnecessary. Hell, there's a site about corrupt officials (compromat.ru - from "compromising materials") that's been functioning since forever, and while it's rather tame considering the shit that stays unpublished (not taken down - just unpublished), it has more that enough data to jail almost everyone high and mighty currently in office. To reiterate, it's not a place to drop dox on people who have outserved their usefulness and ready to be fired. It's entertainment. My dad reads news about his bosses. At work.

You severely underestimate the ability of Russians to not give a fuck. Look, my apartment used to cost $2,000,000. The city decided to build a 5-storey (5 up, 2 down) garage on the scenic river bank, just opposite the pretty river port, and as a result my apartment now costs $1,000,000. So are we going to sue the city? Fuck no. I don't want someone to accidentally throw a grenade into the elevator. When they first started building, my mom went to snoop on them (with a mic). A patrol car parked nearby (the cops weren't informed), and an unidentified person just plain told the cops to GTFO if they value their lives, and so they did.

Also, we the people were supposed to get first bids on parking spots in the soon-to-be-built garage - it seems not only the time to claim them has expired but everyone actively refused. There is seriously a paper that I have personally "signed" and flat out refused free property.

And old news: The local newspaper keeps writing about a new sports center (city funds, $17 million) opening next Thursday (2010 update: still an actual dump, still smells of piss). Why oh gods why?

There are no elections. There are no class action lawsuits, everyone's on their own. Popular opinion cannot matter less.

[Zinegata]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/04/ ... tml?hpt=C1

CNN just ran the story.

[Kaelik]

That's a terrible argument, Kaelic. Ambulances just don't show up on battlefields beacause they'll get shot up, too. And it's not like the guy in the van knew who was doing the shooting or if they were even intending to hit the journalists.

Bissa. Ambulances are different from random guys in vans. And depending on when they guys showed up they might have seen different things. But one thing they definitely saw was a pile of bodies, and one guy crawling under the guns of an Apache helicopter that was just firing.

So... oh yeah, they did know who shot at him.

Notice the dates and where this was released. Why aren't US generals on national news apologizing?

I assume this is directed at someone else?

[cthulhu]

Made australian papers too - but yeah this shit happens when you get a bunch of angry people with guns and make them sit in a hot box a long way from home.

Making a snap judgement on the day based on some pretty grainy footage is pretty hard, and people get it wrong. Happens in every war - the only reason that we know about it today much more than history is because we have gun cameras that are useful and gther a lot of infomation about what happened.

In GWI the US killed more of there own troops than the iraqi's ever did because guys using thermal scopes mistook bradley AFVs for Iraqi tanks and shot them.

[PhoneLobster]

Made australian papers too - but yeah this shit happens when you get a bunch of angry people with guns and make them sit in a hot box a long way from home.

Well actually not really. While it certainly DOES happen a bit for everyone in that situation it happens a heck of a lot more for American troops. It's the training and it's the culture. They aren't the armed forces of a civilised nation.

the only reason that we know about it today much more than history is because we have gun cameras that are useful and gther a lot of infomation about what happened.

Actually we know LESS about it today than we used to. After the whole Vietnam and Korea embarrassments the US military has taken rather extreme steps to ensure lack of transparency, accountability and most of all media exposure.

And indeed it is widely suspected, by journalists, that they have an actual policy of eliminating journalists when it suits them to and calling it an accident. This helicopter incident is not the first somewhat suspicious incident reported even in the latest Iraq war.

In GWI the US killed more of there own troops than the iraqi's ever did because guys using thermal scopes mistook bradley AFVs for Iraqi tanks and shot them.

The American army is also especially good at THAT too.

You'd think they would consider fixing whatever it is that is so broken.

[Koumei]

You'd think they would consider fixing whatever it is that is so broken.

You can fix brains?

Also, add Australia to the list above - Wikileaks is on the banned list... for publishing the banned list.

[cthulhu]

I'd love to see evidence to support the other positions.

In GWI the US killed more of there own troops than the iraqi's ever did because guys using thermal scopes mistook bradley AFVs for Iraqi tanks and shot them.

The American army is also especially good at THAT too.

You'd think they would consider fixing whatever it is that is so broken.

The issue is that when you look through a night sight at a bradley IFV that is hit by a RPG, it looks like a tank that is firing. So the guy on the ground makes a snap judgement that the tank is firing at him, and they take the shot.

