Wikileaks video - another point of view

I have watched the video many times over the last couple of days, and I have also come here to see how folks felt about it. Having thought about both I thought I'd chip in my two penn'orth.

I believe that it is beyond tragic that innocents were killed, and even more so for the children involved, but the venomous vitriol spat in the direction of the servicemen involved is simply beyond the pale.

I am not a combat veteran, thank goodness, and therefore have no real experience to relate to as I watched the situation unfold, but I have spoken to several folks that have been over there and that has given me a little colour as to how things are. I have no idea how long those particular soldiers had been in Iraq, whether this was their third or fourth or fifth tour, what their recent experiences had been, what their stress levels were etc etc. From what I can gather about this particular situation the units had come under fire from insurgents and were in the process of patrolling the area to find them. Then they come upon this group of folks that seemed to be blissfully unfazed by the military helicopters circling them overhead. The helicopters applied for, and received, the appropriate clearance to proceed with their actions from military command, and they dealt with their perceived threat.

I have read comments here at DU that frankly make me shake my head in disbelief. They remind me of the cries of 'baby-killers' about the returning vets from Vietnam. These guys are over there doing a job a very small percentage have done or will do, and yet we heap judgment upon them from behind the safety of our computer monitors with no possible idea of what they go through every day. I know for almost an absolute certainty that non of my co-workers are going to have their limbs blown off by an IED today. I know with the same level of confidence that none of them will be killed by a sniper as they go about their daily tasks. I know that my life, however stressful, is infinitely less so than those that have been judged by some, on this video, to be murderers. Folks, this is war. Not of our choice maybe, but it is a war in the very real life or death sense. These soldiers have to go through each and everyday knowing that there is a good chance that they, or someone on their unit, might not make it back.

People here have had some unbelievably cruel, unjustified, and frankly, asinine things to say over the last few days. "Heroes my ass", "murdering bastards" to name a few, and to those that feel that way I say this; walk a mile in their shoes, and THEN you can criticise them. Until then, by all means voice your opinions, it's a free country (for the time being), but realize this before sharing your thoughts with the world, these young men and women, are doing a job they didn't ask for, in situations none of us would tolerate, for next to no reward. They deserve at the very least our compassion and understanding, because thankfully, none of us will have to endure what they do every single day.

* I realize that I am probably going to get flamed to hell for this, but I stand by what I wrote.

and every multinational corporation involved in these occupations

and every politician who signed the USA up to follow military policies and who get kickbacks from defense lobbyists

those are actually the real murderers.

edit to add: I also point my fingers at ANYONE who is behind these occupations in the american public.

You can make an argument that this first shots were justified. I dont agree with that argument but ok, I can understand your point.

But there is no excuse for what followed when they shot up the van that was just trying to help the wounded. They were begging for permission to shoot at it.

with insurgents? none of us know what they were thinking.

and they lied on the tape by claiming the people in it were picking up weapons, they made that part up to get permission to fire.

Again, "none of us know what they were thinking" is a bullshit cop out and can be used to justify anything, including the war itself. The facts are what we saw in the tape. And what the tape showed was a van that pulled up many minutes after the shooting on a public road to help the wounded. The people in that chopper were in a huge rush to open fire, begging to get the order and lying to do so.

pilots mistaking the camera equipment for something else?

none of these deaths should have happened. but i think some people are using what possibly could have been an accident to insist that those guys are all cold blooded killers.

with the van.

As far as the first shooting goes I do not believe that it is justifed to make these kinds of life and death decisions from a mile or 2 away through a low resolution black and white camera. But I can see how an argument can be made that they had a reason to believe they were insurgents. I do not agree with that argument but atleast I understand it.

But there is no argument for how shooting at a makeshift ambulance and lying to get permission to shoot is justified.

a crowd of photographers and unarmed civilians. Wouldn't you need to finish everyone off before they got medical attention and reported details to the Iraqi authorities?

The lack of compassion for US servicemen on this site astounds me.

I don't believe that for a second. And there is no evidance for you to believe that.

I saw maybe, m a y b e, one gun. The pilot reported "5 to 6 individuals with AK-47s"

And to shoot up the van, the pilot reported that the wounded were trying to pick up weapons. Another lie.

there are at least 2 people carrying weapons...one an AK-47 and another an RPG.

I am not defending what happened but I believe it could have been a horrible mistake. Beyond that, I am getting tired of people reflexively hurling "war crime apologist" and "pro-war conservadem" at me and others simply for reporting what we see. I vigorously opposed the invasion of Iraq and I'll match my liberal/progressive credentials against anyone here.

This name-calling and smearing of fellow DU members has got to stop.

:shrug:

weapons. If you study the phenomenon of "anchoring", it's not surprising that a crew responding to a ground unit reporting taking small arms fire could mistake something for a weapon.

However, a number of posters have claimed there were no weapons whatsoever and that is simply untrue. I am not "defending" what happened but it is impossible to have reasoned debate when some among us are smearing fellow DU members by hurling "warmonger" at them.

would silence us by appealing to our sensitivity for the feelings of the troops.

please point to anyone who is trying to "silence" anyone.

that they mistook a camera and tripod for weapons. There were none and there was no threat from that group of people walking down the street.

Go back and actually read the two internal investigations.

:patriot:

Dude, hypocritical much?

There was nothing about the van, the journalist or the rescuers which in any way posed a threat.

"Knowing what they were thinking" is irrelevant. Ground troops were nearby. They could have intercepted the van, it would have been a better outcome in every way, including militarily if they had happened to be bad guys. Had the chopper crew not lied to their commanders...

Suspicions don't matter. Even if the suspicions had been accurate, it was an improper action.

Maybe they just wanted to shoot the crap out of some people. Don't act like it hasn't happen before.

thought they had legitimate targets. that is all.

they could be sick, trgger happy fucks, they could have made a horrible mistake. none of us really knows which.

That is what I've been waiting to hear, no one knows. Maybe they panicked and went with what they know...maybe not. Just nice to see SOMEONE, ANYONE admit they truly don't know.

But then you knew that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We should be allowed to judge you on that too, no?

One has to work for the DOD to think that it might not be as easy as it looks to judge the acts?

I don't work for the DOD, so I guess I have no option but to judge them wrong? I don't even have to look at the video to do that, then. All-righty then.

