Shame on WikiLeaks: Framing Lawful Engagement as Anti-American Propaganda (Part Two)
WikiLeaks, which prides itself on obtaining classified information, ignored a publicly available unclassified report that clearly refutes a dark assertion they went out of their way to make.
We’ve already established that the critics at WikiLeaks would have us question whether or not pilots in a combat zone should fire upon identified enemy forces based upon their body language and posture. WIkiLeaks also seems not at all concerned about the verified presence of weapons among those killed, and they also ignore the fact that militants use camera equipment as part of their propaganda war. Even more troubling, they go out of their way to erroneously suggest that American forces treated children wounded in the engagement with callousness. This suggests that the WikiLeaks release, “Collateral Murder,” was not intended to shed light upon the incident, but instead was carefully constructed to elicit outrage and fury.
The organization happens to be attempting to raise funds now. Claiming the need for an operating budget of $600,000, the group states they have only been able to raise $370,000. The implication seems both sad and obvious. Desperate for both attention and funding, WikiLeaks carefully constructed a propaganda video designed to raise their profile and increase donations.
They carefully framed the video footage with nearly three minutes of exposition, instead of merely allowing the video to stand on its own, relaying the actual context of this incident as it occurred during a larger battle to diminish the power of militants and restore order during the surge. (Which effectively ended militia control and greatly reduced sectarian violence in this area.) For reasons known only to WikiLeaks, they refuse in the shorter video to show or even mention the third engagement of the helicopter crew that morning, just blocks away, where a larger group of insurgents was destroyed with missiles.
WikiLeaks whitewashed the presence of weapons clearly shown by gun camera footage and ignored the confirmation in military investigations of the incident that the militant’s weapons displayed in the footage were recovered at the scene. WikiLeaks attempted to create obtuse new standards and rules of engagement, implying that “relaxed” terrorists should not be fired upon. They carefully omit the rules of engagement and refuse to note that evacuating combatants are still enemy targets and recognized as such by almost every military in the world.
The WikiLeaks video and “Collateral Murder” website seem calibrated for the express purpose of accusing soldiers of murder for the purposes of fundraising.
If they would like to continue to be though of as a non-partisan whistleblower organization, WikiLeaks must retract the inflammatory “Collateral Murder” short video, shut down the identically titled website, and provide critical and historical context — not partisan framing — around the events depicted.
The WikiLeaks fundraising effort “Collateral Murder” is not an accurate reflection of what occurred that morning in 2007 and manages only to slaughter the truth.
I find it pretty sad that instead of taking the occasion of this horror to question the whole notion of the US foreign policy … people jump to white wash the US army ASAP. This is a senseless war, those killed were senseless death
while there might be a sane reason to for the first round of shooting, what US troops did after was wrong :
1- Shooting on the alleged terrorist when they were already wounded was PURE BARBARISM … believe me, when you are shoot by an AK-47 round, you can get lost for at least 3 days .. those guys were hit by something bigger and were unlikely to do any arm
2- Shooting at the VAN who was picking the wounded was INSANE, those guys were just trying to get the dude to a hospital … what would you feel about having US ambulance being blow up while trying to get some boys to the medical center ?
Battle ? there was no battle and the US convoy was in no danger ! what kind of freaking ambuscade is that when you have the enemy under control ?
one shot was enough to deter and protect the troops … and yes they wounded 2 children … because they were fighting ”terrorists” ?
If the US troops were not in Iraq, they wouldn’t be victim of suicide bombing, and being there doesn’t prevent them
Heck IRAN promote and finance terrorism and they go by unharmed ! The palestinians, who ARE terrorist and killed thousands of Israeli receive BILLIONS
Lets stop white washing the army and ask some hard question : Was all this blood worth something except GWBush political survival through the surge ?
Look, Sams, you are not thinking through the issues here.
–A Wounded terrorist can still detonate an IED.
–The van was NOT an ambulance. Where was the red crescent? So what was its purpose? To “clean up” the scene? To act an explosive device, packed as it may be with explosives? Can YOU tell?
