Wikileaks Releases Video Depicting US Military Killing Dozen Iraqis Including Two Reuters Employees

[archibaldcrane]

At this point I'm nearly certain I'm seeing an extended-leg tripod getting picked up.

[Raivyn]

Look here:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq_shooting

I am being sincere here. What guns are you talking about? According to the investigation, both sets of guns were NOT GUNS.

Now if you mean, what LOOKED LIKE - then I may budge a bit. I also thought they looked a bit like guns. The telescope looked like a bazooka I thought. However, I saw no AK-47. Maybe I need to watch again.

All in all, I believe after 6 pages that the force was preemptive and NOT a 'fire fight'. It was both excessive and fucking retarded. Moreover, that 'tone' is exemplified by the commentary of some of the soldiers.

To me, personally - the two individuals prior to the time stamp I mentioned appear to be holding cameras. To me it appears that at least one of the individuals is armed with an AK-47 between 3:42 and 3:46. That doesn't look like anything else.

From the full 30+ minute video it would appear that there was a skirmish in the area (there is another man with what is certainly a weapon later in the video). If this was a case of wrong place, wrong time, mistaken identity then it was nothing short of tragic. No one can know, but those guys thought they saw a weapon, and that is a war zone. There was an active engagement in the area and the soldiers were cleared to shoot.

I'm not going to judge the soldiers in the video period.

[Raivyn]

Keep watching those guys. Seeing him pick his "long black thing" up reminds me of one thing.

A person picking up an extended tripod with a camera on top - the way he lifts it at about 3:57 reminds me of that exact move.

That's what it looks like to me more than a weapon - but I would not blame someone for thinking it is a weapon from that distance.

I'm talking about the other guy behind him. I can see that being either an RPG or a camera mount. Hard to tell.

[archibaldcrane]

There was an active engagement in the area

Sorry to nitpick, but no, not at the time.

[6souls]

they could have been security detail for the photographers

[Kuya]

I am surprised, i just saw a different story on MSNBC and i thought that would have been the one to get posted. My opinion on this is that i am not shocked but annoyed that the Pentagon once again lied, and the soldiers' comments irritate me.

Anyway, i mind as well post the news that came out recently that was just on Rachel Maddow:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7087637.ece

US special forces soldiers dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched night raid, then washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened, Afghan investigators have told The Times.

Two pregnant women, a teenage girl, a police officer and his brother were shot on February 12 when US and Afghan special forces stormed their home in Khataba village, outside Gardez in eastern Afghanistan. The precise composition of the force has never been made public.

[Raivyn]

I'm done arguing with the modern warfare gamefags.

shit will just be brushed under the rug starting tomorrow anyway since none of the talking heads are talking about it and we will continue living in the post 9/11 AMERICA FUCK YEAH mentality.

All the time I see people resort to insults because they have a hard line view of what is happening and nothing is going to change their opinion.

I would implore everyone watching this video and discussing it to be respectful of others and not be insulting on a level that is extremely offensive to both homosexuals and those interested in civil discourse.

[Raivyn]

Sorry to nitpick, but no, not at the time.

Not on that street but in that district of the city it would seem to be that there was. We had a lot of troops in the area that were reporting small arms fire (which you don't see on the video, thus indicating it was elsewhere).

And yes, you can run around with an AK all you want in Iraq, but you still might get shot at by someone.

[*Shinzon*]

At this point I'm nearly certain I'm seeing an extended-leg tripod getting picked up.

At what point?

[Therin]

Please do. tell me the exact distance.

First off, keep in mind that the Apache's gun-cam has a huge zoom on it.

The 30mm M230 Chain Gun fires 30x113mm cartridges that travel at 805 m/s.

Assuming the sound on the video is in sync it takes at least three seconds (but probably closer to 4 seconds, unfortunately I can't be that precise) for the first shot to hit to target (first shot is fired at 3:15 and strikes at 3:18.), so they must be at least 2,415 meters away. That's 7,913 feet, or almost exactly 1.5 miles.

If you think you can hear a rather-silent Apache amidst all the loud gunshots, car sounds, etc. that are likely happening in an Iraqi suburb, or hell, barely even see it (it'd be about 1/6 of an inch long at 1.5 miles away, if my math is right), you're mistaken.