..

a) the people that "signed up for this" are either comfortable with violence or completely ignorant.
b) the shooter defrauded his commander by intentionally overstating the risk assessment.
c) once the injured journalist was loaded into the minivan, it became an ambulance. The Geneva Convention states that ambulances are officially neutral. He knowingly fired upon non combatants, that is a war crime.
d) the DoD has now "lost" the videotape. They have undoubtedly "lost" a great many videotapes. Many of the killings in Iraq are similar atrocities, just that this time, journalists were in the crosshairs.

The US military needs to be yanked back, hard.

now fatherless, after watching him get killed and getting injured themselves.

And then all the others who were in attacks that didn't involve Reuters employees, and so received no attention.

... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x452475

TYY

They are traumatized and showed many scars and bullet holes. Sadly the mental and emotional scars will not ever heal fully. :(

p.s. I'm blessed to be connected to a variety of News via Extended Cable (Al Jazera, EuroNews, France24 and Russian Television).

who will disagree with you. The mindset it requires to make it through every hour of every day in combat is unfathomable to the typical pixel jockey you will see in an internet forum like this one. Most people here would soil themselves on day one.

You will probably get flamed, but I stand by what you wrote as well.

I'm only here for the comic relief it provides!

I completely agree you, if you've never been in combat have no fucking clue what happens, the physical and mental that takes a horrible toll on the human body, and there is no way anyone who has never experienced the sheer terror of combat can ever walk in our shoes, did they fuck up, maybe, maybe not, we were not there so we don't know what was going thru their minds. I expect to get flamed also but I'm a big boy, I can take it

You blame the leaders who send us off for their own reasons, but are far too cowardly to ever go themselves.

This might work with amnesiacs.

We actually forgave 90% of the nazis real quick, since they were just ordinary people trying to survive crazy times, and when the craziness ended, they went back to seeming normal.

In my life time I have come to realize that our nation's prosperity is based directly on the death and suffering of millions of people worldwide. The "intelligence" agencies of my government work actively to keep poor countries unstable and under the control of despots who will make sure we make a profit before they make sure their people have basic needs met. Our military is vastly bigger than it needs to be for defense, so that we can intimidate people and take what we want if necessary.

The deaths of countless innocents is worth standing up and fighting for. Are you and I seeking to overthrow our social order to put a change to this? Dunno about you, but so far in my life I have been content to live comfortably off what could easily be described as blood money in a big picture of humanity. And to bitch a lot.

Many apparently respectable "authorities" in this country will tell you that killing people for our country is an honorable thing to do. Many poor people in this country desperately need a steady job that pays a decent wage. So, I do not judge or blame the people who go crazy with violence when they are thrown into a horror show that cannot really be imagined, only experienced. If you do, I would hope you do so from the perspective of someone who has survived extensive combat and remained sane, and not from one of presumption.

Something tells me that ain't the case.

Stats predict after extensive combat you'd break down and/or become much more aggressive, no matter how much keyboard conviction you display here.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Especially when it's done so eagerly and indiscriminately.

Now, that they've been deluded into believing otherwise is not reason to hold anything against them...but then one gets a glimpse into what it is some of them are actually doing...ugh. I can definitely see where those who have friends/family enlisted simply cannot fathom the reality of the military, so there's always that drive to defend/defend/defend since it's their loved ones involved, and like most, aren't very keen on casting them as villains

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This OP is one of the most despicable things I've ever read on DU.

..

..

my gut instinct is always to agree with your view on this issue arcadian.

It's complicated by the fact that I closely know very good people who are combat vets.

like stranger81 says, no one who kills for a living is my "hero."

but I have come to believe that soldiers are empathy-deserving people who have been "deluded," for lack of a better word, into carrying out the role that they do. American soldiers, like those in all wars, are also victims. I try and have compassion for that, although my anger at so much I have seen makes that hard.

our troops come from the same nationalist culture as the rest of America. they are just among the victims of a much bigger systemic problem. the mass delusion affects most in our nation. we are a warfare state and this is what we reap. personally I think I can be of most help if I try not to hate, even those who are complicit in ways

which you describe as "unbelievably cruel and unjustified" certainly seem no more cruel or unjustified than the pilots laughing, and begging to shoot an unarmed wounded man in the back while he's crawling around on the ground. Or shooting a child and justifying it by saying they shouldn't have been in a combat zone, when their entire country is a fucking combat zone.

. Supporting the troops does not mean blindly allowing our humanity to slip away.

..and rather than apply the blanket of "bloodthirsty poor ignorant, hate-filled motherfuckers" as someone else classlessly did in this thread, that we should apply a level of humanity to those that were pulling the trigger too..

They didn't know there were kids in the van, and the victims were mistakenly thought to be armed insurgents..in a combat situation you don't have the luxury of a second chance..

That logic sort of reminds me of something a former employee of mine asked after I told him that I'd just been held up by an armed guy in the store I worked in, "was it loaded?" was his question. "I forgot to ask" was my response..

When you have fired upon "insurgents" you make sure they stay down..or are you suggesting that our troops are asked to inquire as to the overall health of those that they have just fired upon?

in the back while he's crawling on the fucking ground, enemy or not. I'm not going to debate this with you all day, but I will say that your claim that there are no second chances in a "Combat" situation is total bullshit. Did you watch the video? How many times did the Apache circle those ENEMY COMBATANTS before the enemy combatants opened fire on them. Well they circled at least 5 times with those "enemy's" staring up at them. No one ever made a move for a weapon, no one opened fire, none of them went for cover and the pilot circled and circled and calmly waited for his go ahead to shoot. So now we shoot people because they might be something?

You want to defend this action? Go ahead, the Taliban and the insurgents need more recruits, and nothing recruits better than video of Americans laughing as they kill brown people and their country defending them for it.

..that was wounded and on the ground yes?

As far as the chopper jockeys were aware these guys were insurgents with weapons. Those type of people get shot at in a war zone.

and my grandfather on my fathers side died freeing them.

I learned much from the war time writings of my grandfather. The most memorable being

""I try to do it, but I can't. I look across the battlefield and I don't see "the enemy" I see me. A guy fighting for what he believes in. No matter how hard I try I cannot bring myself to hate the enemy, which makes my time here so much harder".

That is a hero.

What is supposed to set us apart from our "enemies" is not how we treat each other but how we treat them.