–The US convoy in “no danger?” Have you read the accounts? These soldiers had been in firefights throughout the day.
–”One shot…enough to deter?” So you fire one shot, the terrorists, with their RPGs run into buildings and can’t be seen, only to fire, presumably AGAIN, at US troops.
And then, besides ignoring the nature of this specific situation at this specific time, we have the obligatory and tiresome slam at George W. Bush.
Look, we don’t have time to rehearse the whole why we went into Iraq issues. The fact is that these Mahdi militia thugs — and let’s be real here these guys were effectively criminal gangs — had a choice as well. And that choice? Simply NOT to engage the US military and instead work through a democratic political process WE, the United States of America, were instrumental in establishing, at no small sacrifice to US. We GAVE them that choice. In this instance they chose not to take it, with predictable results.
1- The guy crawling around was not near IED, not the were there sight of any on the scene
2- Sure, because every Iraqi Motorist is required along with Autoinsurance, to carry a bucket of RED paint and be ready paint a crescent ASAP ! It is immoral to blow off a vehicle which is trying to evacuate a wounded person, even combatant … remember when Nazi Germany sank a US hospital ship ? was that justifiable ? The video is clear that the people of van had only pick up the wounded guy and not ”cleaning up the scene” or collect weapons.
3- Yes the first round of Apache shoot completly destroyed those guys … all the other shooting was superfluous. That crawling wounder dude WASN’T going anywere and couldn’t even hold a colt in hand
4 – Yes sure ! Because democracy can be issued by decree ! Yes the US, with their almighty power, can decree democracy and make it happen by the stroke of the pen ! You cannot even prevent YOUR OWN president and congress from using YOUR OWN Constitution to smoke joint and you pretend being able of installing a democracy in the middle east ? I don’t get the memo : US citizens, unable of preventing an unconstitutional push at home … but bombing whoever refuse to follow the constitutions they impose on other countries ?
And yes the whole reason of the Iraq war matter, since this video is just an illustration of the reality caused by american foreign policy non-sense
sams = liberal = Copperhead.
QED.
Agreed!
Seems like Paintball is as far as his “expertise” goes.
1) Why on earth would the terrorist want to be near the IED he was about to set off? Do you even know the terms of which you spout?
2) If one wants to be treated like an ambulance, one should be identifiable as an ambulance. That van could just as easily been carrying more men and weapons. There is nothing wrong with shooting a combatant that is trying to escape, even if that person is injured. The only time they should be safe from fire is when they are surrendering, which these guys were not doint.
3) A crawling dude is still a dude trying to escape.
4) Democracy wasn’t issued by decree. The Iraqi’s adopted it for themselves over the last few years.
“There is nothing wrong with shooting a combatant that is trying to escape, even if that person is injured.”
It depends on several factors. In Raffi Khatchadourian’s article about the Rules of Engagement in the New Yorker he says that The Rules of Engagement and the Law of Armed Combat: “do not permit combatants to shoot at people who are surrendering or who no longer pose a threat because of their injuries”. I tried to look this up in the actual RoE (also leaked by WikiLeaks) but I had a hard time finding anything about injured personnel because the document wasn’t searchable.
The obvious problem is, as you can see from the discussion here, when does somebody no longer pose a threat?
While engaging any potential threat with all your might may seem strategically sound, it may result in greater civilian casualties, and politically it would result in a public relations disaster (such as in this case).
Well, I think Sam’s established he’d last all of ten minutes in an actual battle.
1. They didn’t shoot the wounded man until other insurgents arrived on the scene, and then it’s not like the 30 mm canon was accurate enough to aim at specific people. The point of a spray-n-pray weapon is that it has a wide impact range. Thus, even were the wounded man not a legit military target, it was not immoral to have killed him when the other insurgents were targetted.
2. There is a difference between a hospital ship, an ambulance, and some guy in a vehicle. It doesn’t matter why the person stopped by, and soldiers can’t read anyone’s mind. Given the fact that there were no civilians on the street at all (because of the on-going battle), it was right and proper to assume these guys were AIF. Thus, the appropriate call was made.