Was the leading cause of blue on blue incidents in GWI. Other issues were GPS co-ordinates being punched in wrong, and co-ordination issues between various force elements from different countries and divisions.

They work hard on fixing it - but as I said, it's only because we now have gun camera footage etc that we know for sure what's going on. In WWII units from the same side would fight each other for HOURS without figuring out what is going on - and we have no idea how many artillery strikes were called in on friendly positions or civilians were killed by mistake.

The only reason we know now is that attack helicopters, jets, tanks, artillery all record where it was and when it fired at and what it fired at - then later on you can put the pieces together. If the Apache in the example cited didn't have a gun camera, no-one would ever know what happened.

Now, the US military probably sits on that infomation, yup, I'll give you that, but we simply did not know at all if that happened in WWII, Korea or Vietnam, because no-one recorded it.

Comments like Koumei's are retarded oversimplifications of the issue. If you want to do that, okay, but it's just as informed as saying 'Hur, Dur, public healthcare is bad'

It's not even just an american problem. You hear about americans way more because

A) They have all the big weapon systems. The australians cannot be involved in a airstrike or a artillery blue on blue incident because our combat forces literally do not include any artillery and strike capability is virtually zero. Instead we call on american forces for support.. like the british (including the british unit that accidently called in an airstrike on themselves due to a communications cockup.)

B) there are way more of them in threate. the americans have 120,000 ish troops in Afganistan, Australia has 400.

It's not a big fucking surprise that the americans have the FF issues, because there are literally 300 times as many of them.

[CatharzGodfoot]

A good example of why soldiers shouldn't be used as a police force. Although American police don't have much better of a record.

[Crissa]

Washington Monthly has it embedded, so you can see the video.

If you watch the video, you can tell that the pilot can see no weapons fire, no one taking cover until he fires. The crew in the Bradley and the crew in the Bushmaster are just tell him to fire repeatedly without ever checking to see if those are indeed enemies or weapons.

We should have our generals on TV, apologizing for this when it happened. We're shooting our allies. And not caring. We've had gun cameras since WWII. Just normally, they archive or destroy the footage. Notice, it's three years after the FIOA request for this footage, and it still hasn't been released.

Allowing soldiers to swear and demonize people from afar should not be allowed in our combat operations.

It's idiot maneuvers like this why we don't win hearts and minds - because when the US shows up to 'save' you, you're more likely to be killed by the US than by any other force in the world, including those trying to kill you.

And Kaelik, don't be stupid. Why would you shoot a van that's leaving? It's not like the soldiers on the ground did diddlysquat. Apaches shoot people from MILES away. What the video, and see the delay from the shots to when they arrive? And those are traveling faster than sound. That helicopter that's shooting is like two miles away. Hows a guy on the ground going to know which force is doing the shooting?

-Crissa

Spelling, dernit.

[CatharzGodfoot]

At least they didn't say 'Oh hey, it looks like some reporters and other random guys walking around, let's kill them.'. Regardless of the evidence they had right in front of them, they thought that they were attacking a group of armed men who were about to blow shit up with an RPG. Clearly the soldiers had to blow that shit up first, otherwise they'd become a laughingstock.

And once they had committed to the idea that they had successfully stopped a group of the enemy, the alternative became too awful to even contemplate. They don't even consider it until the ground forces find a couple of kids in the car. Then you can see the 'Oh shit' moment, where they start trying to rationalize and convince themselves that they did the right thing.

[Lich-Loved]

Perhaps this is one reason why armed forces should identify themselves as such. When a man decides he is going to carry his Kalashnikov for a 30-minute ambush on a convey and then rush back to his house/bakery and put back on his apron, shit like this happens. Since the enemy has decided to conduct their operations in this fashion, everyone becomes a potential hostile and innocent people get killed despite our ROE. Then again one goal of these fucktards is to actually get their own people killed to continue to foment instability. When they can't put their families in the line of fire, they blow up their own markets and police stations, killing innocents themselves.

I don't understand the coverup really. I think the video should have been released immediately by the US government to anyone that asked; perhaps posted on the net and sent to Al Jazeera and other press outlets as an instructional video on how to get yourself killed accidentally. Maybe the video could open with a slide written in a few regional languages that says:

Do not embed yourself with the enemy, especially one that is not uniformed.

Do not point ANYTHING at anyone in a war zone

Leave the medical attention to the trained military responders with big red crosses atop their vehicles

Pretty simple rules, really.