Oh and your idiotic claim that the pilots were "aware" of those insurgents is insane considering that after the fact at least 2 of them proved to be reporters with cameras. The pilots didn't KNOW shit. They guessed, wrong, and even after they realized what they did they made excuses like "shouldn't have brought kids into a war zone". Oh yeah that works, we turn their whole country into a fucking war zone and then blame the Iraqi's for having their kids there. Hey maybe you would like to blame the kids too, you could go down to the hospital and tell them next time to choose their home country and their parents more carefully.

..they were targeting insurgents. I didn't say they KNEW anything.

Please read things more carefully so that when you call someone idiotic it doesn't come back to bite you on the arse..

Y'know,even if they thought the people were combatants, I do believer the Geneva Convention protects injured combatants and those who are trying to remove them from the area. I can't think of any possible reason that would justify them opening fire on that van that had the children which was trying to take the injured reporter to safety...

Well said.

:kick:

Cops?
Doctors?
Bus drivers?
Air traffic controllers?
Harried parents?
Teachers?

Do they get a pass when they commit atrocities because they are under stress?

Under stress, is a flimsy excuse for the military mindset that reduces human beings to "targets".

Among your choices, only Cops is even close to analogous.

Nice try though.

"I shook the baby because she was driving my crazy."

"I gave the patient the wrong meds because the ER was packed that night."

"I shot the guy because somebody had shot at my partner."

"I crashed the bus into those people because everybody was yelling at me."

"I killed my boss because he fired me."

"I killed my wife because she cheated on me."

The list is endless.

the nurses and doctors who admitted killing patients in the hospitals during Katrina.
They attributed it to stress of the emergency.

As you say, NOT limited to soldiers.

In deciding negligence, for example, an ordinary situation is judged differently than a stressful one. If you mess up under stress, it takes a lot more to prove negligence.

And other atrocities committed by US servicemen. The fact of the matter is that these people committed a crime, they shot down twelve people in cold blood. Trying to hide that behind "walk a mile in their shoes" bull is simply another way of covering up what even you know to be murder(that's why you're trying to cover it up).

There is no excuse, there is no need for moral relativism. It's murder, and it's all there in black and white.

how's that?

How does that make your comment any different from any other poster who defends what the Bush administration did in Iraq for 5 years?

These men quickly and without good evidence decided the men in the street were all hostiles, even though there was no sign of any hostile action. They shot first, and didn't bother to ask questions at all. They were so excited to shoot the men they could hardly contain themselves.

It was a murderous attack, with killing of wounded, of unarmed persons, or those rendering aid to the wounded. If that doesn't disturb you, then the problem is you lack proper empathy and are far too concerned about the out of control attackers instead of their victims.

..but I'll try..

My comment deals specifically with ONE video about ONE event and in no way defends or excuses anything that the * administration did. Not quite sure how you link the two?

The soldiers acted in their belief on what they perceived as threats. More specifically they apparently thought these were the insurgents that had fired upon a ground crew in the vicinity. Contrary to your assertion that they asked no questions at all, they quite clearly and audibly asked questions first, specifically whether they had permission to engage, and after they received the all clear carried out their attack. As to whether they were excited almost beyond containment I would suggest that the audio doesn't back that claim up either.

It was indeed a murderous attack, bullets and missiles are designed to kill people, these soldiers thought they were firing on the enemy, and the object in war is to kill and/or render that enemy non-functional.

I am deeply disturbed by the attack video, this war and in fact ALL wars, but my empathy doesn't stop at the dead and wounded civilians, it also extends to those who wear the uniform and have to make these choices every single day as they try and stay alive.

who hold our antisocial peers accountable. At a minimum, have them discharged so they can't KILL in cold blood. These soldiers are not only a threat to innocent civilians and journalists but also to their fellow soldiers. Who knows what might set them off?

p.s. Shooting an unarmed and profoundly wounded person as they are in the process of low crawling in an attempt to get to safety is, NO DOUBT, a war crime. There's NOTHING ambiguous about that segment of the video. It stands on it's own.

But the helicopter gunners deserve blame as well because they went along with the SOP. To see the gunners as victims of the situation they were placed into is to deny them their own ability to make judgments. And since Nuremberg, "I was just following orders" has just not cut it as a war-crimes defense.

At least that is what a war apologist told me. I believe these guys just wanted to 'light someone up' and didn't think the video footage would ever get aired. Don't like that? To fucking bad, I don't care - I call a war crime a war crime when I see it. Not make up some weak excuse for people butchering people.

At least MOST people here on DU believe it to be a war crime - which is good imo because common sense is in short supply.

This is about their brass, the war machine, the war love, the war profit, the war deceit, the war perpetual. I despise my country for the cunning to perpetuate war and the disappearing money and accumulatin money for a few. There is little to honor these days when we (UK and US and other) join forces to perpetuate what the Brits did for centuries - invade. The bataan for invading was passed to the US. There are many in this country who don't mind it, because they were carefully brainwashed in preperation - the lessons from previous wars don't mean a thing to people whose base of motivation is fear and hate and utter bigotry as a result of their need to feel superior.

Who knows if the soldiers of the two 'great' wars would have taken more precaution or if their caution was more professional or the training was different or if the history of the great wars was more carefully written to create more heroes - simply because the technology wasn't there and the time allowed to document the incidents took advantage of memories. Communication wasn't as scattered or technically easy.

There are more psy-ops to use. The end purpose is different. War is commercial in a new sense.

The kids are pumped up on music and games to a dangerous level.

The US seems to allow blatant hate against Arabs or Moslems or foreigners.

IF WE ARE GOING TO ENGAGE IN WAR against people who don't wear uniforms as we did in Vietnam, we need to learn new war methods.

I would start with their training.

There are endless angles to this problem. We are not doing everything right. And we should not be doing this in the first place.

Thought well written, sorry to say I see things totally different from you.

..

refuse to own up to it = why? Because there will less profit if we don't have to pass out money or pay lawyers. Or the worst kind of expense - failing faith in the reputation. We have military brass who are part of the complex of war industry who don't give a damn about our legacy anymore - they only care about making money in the short term. THIS and my other points are what we are angry about. Some of us honor the people of the other countries of the world and don't consider ourselves superior soul to soul. To use culture and religion as a base of superiority is not what we are on this earth for.

Individual soldiers join up for many reasons--some honorable, some not--but to pretend that this was an laudable act involving the defense of our borders is ludicrous.

if you are an insurgent under arms you would NOT be "blissfully unfazed by the military helicopters circling them overhead". You would KNOW they were looking for you. The only people who WOULD be unfazed are people who were secure in their belief that there was no reason for anyone to be shooting at them.