3. Ground troops were en route and only a few blocks away at this point. In fact, you can see the photo from the camera of one of the Reuter’s “journalists” which shows a US Humvee. Air support had to clear the scene of threats, and the people in the van were clearly a threat in providing military aid to the enemy. That made them a legal target.
Oeter — Not ten minutes. Ten seconds.
Sorry, that’s not the way it works. Per Geneva, the shooter is obligated to stop shooting once the target is “hors de combat” (French for “outside the fight”), which in this case is defined as: “rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;” if you go to the detailed notes, you’ll find “An escape, or an attempt at escape, by a prisoner or any other person considered to be ‘ hors de combat, ‘ justifies the use of arms for the purpose of stopping him.”
Wounded but still trying to escape is not protected. And note that the Apache stopped firing after all the insurgents were down, and only resumed when the van tried to take one away. That’s exactly within the rules.
The subsequent investigation found an RPG and rounds at the scene, and pictures in the journo’s camera of the US convoy taken from the corner that’d be an easy shot with the weapon. Not sure how you come up with the “no danger” assessment, but it’s simply wrong.
I think the Geneva Convention also required the use of uniforms, or some other method of distinguishing combatants from civilians. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, etc.
See? Sometimes, two wrongs *do* make a right.
“This is a senseless war, those killed were senseless death”
I dont agree with you in either assertion. War sucks, it’s true, but once in, win.
“while there might be a sane reason to for the first round of shooting, what US troops did after was wrong :
1- Shooting on the alleged terrorist when they were already wounded was PURE BARBARISM … believe me, when you are shoot by an AK-47 round, you can get lost for at least 3 days .. those guys were hit by something bigger and were unlikely to do any arm”
This is pure bullshit. Many terrorists get patched up and sent on their way to fight another day. There were obviously people who were not hit attempting to evacuate weapons and fighters. That makes them legal targets. Or are you saying that if Mahdi’s or AQ shot at US soldiers evacuating US wounded, you would have the same opinion? They do that you know, shoot at evacuating US troops.
“2- Shooting at the VAN who was picking the wounded was INSANE, those guys were just trying to get the dude to a hospital … what would you feel about having US ambulance being blow up while trying to get some boys to the medical center ?”
They REGULARLY do this. WHere is your outrage for that?
“Battle ? there was no battle and the US convoy was in no danger ! what kind of freaking ambuscade is that when you have the enemy under control ?”
The convoy was taking fire all morning, most probably from this group given their location. They were armed with RPGs. you do know what an RPG does to an idividual or Humvee dont you?
“one shot was enough to deter and protect the troops … and yes they wounded 2 children … because they were fighting ”terrorists” ?”
The question I have is why the kids were kept in a live fire zone out of view by the terrorists? What would your opinion be if the US soldiers in the convoy kept kids in their humvee? Do you really think the US forces would have fired if the kids were visible? I’ve seen reports from the long video that the kids werent initially in the van, that they were brought out after the initial action. You seem to give these terrorists the benefit of the doubt for obvious war crimes. Too bad you can’t find it in your heart to do the same for your countrymen.
“If the US troops were not in Iraq, they wouldn’t be victim of suicide bombing, and being there doesn’t prevent them”
Alternately if these terrorists werent firing on US troops, and if the propagandists, werent with them, they wouldnt be dead. And if 9/11 hadn’t happen we wouldnt be in Afghanistan, and if Saddam wouldn’t have invaded Kuwait, and if he had cooperated with the UN instead of stonewalling for 12 years etc. etc. etc. The fact is they did and we are. Get over it.
“Heck IRAN promote and finance terrorism and they go by unharmed ! The palestinians, who ARE terrorist and killed thousands of Israeli receive BILLIONS”
So you disagree with the US being in Iraq but you want to invade Iran? Make up your mind. I’m against war in general. I dont like seeing US soldiers, who I greatly admire, getting killed. HOWEVER, if we choose to fight, it doesnt benefit anyone for us to lose. You seem to wish the US to lose. That makes you a coward and a traitor.