[Raivyn]

At what point?

3:42-3:46

Oh and I'll be up front and acknowledge there is no proof of an engagement in the area (because you do not see it on camera and it is only mentioned) but I think that is likely - especially given the full length video.

[Rhinox]

I am surprised, i just saw a different story on MSNBC and i thought that would have been the one to get posted. My opinion on this is that i am not shocked but annoyed that the Pentagon once again lied, and the soldiers' comments irritate me.

Anyway, i mind as well post the news that came out recently that was just on Rachel Maddow:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7087637.ece

I'm sure they had a good excuse kuya. This is of course a war. And we're not allowed to judge unless we have had been there and done that. didn't you get the memo?

[Elvis]

I think we can agree that the soldiers made a mistake. The investigation proves this.

Next, you have to decide whether their mistake could be reasonable due to all the various variables discussed in the thread.

That being said, I don't want to isolate this incident as if it's a first.

That's why I was arguing within the framework of the ENTIRE war.

So my anger at the soldiers was within the context that this war is wrong and immoral. That this kind of stuff is INEVITABLE. When you occupy another country, in a volatile region such as the ME - this stuff is going to occur frequently.

So you judge whether going to war is worth it. You consider the cost (morally, so you think about the people involved, not just your people).

So after the invasion/occupation, terrorism grew and blah blah - you all have heard the story.

That's where I'm coming from.

If you isolate this incident and judge it purely within the time-frame it starts and ends, then it disassociates the responsibility.

Someone earlier jokingly said: Can we just blame Bush?

He was spot on. I can agree to being as technically as some others here. I can spew the legal spittle about 'Rules of Engagement' but this is not JUST about this one incident. And it never will be.

[Raivyn]

they could have been security detail for the photographers

Yes they could have.

[Raivyn]

I think we can agree that the soldiers made a mistake. The investigation proves this.

Next, you have to decide whether their mistake could be reasonable due to all the various variables discussed in the thread.

That being said, I don't want to isolate this incident as if it's a first.

That's why I was arguing within the framework of the ENTIRE war.

So my anger at the soldiers was within the context that this war is wrong and immoral. That this kind of stuff is INEVITABLE. When you occupy another country, in a volatile region such as the ME - this stuff is going to occur frequently.

So you judge whether going to war is worth it. You consider the cost (morally, so you think about the people involved, not just your people).

So after the invasion/occupation, terrorism grew and blah blah - you all have heard the story.

That's where I'm coming from.

If you isolate this incident and judge it purely within the time-frame it starts and ends, then it disassociates the responsibility.

Someone earlier jokingly said: Can we just blame Bush?

He was spot on. I can agree to being as technically as some others here. I can spew the legal spittle about 'Rules of Engagement' but this is not JUST about this one incident. And it never will be.

You posit a new argument as to whether or not the war is 'right' and 'moral'?

[archibaldcrane]

At what point?

3:58-3:59 is when he picks it up.

[archibaldcrane]

You posit a new argument as to whether or not the war is 'right' and 'moral'?

He's saying that mistakes like this, the murder of civilians, are inevitable in a conflict such as this - so the anger is not so much at the individuals who make the mistake, but the fact that we should never have invaded that country.

[Raivyn]

He's saying that mistakes like this, the murder of civilians, are inevitable in a conflict such as this - so the anger is not so much at the individuals who make the mistake, but the fact that we should never have invaded that country.

Yeah and that's definitely a discussion that I am not willing to enter.

[miokomioko]

People saying they were obviously cameras/lenses on the suspects are only saying so because the video was labeled with "<<<<<<<<< PHOTOGRAPHER GUY CARRYING A CAMERA."

The whole scene looked sketchy completely regardless of any aforementioned gunfire/aggression. Also, look at the target demographic for military advertising. This is the mentality your soldiers have when you hand the highschool dropouts some guns and ship them out. Surprised?

[*Shinzon*]

3:42-3:46

Oh and I'll be up front and acknowledge there is no proof of an engagement in the area (because you do not see it on camera and it is only mentioned) but I think that is likely - especially given the full length video.

I know, but at what point rather during that time. I guess what I mean is rather, which individual. The fat dude, the skinny dude next to him? That's what I want to know, I wanna see if I see what Archi sees.