This was an unprovoked shooting of unarmed civilians who did not expect to be attacked.

There is no way to justify it.

You KNOW that is the way insurgents behave? Wouldn't it be more logical, if you were an insurgent, to try and act cool and unfazed rather then dive for cover as soon as the chopper appears? Appearing to be "secure in their belief that there was no reason for anyone to shoot at them" would seem to me to be perfect cover for insurgents.

It was not unprovoked as ground units had just come under fire from insurgents. Did unarmed civilians get killed? Yes, and that is what makes this whole thing such a terrible tragedy.

If they saunter casually down the street they are well trained insurgents and we need to kill them.

Apparently in your view there is nothing these people could have done which should have kept them from being killed.

Have you ever heard the term "Catch 22"?

..I was responding to the previous poster.

Catch 22. Yes I have heard of that. In fact, my fore-fathers may have helped define it. Ever heard of ducking stools? Maybe that's why we Brits have such an ironic and dry sense of humour..

Forgive me, but that's a really stupid idea. If you know that there are people with guns coming to kill you, you hide. You don't just stand there and say, "I have nothing to fear," because you do: it's those men with guns coming to shoot you to death. Further, think for a second about how would they have acted if they were innocent. This is an easy question to answer because they were innocent. Besides your argument being totally fallacious, it's just flat-out wrong. They weren't insurgents. They were civilians, so it's stupid to argue that they might have been insurgents. I'm tempted to ask you what, by your reckoning, would have constituted non-suspicious behavior? Running for cover?

Seriously, acting innocent is reason enough to presume guilt? What kind of fucked up 1984-world do you live in?

..and I KNOW I didn't say they were insurgents..

Please re-read the posts..

You placed blame on them for acting like insurgents. You argued that acting innocent is reason for suspicion, which, by the way, is a really stupid thing to say. I asked you how an innocent person would have acted, considering that they were, in fact, innocent. You didn't answer. The fact is, these soldiers killed innocent civilians in cold blood, and then when bystanders came to help, they killed them to. There was no provocation, no threat, just murder.

The facts appear to be that the soldiers fired upon a group of individuals that were suspected of being the insurgents that had just recently fired upon US military personnel.

In the heat of battle there were preceived as a threat, and they were dealt with. In hindsight, which we all know is 20/20 that turned out not to be the case.

Oh, and thanks for putting your words in my mouth, and then calling me stupid..

This was NOT a combat situation! The guys in the heliocopter had nothing at all to do with any previous battle, they were told there was an insurgent firing incident in the area and to fly around the area looking for insurgents. They were in no danger and neither was the ground force at that time since the suspected insurgents were found in a courtyard two to three hundred yards away who turned out to be innocent civilians. Nobody was shooting at them or even looking like they had weapons to shoot them with, and they were over a mile away in the air. There is no "heat of battle" excuse as there WAS no battle going on. Just because some shithead with an itch to raise his kill score safely circling about in a chopper overhead calls it a battle to make himself feel better slaughtering innocent children doesn't actually make it a battle. THERE WAS NO FUCKING COMBAT OR BATTLE GOING ON, and the guys in the heliocopter weren't involved in the firing incident that sent them out either.

You are simply wrong on the facts.

And have blatantly ignored every single fact.

No, there was no combat situation. NOBODY WAS SHOOTING AT THEM. Whatever shooting incident occurred previously that was the reason the Apaches were sent up to look for insurgents whether THAT was combat or not, that situation was over. No ground force or air force was being fired upon, and it was believed that where the shooting incident that occurred previously took place that whoever it was that was firing was no longer even THERE.

The group with the journalists were indeed innocent civilians. If one or two of them were carrying AK-47's they were not firing them, were not getting into a firing position, and they're ALLOWED to carry them. One AK-47 or equivalent weapon is allowed per household, and in that area it is common for people to go about carrying their permitted weapon for personal defense. Journalists in particular are known to not go into a dangerous area without some armed protection.

It was Nadir with his camera that was identified as peeking around the the building with an RPG that was not an RPG but a camera - read the transcript...

15:28 Yeah Two-Six. One-Eight I just also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG cropping round the corner getting ready to fire on your location.
15:36 That's why we ah, requested permission to engage.

Except that's yet another lie because they requested permission to engage when they thought they saw "five to six individuals with AK-47's" even though they already verbally confirmed just moments before that they saw one or two with cameras they thought were AK-47's...

01:43 Hotel Two-Six; Crazy Horse One-Eight. Have five to six individuals with AK47s . Request permission to engage .

Yes, the reporter was not sticking a RPG around the corner. Yes, the helicopter misidentifed the shoulder straps of the reporters as belonging to weapons. But there was still an RPG in the group. This is a fact you are ignoring.



That is an RPG. Those are NOT standard issue for Iraqi citizens. That is not a group of innocent civilians. That is a group of hostile insurgents. That is WHY the journalists are there. They are getting a story. The story is the insurgents.

This is not shit I'm making up. These are the facts.

Gee I guess he did not check the "Bolo Boffin's Friendly Guide to Surviving an American Occupation" a book you are destined to write, just after telling everyone on DU what is and isnt acceptable discourse on matters military industrial and complex.

I am especially looking forward to the section on cleaning the occupier's boot with your tongue.

if your skin was any thinner you'd be translucent.

This was a Rueters news team, they don't follow insurgents. The guy with the RPG is in their security detail.

The guy with the RPG is NOT in their security detail.

Insurgents don't walk down and hang out in the middle of the street in broad daylight while a chopper is circling overhead.

Show us a Reuters story that shows insurgents close up.

You made the claim that they were Reuters journalists doing a story on insurgents.

Show us another Reuters story with a close up of insurgents. You know like walking around the middle of the street with them, casually lounging around.

That would be proof, but you don't have any proof ehh?

Your goalpost for me makes no sense. Maybe we should stick with my words. Thanks.

That it was a Reuters news crew doing a story on insurgents

If that's true there should be at least one other Reuters story on insurgents in a similar setting.

Like you know lounging around in the middle of the street with Apaches in striking distance.

Come on Boffin, show us just one Reuters story where they are mingling with insurgents in any setting.

There may be or there may not be another Reuters story. Whether there is or not doesn't matter. The existence of another story in no way proves this was the same thing, and the absence of another story doesn't prove that this wasn't. It's a silly goalpost you've set up.