“Lets stop white washing the army and ask some hard question : Was all this blood worth something except GWBush political survival through the surge ?
How about you support your fellow citizens and quit rooting for the enemy. Democrats (a Majority in the Senate) voted to go into Iraq. You dont enter a war to lose. period. The hard questions WERE asked, the incident was investigated, and the actions were legal and proper. If any crimes were committed it was by the terrorist, for introducing innocents to be used as shields. Where is your outrage for that? Where is your questioning for the Mahdi army assinating other Iraqi’s? If the forces werent in the area you would blame them for not providing security for the civilians, when they do, you blame them for being mean. I don’t wish war on anyone, but I truly wish you would embed with the soldiers once, and when fired upon, that you would be subjected to the ROE we follow and which the enemy does not. It might change your pollyanna perspective.
HOWEVER, if we choose to fight, it doesnt benefit anyone for us to lose. You seem to wish the US to lose. That makes you a coward and a traitor.
Pure close ended argument :
you can disagree or not with the war, be a warmonger anyway
We can apply this low-level argument to everything : You can disagree with Obamacare, but make your patriotic duty of paying the tax anyway !
The bottom line of this ”got into the line” argument is nonsensical, since those who push war will do it anyway … and you will always fall in line and agree with them anyway
I don’t care about the convention of Geneva or the whole ROW stuff, the fact is that this is an unconstitutional and immoral war and this killing is just one example of immoral killing of people … I prepare my cup of tea and wait patiently when the Chinese will have Mi-21 blowing up GM trucks in the middle of Texas to enhance American compliance with their version of liberty … it makes for a nice though experiment
“you can disagree or not with the war, be a warmonger anyway ”
Great example of being willfully obtuse. For the benefit of other–US soldiers on the battlefield are not warmongers; they are following the legal orders of the civilians in control of the USA. Their mission is is to win–not fail. Call the Democrats and Republicans who approved Iraq “warmongers” all you like, but mislabeling the instruments of our political decisions is as stupid as blaming someone’s hand for committing assault.
“We can apply this low-level argument to everything : You can disagree with Obamacare, but make your patriotic duty of paying the tax anyway !”
A domestic tax is not a military mission. However, in both cases individuals always have the choice of committing civil disobedience or refusal to obey legal orders. Both actions will earn you meetings with big and heavily armed guys from the government and/or military.
“I don’t care about the convention of Geneva or the whole ROW stuff…”
translation: I have no idea of what I am talking about and just want to vomit up sophomoric feelings. You did donate to wikileaks, right? After all, that was the purpose of the video–to spin up fuzzy-headed individuals and then raise money from them.
“I prepare my cup of tea and wait patiently when the Chinese will have Mi-21 blowing up GM trucks in the middle of Texas to enhance American compliance with their version of liberty”
And being weak, thoughtless, and irrational will somehow prevent this from occurring?
the fact is that this is an unconstitutional and immoral war
—
That “fact” only exists in what we laughingly refer to as your mind.
bgart
Excellent rebuttal. Kudos
I will save and replay some of your concise answers elsewhere when naive apologists like Sams speak out.
thank god!!!! i was beginning to think i was the only one outraged over this travesty. i was so angry with cnn last night i could have bitten a nail in to. They were showing this video, demonizing our troops….showing the grieving parents of the reporter killed….where are the grieving parents of the thousands of innocent people that these terrorist killed ON PURPOSE.
And why did they do it? Follow the money.
They posted that to Twitter around 10PM EST last night. Lie about what you’ve got! Lie about what you’re going to show! Because that’s where the money is.
Yeah, you wouldn’t want news organizations making money, only corporations with news companies should be allowed to do that by selling ads instead of providing information.
It has always been my impression that journalists imbedded with combat units face the same risks as the combatants.I assume they volunteered.