Reuters does stories on insurgents but you can't present one

either that or this was the only one there ever was and the Apaches thwarted it.

LOLZ!!! That makes just as much sense as the rest of your apologist gibberish.

It's okay to kill unarmed cameramen mortally wounded and crawling on the ground, cuz they might threaten our troops.

These soldiers have exactly zero concern for any Iraqis on either side of the conflict. You can see that when they missile the abandoned building later on in the Vid, there's civilians walking down the street past the building, they don't wait for them to pass, they just open fire.

It's just like your statement "did you know the photographers were Iraqis?" like that automatically makes them guilty.

There are no innocent Iraqis, if there's a group of 10 of them and 2 of them have weapons, kill them all.

Kalun just can't manage somehow to get what I'm saying. His inability to understand my rather clear language has led to a number of very weird representations of what I'm saying, none of which bear any resemblance to my actual meaning.

ETA: You would think that my position would be abhorrent enough to Kalun that he or she could simply state it as is. Instead there is this continued effort to totally misrepresent it to be even more abhorrent and gross in his or her eyes. If my actual position is really all that bad, why the continued misrepresentation?

""That is an RPG. Those are NOT standard issue for Iraqi citizens. That is not a group of innocent civilians. That is a group of hostile insurgents. ""

Aren't security details allowed to carry RPG's? If they were hostile insurgents that had been shooting at ground troops that morning would they be standing in the middle of the street weapons lowered with a chopper circling multiple times?

You understand that the two Reuters journalists were Iraqi, right?

So the blackwater mercs only carry AK's and M16's? Tell us some more jokes Mr Comedian.

Yeah the photogs were Iraqi, they had brown skin, that's why they were shot. Doesn't matter who's side they were on.

You have proof of this assertion, I take it.

the point, since you obviously missed it, was that these where security, like Blackwater, who can carry RPG's if they want to.

But that's not the point. What is pictured in that still photo is not an RPG and even the guys in the heliocopter didn't think it was... they claimed they were AK-47's. They only claimed sighting anyone in the group with an RPG when they watched Namir peek around the building with the tip of his camera lense visable (they mistake the tip of the camera lense for an RPG). They even claim later that the reason they requested permission to fire was because of Namir and his RPG looking camera...

15:28 Yeah Two-Six. One-Eight I just also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG cropping round the corner getting ready to fire on your location.
15:36 That's why we ah, requested permission to engage.

They did not claim the man in the still photo had an RPG, they only mentioned sighting AK-47's while watching the journalists stroll down the street. Whatever that guy is holding it's not an RPG, and they guys in the heliocopter never believed that it was. The only time they mention seeing someone with an RPG is later after watching these guys they assume have AK-47's when they see Namir peek around the building with the tip of his camera lense visable. THAT is what they saw that they thought was an RPG, they said so at the time of sighting and confirmed it again later after the shooting was over.

Whatever the thing was nobody claimed it was an RPG and they were unconcerned about it. It may have been an AK-47 (which they are allowed to have and which is what the guys in the heliocopter claimed it was) and it may have been something else entirely.

What is important here is that the guys in the chopper did not believe it was an RPG or they would have said so, not taken their eyes off of it, would have taken evasive action and requested permission to shoot immediately instead of casually looking around longer until they spied Namir with his camera that they THEN claim for the first time is the sighting of an RPG.

This was NOT a group of hostile insurgents that journalists mingled with. The hostiles were found 20 minutes later two to three meters to the southwest in the same building where the original firing incident took place that was the reason the Apaches were sent out to look for insurgents.

AK-47's are allowed - one per civilian household which they are allowed to carry with them on the streets for personal protection. Journalists do not go into dangerous territory (and probably any territory) without armed escort, but that armed escort can only have "small arms" which do not include RPG's.

You can see it in the video. It was recovered by the team on the ground.

This was a group of hostiles. It's why the reporters were there, quite obviously.

You can split all the hairs you want. Those are the facts.

The previous engagement that morning was insurgents, they were on the roofs, they disappeared when the choppers showed up of course.

These guys were casually strolling down the middle of the street in broad daylight. It was a Reuters news team with security personnel. Why else would they not be worried about choppers circling overhead? If they had been shooting at US troops that morning they wouldn't be in the middle of the street with choppers overhead.

The military didn't identify any "insurgents", they didn't even ID the guys with cameras, how do they know if they were friend or foe? This happens all the time, anyone that gets killed is of course an "insurgent" cuz if you ID'd them and found they were friendlies you would have to be held accountable.

""The party found was not wholy innocent civilians.""

were they wearing uniforms? Were they ID'd? Show us the military report where they were ID'd.

It's just like Vietnam, you can't win a guerrilla war, you don't know who is friend or foe. The fighters always hit and run, all that's left when the choppers arrive is civilians and the troops shoot whoever is available out of pure desperation.

When the camera man stuck his long lens around the corner, with the 5" diameter blunt end, the gunner called it an RPG, which has a pointed end, just because that's what he had to do to get permission to shoot. When the chopper comes around the corner right before the gunner opened fire it's totally obvious it's a camera.

""this was a combat situation""

the guys on the ground never fired one single shot, this was a fish barrel shoot of friendlies.

Hint: you won't find it. That's because the only people employed by Reuters were the two journalists.

Casually strolling, my ass. They were setting up around the corner from a military target. They had an RPG ready to take it out.

Show us where and how the military ID'd them as insurgents. Show us where the military ID's ANY of them. If you can't do that how do you know who they are?

""Casually strolling, my ass. They were setting up around the corner from a military target.""

They are walking down the middle of the street with weapons slack at their sides. There's a chopper circling around them multiple times. If they are insurgents how come they are not worried about the chopper? How come they aren't running and ducking?

Your "argument" doesn't make any sense.

I'm talking about conclusive ID, like names and affiliations

they didn't even ID the Reuters photogs.

:rofl:

Not in an guerrilla oil war of aggression against a country that was never a threat to us. The very fact we are there in the first place is a war crime.

All that means is you can't claim they were insurgents without conclusively IDing them.

You know just as much as the gunners, no more. You think they might be insurgents, that's it. Of course you didn't go to the trouble to find out for sure because they probably would have been proven to be security and civilians.

I saw the video, so you can't pretend like there was a battle. There was no provocation, no confusion, just a group of civilians minding their own business. The soldiers lied to their superiors about the presence of weapons, murdered a bunch of civilians, and then murdered the people in the makeshift ambulance that came to help. That what the video shows.