The lack of full disclosure as to giving a good perspective to what the situational awareness prior to this engagement was is typical of the brain washed hate America club. The viewer isn’t provided sufficient orientation to make decisions with. Instead it is set up like our military personel fly around looking for civilians to kill. This is, of course, the standard lie to slander and diminish support for our troops who daily risk everything to defeat an enemy whose use of rape, terror, and brutality are totally missing from this picture. Leaving out the whole truth is what the enemy propagandist uses as a mainstay of their deception.
You probably ought to. This memorial to Eldeen suggests he’s a regular embed with the insurgents, and has acted as their photo-propagandist in the past. I can’t think of another plausible explanation for the observed behavior.
Were you reading the same article I was? It also specifically mentions that:
Just because you happen to be in the place where the action is doesn’t mean anything with regard to your affiliation.
I’ll pay more attention to Wikileaks when they start posting details on, say, Iran’s nukes, PRC submarines, and Russia’s air defense sales. Right now, they are just an anti-American hatefest sucking up the Benjamins from fellow haters. Enjoy your hate. You are good at it, Wikileaks, and it does keep your bellies full.
Who’s behind WikiLeaks? Is it another Soros venture?
No, Rob. If Soros was backing them, they wouldn’t need to beg for money.
The founder of wikileaks is one Australian hacker named Julian Assange. He needs more exposure for what he really is.
Obama lied and people died.
sam: I find it pretty sad that instead of taking the occasion of this horror to question the whole notion of the US foreign policy … people jump to white wash the US army ASAP.
typical lefty logic. All lies are OK if they demonize the US. What other lies by the left have you, Sam, based your opinions on? You see, your opinions are built on a foundation of sandy untruth.
U.S. troops discover they have accidentally wounded two children, and without regard to the likely enemy combatant status of their parents, immediately set about doing everything possible to treat them, to save their lives and mitigate their misery.
The Enemy, on the other hand, deliberately targets women and children, uses them as human shields, indoctrinates them with hatred, recruits them as suicide bombers.
And we’re the ones hated and reviled the world ’round?
Perception Management….
Create the narative you need.
The video simply points out that being on the opposite side of US forces is very hazardous to your health.
Fake, but accurate. These guys are just angling for a seat on the Soros gravy train.
Not really shocking that CNN ran with their story without doing a little bit of research on the truth of it all.
Great shooting, soldiers. That video was inspirational in the efficiency in which we mowed down the Islamic Jihadis. No GITMO transferees to feed. No mess, no fuss. Memo to reporters embedded with, and dressed like, our enemies – when you hear the Apache, excuse yourself and get to the nearest basement.
Can you explain to us the logic of standing calmly in the street to take fire, while mortal enemies are overhead, if you have the weapons to shoot them down?
Sean@13/
Reminds me of CNN’s “Tailwind” mythic report about supposed poison gas use in Laos/Vietnam which put the final nail in the coffin of Peter “Baby-milk Factory” Arnett’s reputation. A total debacle–and now this–will CNN never learn?
But why the heck are US troops in Iraq?
Let us say that the Europeans were unhappy at the way we run our healthcare system, the glaring inequality between rich and poor in the US, the obscene spending on arms when thousands are poor, the poor quality of education, the high tuition fee etc, and decided to invade to impose a better system? How many Americans would support that? So why does the US expect Afghans and Iraqis to welcome US soldiers?
So, since WMD and Al Qudea have been proved to be non existent, are we still in Iraq?
The US has, since 1945, and even earlier, invaded several countries to impose its own version of democracy/way of life. But let us remember who lost Vietnam. Wikileaks did a good job bringing out this video, and there are many leaks on that site that have nothing to do with the US. This is the face of journalism in the future.
Roger – your ignorance is showing!
If you really believe the US routinely invades foriegn countries for the purpose of forcing our way of life onto unwilling victims, you need to read a history book, or three (or ten)!
Wars are expensive! Wars cost money, lives and international goodwill! Countries (even YOUR country) don’t go to war lightly.