Plus, you keep making these arguments and then claiming you never said them, but you did. It's all right here. And your arguments are pretty stupid. Just because they could have been insurgents doesn't mean it's okay to just shoot them. Any human being could be suspected of any crime at any time, but that doesn't mean it's okay to shoot them up.

Look, I don't mean to insult you. I don't mean to call you stupid. But what you're arguing just doesn't make any sense.

That baseless contention changes everything.

;)

Just because the possibility exists doesn't mean you've proven it to be true.

Gang Of Four - I Love A Man In Uniform live 7/31/82
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z49cmltJJeA&feature=related

they broke the rules of engagement when they shot up the people around the van when no one was holding a weapon. If they can't admit that they are liars. And how the heck can you trust anyone to investigate themselves? Of course that's going to be biased, don't be ridiculous.

the gunner also lied when he said the camera man had an RPG when he was looking around the corner

The gunner did not lie. The gunner was mistaken. The gunner did not have the luxury of examining and rewinding the tape in a safe environment. There is no evidence the gunner lied.

how credible is that?

the gunner says "come on guy, pick up a weapon" he was asking the crawling wounded CAMERAMAN to pick up a weapon so he could then shoot him according to the rules of engagement

the guy never picked up a weapon yet he still shot him

he shot an unarmed wounded guy crawling on the ground

how is that not breaking the rules of engagement?

you are going beyond the benefit of the doubt, you are excusing clear criminal acts

There was already information about similar vehicles ferrying insurgents back and forth. As soon as the van pulls up, two men pop out of a courtyard to help. The action looked coordinated to the helicopter. The van was unmarked, as an insurgent vehicle would be. The helicopter did not see the kids in the front seat because they were watching the men outside the van. (Later that day that same helicopter would withhold fire from another group of insurgents because they spotted kids with them.)

It was a tragic mistake. You're free to believe what you like about this situation, of course.

""Because there are more reasons for engagement than "picking up a weapon""

be specific

""There was already information about similar vehicles ferrying insurgents back and forth.""

Even if they were insurgents you can't fire on unarmed wounded.

""The action looked coordinated to the helicopter.""

Lets see. First we'll walk around the middle of the street with weapons lowered. We'll wander around there until the Apaches shoot us down, then we'll have some friends sacrifice their van with their kids in it to come and try and rescue us.

that's really a great coordinated plan there Boffin, how long did it take to think that one up?

""The van was unmarked, as an insurgent vehicle would be.""

Aren't all civilian vehicles unmarked also? Just like the rest of your argument this makes exactly zero sense.

You can fire on insurgents who are participating in a battlefield operation. The helicopter thought this was a vehicle ferrying insurgent members back and forth to firing locations.

Your proposed insurgent battle plan is a straw man. What the helicopter saw: a group of insurgents displaying hostile intent toward the Humvees. Then a insurgent vehicle coming in to assist one of the insurgents. They didn't know press or kids were present. The facts on the ground were not exactly what the helicopter thought was happening.

Yes, civilian vehicles are unmarked. That's why insurgent vehicles are unmarked, to blend in. People who want to run ambulance services join the Red Cross/Red Crescent and they get vehicles that are clearly marked. The van wouldn't have been fired on if it had been a marked ambulance or if the kids in the front seat had been seen.

That will teach those Apaches.

""You can fire on insurgents who are participating in a battlefield operation. The helicopter thought this was a vehicle ferrying insurgent members back and forth to firing locations.""

So the camera man in his death crawl was going to be transported to another location so he could start fighting again? Wait, they have yet to show us he was fighting in the first place. LOLZ Bolo!!!, you are quite the comedian today.

I think the gunner knew it was not an RPG, at 3:11 in the 17 minute tape its very clear it's a camera.

""Your proposed insurgent battle plan is a straw man.""

Your the one that says they were insurgents with a plan. What's their plan Boffin? How do you fight a battle by wandering down the middle of the street weapons lowered? What kind of strategy is that?

It's your own ideas right back at you. You say the Apache recognized some kind of plan.

You say the medical evac was transporting someone in their death throws to do battle elsewhere

that's just as ludicrous as them killing someone trying to crawl away.

It's your story that I'm only clarifying to show everyone how bizarre it really is.

You can mangle that all you like, but it won't change what the helicopter actually was thinking. Sorry.

they weren't thinking that much, they weren't sure it was an RPG looking around the corner, they assumed it was. If they were really thinking they would have confirmed it. Right before they shot it's easy to confirm it was a camera.

most thinking persons agree they certainly crossed the line wasting the wounded and rescuers like that.

Guess you don't agree though, the unarmed wounded should be killed. Can't have those near dead insurgent camera men being transported off to do battle elsewhere.

So the helicopter was fully justified in assuming what came around that corner was an RPG.

You would have them hesitate and possibly jeapordize their soldiers on the ground. That's not going to happen. The US Armed Forces errs on the side of the safety of their troops. You can hate on that all you like.

You really need to stop putting words into my mouth.

2 of them had cameras, 2 of them had weapons, one AK, one RPG

It looked like cameras when they were walking down the street, it looked like a camera looking around the corner, it was obviously cameras when they came around the corner close up and opened fire.

""The US Armed Forces errs on the side of the safety of their troops.""

how is killing a unarmed man crawling on the ground erring on the side of safety, why not just light the whole town up?

That's what the helicopter saw and requested permission to engage. I don't know how many times it has to be said: insurgent groups also use cameras.

Later, one of that group appears to be rescued by three military-aged males and an unmarked van, consistent with descriptions of insurgent vehicles. The driver pulls straight up, and is immediately joined by two men from a nearby courtyard. The activity appeared to be coordinated. The helicopter requested and recieved permission to engage again.

As it happens, the wounded man was a Reuters journalist. The van driver was simply a good Samaritan and had his kids in the van. The helicopter had no idea of this ever.

I know you want to believe that your perception is correct, but the facts simply do not comport with your version.

That's what's shown in the video.

No amount of your saying something makes it so, and no amount of your claiming it convinces anyone except you.

Your attempts to spin this have utterly failed.

My third proof is that you've given up engaging me on the facts and the issues and are resorting to belittling me.

That's a fact.

I have accurately described what has happened on this topic on this thread.

the vid is 38 minutes long. Where's the footage of the guys on the ground firing even one shot?

the chopper is circling them, how come they aren't engaging? How come they aren't running and ducking?

The modern US military and particularly its many contractors consider disinformation to be a major part of their job. They honestly believe that the truth doesn't matter, that the only thing that matters is controlling the dialog.

The pro military arguments are being run by the Pentagon, by active duty military, and by contractors who make their living off war. They hit the internet in force, laying down their suppressive fire of bullshit cover stories and rationalizations.

Some people who repeat these military memes are just people who tend to lap up authoritarianism.

disinformation and the truth! At least this has become evidently clear from the certainty of his assertions contained within his earnest posts.

so many willing participants oblivious to their critical role as amplifiers.

""The modern US military and particularly its many contractors consider disinformation to be a major part of their job.""

they are actually targeting journalists, the journalist death rate in this war is higher than any other in history.

some big fat long lenses. Clearly viewable.

Really simple to take a digital camera, poke it around a corner, and get a bead on a target for maximum efficiency when you stick the RPG around.

That's not to say that's what the journalists were doing, and the helicopter mistook the camera for an RPG. But recognizing camera equipment wasn't enough to say journalist and wasn't enough to disallow an ID of insurgency.

""But recognizing camera equipment wasn't enough to say journalist""

So kill anyone taking pictures? Is that the new rules of engagement?

Having a camera doesn't rule out insurgent. It doesn't only mean journalist or reporter.

"There's no hint of evidence they knew journalists were on the ground"

There's no hint of evidence they knew insurgents were on the ground.

The weapons. The hostile intent seemingly demonstrated against the Humvees.

but it could be an RPG which has a pointed end

we'll just say it's an RPG over the radio, that way we can get the go-ahead cuz it could be insurgents with a camera but we can't engage that

those weapons could be part of a security detail, it's most likely they're not insurgents or they wouldn't be standing in plain site

heck with it, Kill them all, we won't be held accountable anyway since we'll be doing the investigation.

You aren't very good at either.

I'm just clarifying.

thats exactly how the Vietcong acted when a patrol would go out, I know for sure that right outside the base I was stationed at the Vietcong would work the fields by day and by night try to kill american soldiers

or did you not watch the full length video to see that?

The real insurgents, when they found them after killing that group with the journalists, behaved entirely unlike the other group. The very moment the heliocopter came up on them they darted into the building that was blown up. One of them was actually running while wearing some sort of chest protector and carrying what looked like an RPG launcher. The other tried to look casual at first but was hugging the wall along the street and tring to hide the weapon he was carrying and then suddenly changed direction and darted into the building. They acted furtively and nervous completely unlike the casualness of the group with the journalists that were strolling down the middle of the street, stopping, conversing, and generally milling about completely unconcerned that there was a heliocopter circling around and around watching them.

In watching the full length video it's obvious how differently the guys in the chopper dealt with them, too. THIS time they zoomed the camera in on them to properly ID what they were carrying and verbally confirmed "PID" (positive ID), carefully observed the building the insurgents fled into and verbally assured each other several times that it was abandoned/under construction (although it actually wasn't because there were still 3 families living in it that got blown up although there was roof construction visable), there was absolutely no making comments about them like they had done in the incident of the shooting of the group with the journalists... and wonder of wonders, they confirmed it to be the exact same building where the insurgent firing incident was that was the reason the Apaches were sent out looking for insurgents in the first place had occurred as was verbally confirmed in the video.

When there is shooting in the neighborhood and the choppers arrive, everyone clears the streets. In this case, everyone did but that group. While AK's might be common in Iraq, RPGs are not a home defense weapon. When ground units call in a request for air support because they've come under fire and the helicopter crew spots a group of men clustered together in the middle of a otherwise empty street armed with AKs and RPGs, they aren't going to land and ask to see identification, they are going to fire on that group.

And were I in uniform, I would not deploy. There is no use demonizing those service people, they didn't send themselves there. But they are choosing to be complicit. That's something they have to live with.

Every soldier deploying knows they signed up to to just that. They know they rolled the dice as to whether they'd ever go, and if so whether they'd be sent where they're truly needed or into a an epic war crime. Deploying does not make them complicit - it's what they do once they get there.

I know a number of service people who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan. I can find no fault with the medic whose pledge to himself was to bring back all of his "kids" safely. I can find no fault with the sergeant in Afghanistan who realized his squad was part of the problem, and made it his duty to figure out what the just solution was for the innumerable daily emergencies. I can find no fault for the NCO who organized his folks to get friends and family back home to send "care packages" of medical supplies so they could keep an unofficial street clinic in operation.

Don't lump all service people together. In general they are not doing anything more horrible or deadly than the tens of thousands of Wall Street bankers and other criminals in cushy white-collar jobs right here on US soil. The problem is that their massive firepower lets them make very bad choices much more quickly and intentionally, and much more visibly. War is easy to organize against because the murder and injustice are so easy to see. The horrors perpetuated by the Captains of Capitalism are as deadly but far less immediately obvious to the casual observer. The soldiers - if they come home with souls and minds - will have to face their bad decisions eventually. The white collar bastards get to lie to themselves about their murders until they die.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You will not be heard by the people who are already assassinating your character, but you are being heard.

Fuck these killers, and fuck any and all excuse-making for MURDER.

Would you spit upon those who killed Nazis on Normandy Beach?

Maybe if you'd dial your rhetoric back, we could have a reasoned debate on this issue.

Iraq is totally a war of choice, there is no parallel to WWII wherein America was attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on us.

Trying to equate Iraq and WWII is a blatant effort at obfuscation.

I simply asked about WWII to see if Zhade would make a distinction.

Now my question is, what if there were similar situations during WWII? Would you spit on those soldiers?

Let the record show I was addressing Zhade to begin with.

"What about WW II?
Would you spit upon those who killed Nazis on Normandy Beach?"

That was a blatant attempt to equate WWII with Iraq..

..it is a blatant attempt to get you to answer a question..

Two utterly different situations, the first being a dire existential threat to America and the second being a war not even of convenience but more a war of greed and profit.

it wasn't. It was you reframing it to make it look like I did.

..(you know...greed and profit) and if the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour I think the US would have been even later to join the war than they were.

U-boats were systematically sinking US merchant ships.

..

Talk about out of control rhetorical gestures.



/typing

maybe you should try to understand what I'm getting at before you jump in.

and it's some posters' mischaracterization of what someone has actually said that starts half the stupid fights around here.

It was a clarifying question.