America has repeatedly gone to war in foriegn countries to defend the defenseless against tyranny. Korea, Vietnam, and even Iraq are wars fought fundamentally to thwart tyrants. We’ve made mistakes for sure (Duvalier, Noriega, Marcos & etc.), but we did so for good reasons. YOUR country is the one the rest of the world looks to for such protection. Nobody expects Russia to step up to the plate and defend them. Ever wonder why that is? Can you guess?
Your silly question why American troops are in Iraq in the first place has a serious answer: The US government (dimwit-crats included) and the rest of the world believed that Saddam Hussein posessed WMD’s. They believed he was in cohouts with terrorists. After the terrorists showed their determination to do as much damage to the US as possible and combined with Hussein’s behavior, the whole world believed he could and would give a WMD to a terrorist and help them use it against somebody (probably YOUR country). His barbarity, lack of trustworthiness and failure to cooperate with weapons inspections earned him his noose. But we are a compassionate country. Having eliminated one tyrant, we did not want to leave the Iraqis to the abuse of another. So we committed to stay until a stable, democratic government could be formed and the country could both protect itself and protect it’s people. Of course, all of this is obvious to anyone who cares about the truth, which pretty much leaves you out, doesn’t it?
So why does the US expect Afghans and Iraqis to welcome US soldiers?
—
Perhaps because most did.
So, since WMD and Al Qudea have been proved to be non existent, are we still in Iraq?
—
Neither statement is accurate. Nor were they the only reason why we went in. The war declaration listed 23 seperate justifications.
The US has, since 1945, and even earlier, invaded several countries to impose its own version of democracy/way of life.
—-
Invaded? Are you utterly daft?
But let us remember who lost Vietnam.
—
The US media.
“Let us say that the Europeans… decided to invade to impose a better system?”
Well… let’s check the history book.
Lafayette showed up with thousands of French troops on American soil. Today Lafayette is considered a hero. But the Tories at the time would have considered it a French invasion.
I guess we Americans are smart enough to understand the context of having foreigners assist us. Sometimes, it’s a good thing.
“Let us say that the Europeans… decided to invade to impose a better system?”
We would kick their Euroweenie asses- in large part because they think like you.
What a simpleton you are!
Who lost Vietnam? The antiwar Left, that’s who.
No. The poor South Vietnamese did…trampled underneath the Communist boothill with millions killed and more sent to “re-education camps.” They lost because worthless “anti-war” lefties, turncoat traitors all of them, pulled the rug out from under them.
Argh, bootHEEL
Hey Sams: Let’s free Mumia too, eh?
Waging war on one billion muslims, killing and bombing them unless complete compliance we our desire is the only correkt position here ?
Be a hate monger or be a traitor … looks like the other side of the left : pay your tax or you hate the poor
This is pathetic
Really tough to communicate clearly when Arabic/Farsi is your first language, huh?
There is no “k” in correct … or America. What other koncepts are you struggling with?
Someone on a photography site posted this via msnbc and said the apache hunted photographers and wasn’t it terrible. Many other lefty sychophants chimed in as to the brutality of US troops and that GW Bush et al should be waterboarded for the rest of their lives. etc etc blah blah. I went in there to defent US and linked to a Fox news story giving the ‘other side’ – ie – military. Most of the lefty fools wouldn’t even read the link because “…I dont read propaganda …” Right. And the wiki video from msnbc is not propaganda?
Upshot was I got a little heated with a couple of the lefties and guess who is now banned from posting on that site? No, not the lefties. Me. Oh well, wouldn’t want to upset their little world now would we?
wikileaks also says they have another video showing how NATO murdered 150 civies in 2009. I’ve already opined on that site that these same folks will give that video a pass because wiki says it’s NATO, not the US and because it happened under the watch of the nobel peace prize winner rather than the hated Bush. Any bets that I’m right?
Sams, why not go for the whole leftist burrito?
Warmonger Obama is a war criminal! Why does Obama hate brown people? Obama’s just doing this to make money for Halliburton!
C’mon, you remember how all that goes.
Sams: I will try not to pile on. But your last reply @10:02 was pathetic. It made no sense and much worse was written like a fifth-grader. You are in way over your head. Save yourself and quit.