I'll thank you not to put words my mouth, dude. If you'd like, I'd be glad to show you what it would look like if I had been trying to "equate" them.

That storming a heavily defended beach in a declared war of an existential nature is exactly the same as shooting civilians that aren't even trying to take cover from an armored attack helicopter in a war that we were lied into for profit?

..Gee, irony much?

The two situations are not remotely similar and yet your question implies that they are.

you have no way of knowing what it "implies". In fact, you initially accused me of equating the two, now you're walking that back a bit.

You seem intent on starting a fight. Why don't you go fight with yourself, dude?

If you think I've broken any rules then by all means alert on my post or posts.

And I'll point out that it takes at least two to fight..

okay? Quit belaboring this.

Secondly, if you'd notice, my subject line was "what about WW II?".


I was trying to draw out a completely different poster as to how they make distinctions before you butted in and accused me of equating Iraq and WWII. Since you butted in, similar situations occurred in WWII. Would you spit on those soldiers?

If you wish a private conversation then take it to PM's..

what I asked, dude.

You put that foot in your mouth all by yourself, no one forced you to do it, it's not my fault if you don't care for the flavor.

WWII. Rather than ask the question of whether I was trying to equate them or apologizing for mischaracterizing it once I've made it clear, you continue to try to rachet this up and one-up me.

Go fight by yourself.

Just because you deny your motivation doesn't mean that equating WWII and Iraq wasn't what you had in mind.

What other motivation could there be?

seriously, give it a rest.

try to compare Iraq and Afghanistan to WWII as if it was some sort of necessary and noble enterprise. SICKENING that we're suddenly seeing that same mindset here of all places.

Yes, that was a blatant attempt to do exactly what we condemned BushCo and their cheering freeper minions for.

God almighty I just do not believe this place anymore.

was a war of 'choice' too- we weren't attacked- and what about Korea?

Germany didn't 'attack' us- in WWII- and if you don't think atrocities were committed by our own soldiers in ANY war that we have waged, you are fooling yourself.

The OP's point that this 'leak' is being used to brand soldiers in general as baby-killers, and murderers isn't being addressed.

It's easy to be outraged and respond with anger.

It's not as easy or comfortable to step back and look at something like this less reflexively.

The two situations are not remotely similar.

The ones I see as looking at it "reflexively" are those trying to justify and excuse this incident.

Germany and Japan were declared allies in WWII and Germany officially declared war on the US shortly after Dec 7 1941..

this incident, dude?

Since you've now interjected yourself into this, let's say a similar incident occurred during WWII. Would you spit on those soldiers?

And I was a Marine myself as was my son in law, I have no intention of spitting on anyone.

I don't know where you get this "spitting" thing but I suspect the place is warm, dark and smelly.

you might want to actually read the post I responded to (Zhade).

Beyond that, please review my posts and tell me specifically where I am trying to justify or excuse this. Unless you're some sort of a mind-reader, you might want to quit trying to divine someone's motivation and proffering your silly mischaracterizations rather than what a poster actually said.

Go fight with yourself.

You have no authority over me whatsoever.

You're the one claiming I'm "trying to justify and excuse" the incident. Maybe you should wait for me to actually declare something before you try to attack me for it.

Bringing WWII and spitting into the argument for purposes of painting those who disagree with you as insufficiently supportive of "the troops".

Now, you're hitting below the belt, dude. Can you point to ANYWHERE that I have said anything remotely like that? Take your time.

You can't read words any better than you can read minds. If you'd bother to check all my posts, you'd find, at the least, that I think the initial incident was a tragic mistake that bears much more scrutiny and the incident with the van, absent more information, is much more troubling. But, no..with your either/or thinking, if someone does not condemn it, that must mean they condone it. Ever heard of a "false dilemma", dude? Hint: you just constructed one. Besides that, if you'd bother to read the fricking post I initially responded to, you'd easily see that it was Zhade that brought spitting into the argument, above and beyond the fleeting reference in the OP (Hint: I am not the author of the OP).



Unless you can find a post of mine prior to Zhade's post that mentioned spitting, this is just another one of your false accusations. Take your time, dude. The only thing I'm interested in "painting" is when people reflexively rush to judgment before getting all the facts.

Give it a rest, dude.

more than you or I will ever learn about, where our own soldiers KNEW that they were killing innocent men, women and children- and they didn't hesitate to do what they were told.

I'm not attempting to defend the actions of those in the Wiki leaks footage- the callous, glib conversation- I can't speak to those involved- but I CAN respond to those here on DU who seem to be using this footage as a chance to vent all kinds of frustration, anger, and hate on the military as a whole. There were things said on here on thread that ended up locked that would make free-republic look like the good-guys, and THAT is just indefensible.

I have friends who have lost loved ones as a result of the nightmare that Bush created, and others who's sons are serving third and fourth tours- the kind of crap that is being unleashed by SOME here - using this wiki leak as an excuse, is ....
...
wrong.

I'll leave it at that.

I HATE war.

Terrible, inhuman things are done in the name of 'war'-

The outrage shouldn't be directed at select individual actions which the media is feeding us, but rather towards the mentality that war and violence continue to be acceptable ways of resolving anything.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...in that they did not choose to initiate this invasion, and they are obliged to follow orders and carry out the mission...

...on the other hand, everyone is obliged to behave morally. Now for the first thing, there is simply no way the people in that square were a threat. Even the 2 people in the video with weapons, there was no sign at all that they were readying to use those weapons. And also, it is absurd to suggest, as some do, that the camera gear was mistaken for weapons. Please. These soldiers know what the hell a weapon looks like.

Also they were inhuman in their remarks. Again, I do understand about gallows humor. Cop humor, doctor humor, soldier humor -- yep, they all have their own flavors of it, and there is nothing wrong with it. It helps when you are facing life-or-death situations. But these soldiers did not display any human empathy at all. That is what opens them up to the "mean" remarks.

Sorry but having to endure "mean" remarks on a message board (that they will likely never read), vs. shooting and killing people for the fun of it, seems like no contest to me. Guess they'll have to live with how others perceive them. I can promise you, for most of the world's people who see these videos, there will be little sympathy for our soldiers on this one.

because, frankly, I didn't see anything in the video that remotely had the shape or size of either of those weapons.

..ground units,and see a group of men holding objects under their arms that then crouch down behind walls..

Frankly I think you don't know what you are talking about..

and I know what they look like.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The silent majority agrees with you.