An assembly of Right-Wing Warmonger Conservative is always the same … so Apologist of the US army, US foreign policy and compliant servant of whatever bears stripes and stars … or just gun-hugging Liberals who like to bomb countries
Has a foreigner (yes a foreigner), this just confirm my assessment that the US is foreign policy is worthless : fighting useless war, killing civilians and expecting everyone to become complaints friends will you simultaneously back-stab Israel during every WH presidency
Clinton was wrong by bombing Bosnia, but Bush was acclaimed has a saint and Obama is a traitor since he didn’t sent 300k troops to Afghanistan … the US make no sense at all !
This video shall become the next terrorist best recruiting tools to compel some fool kids to blow a batch of US soldiers somewhere in the middle east… forcing some to be sent back to the US to find out that the US Constitution was thrown in the sink will along with 7 millions Jews soon to become Nuclear Dust because the Pentagon couldn’t figure out that IRAQ and IRAN are different countries
Just to see the US fail such monumentality is very sad … but lest make it joyful before I take another lesson of Chinese, so the memo is that :
1- Prevent a Middle-estern country to get WMD : Attacked the wrong one
2- Capture Ben Ladden : fail
3- Cripple terrorism : fail
But in the possitive end :
4- Make Iraq and Afghanistan Iranian Satellite countries : DONE
5- Help terrorist recruitment : DONE
6- Facilitate the destruction of Israel : DONE
7- Provide reasons for though-less patriotism and blind partisan politics on both side : DONE
8- Prepare the destruction of the US : Iraq war + O-care maybe enough … or we need some cap&trade or an Iran war ?
From a Beijing Bunker, it was nice to speak to you !
Back up. Take a deep breath. Your English is disintegrating.
I will not attack the obvious. (being your atrocious grammar and spelling)
I will however, point out that you speak about so many things that everyone on this entire site knows are lies. If you spent half the time it took you to google translate your latvian into engrish and simply looked up the facts (not wikilinks), you would understand (although probably not very clearly) the true reasons American Soldiers are in Iraq.
Yeah, bye now. Say hello to Zsa Zsa Huffington for us.
I had to go back to see all the propaganda they put in front of the actual footage–I didn’t actually pay any attention to what they were saying I just got impatient and scrolled forward. After I’d seen the video I couldn’t see any wrongdoing or ‘collateral murder’ so I went back to see what they were trying to say ahead of time, and wondered what video they’d been watching–or whether they were drunk while watching what I’d just seen.
They pointed out the children in the van with a closeup that was invisible on the original footage, and I’m sure that if the Apache pilot had seen them he wouldn’t have fired–because that happened on many occasions ‘over there.’ Lots of guys risked their lives to avoid shooting kids or women–terrorists wouldn’t bother with human shields if they didn’t work hello. The way the two girls were seated in the car suggests that they were being used as human shields–unfortunately they weren’t easy to see unless you can zoom in after the fact, and even then it’s not obvious. Two girls sitting in tandem in the front seat of a car? What kind of weirdness is that–unless their purpose was to protect the driver from American rifle-fire. And that it was expected to work.
The other strange thing was that US vehicles weren’t that far away. If they were simply a mercy mission, why not raise their hands and show they were unarmed. They might not have seen the helicopters, but they could surely see the trucks. They might have tried to show they weren’t combatants if they weren’t–but they did nothing of the kind. They were trying to hustle their fallen comrade into the care as fast as they could–and very likely they had no idea it was only a journalist (if it was–I doubt the ability of anybody to recognize a face on that video, much less this obvious propaganda outfit).
A crumb of comfort is that this is the best they can do. Doubtless if there were actual atrocities being committed they’d be only too happy to ‘leak’ them without all the careful doctoring of the film. Wikileaks is neither a wiki nor a journalism organization. And they’ve proved it beyond doubt with this balderdash.
An assembly of Right-Wing Warmonger Conservative is always the same
But why does Barack hate Muslims? No blood for arugula!
I’m trying figure out if Sam is one of those guys who thinks war is always wrong,
war is only wrong if conducted by a western country, or war is only wrong when conducted by the US?
”I’m trying figure out if Sam is one of those guys who thinks war is always wrong,
war is only wrong if conducted by a western country, or war is only wrong when conducted by the US?”
-”war is always wrong” : actually not, wagging to free one self from oppression, like the colonial wars, to prevent one self of being victim of racist genocide, like the Rwandan post-genocide rebellion, South African Bush wars and Israeli Yon Kippour, or resisting conquest by an imperious country … like Iran vs Iraq
-”war is only wrong if conducted by a western country” : Actually not by definition, just that we don’t buy the notion of Western Altruism : you attack, conquer and support because you want resources and power … foreign people are pawns and according to ROE their death is acceptable. or you are just trying to preserve what rest of your past colonial glory … like the French odious policy
-”war is only wrong when conducted by the US?” : You guys haven’t really a kind of stellar record for the last 20 years … still I appreciated the Saddam 1992 knock-out perpetrated by GHBush, that was clean, lean and nice !
But for the Iraqi-Afgano-Pakistani war … you guys are wrong and are causing suffering and arm to fight the new bogey man : radical Islam … which is nothing more than a band of saudi spoiled kids who cry all day long to destroy the US and can’t do much except trying to sneak swiss knife in planes
I think you are kidding and just trying to stir people up..
\
“which is nothing more than a band of saudi spoiled kids who cry all day long to destroy the US and can’t do much except trying to sneak swiss knife in planes”
You can’t possibly be this dumb…or uninformed..
Are you honestly trying to tell us that radical Islam is best ignored?
In Sams world, there is nothing worth fighting for, except more federal subsidies.
Can you name any resources that Afghanistan has?
Can you name any resources in Iraq that the US has “taken over”?
As to returning the Shah to Iran, after 2 years of the Ayatollah, the vast majority of Iranians said they would take the shah back in a heartbeat.
1- Afghanistan : A good mission gone bad … you have gone from ”capturing Ben Laden” to ”kill all the Talibans” … so bad that ammunitions is not the only thing you are wasting, since civilians are dying
2- Iraq : OIL is the answer
3- Iran : Before the Sha there were no Ayatholla, but a democratically elected Prime Minister, Mossadek
4- Some Dictators who had whose rise was or regime was supported by the US(from what I can remenber):
Pervez Musharraf- Pakistan
Hosni Mubbarak – Egipt
Mobuto Sesseko+Kabila father&son : DRC
Jose Eduardo dos Santos – Angola
This is why for us foreigners, when we hear about US intervention and beautiful speech we can’t help and say : ”we are going to get ripped off again ….”
So much paranoia, so little brain power.
The mission in Afghanistan was never to “get Obama”, it was to destroy Al Queda and the taliban.
If we went into Iraq to get it’s oil, we’ve been awfully incompetant at it, since we never got that oil. The revenue from the oil, since day one, has been given to the Iraqi people.
You seem to assume that the worst thing possible is to be a US influenced dictator. I just pointed out that there are worse things. The world is a lot more complicated than your pathetic US bad/everyone else good ideology sees.
As for the “innocent” father (and actually innocent kids), I have a source in-theater that is trying to provide me with further evidence that the back of the shot up van was full of weapons.
If that pans out, I’ll post it.
You already posted the allegation, why follow up with facts that might weaken the myth?
As we used to say, “Feces Occur”…
Ok, so I cleaned it up a little.
-”war is only wrong if conducted by a western country” : Actually not by definition, just that we don’t buy the notion of Western Altruism : you attack, conquer and support because you want resources and power … foreign people are pawns and according to ROE their death is acceptable. or you are just trying to preserve what rest of your past colonial glory … like the French odious policy …
Where to begin.
Germany and Japan were used by the US for what resource again?
But for the Iraqi-Afgano-Pakistani war … you guys are wrong and are causing suffering and arm to fight the new bogey man : radical Islam … which is nothing more than a band of saudi spoiled kids who cry all day long to destroy the US and can’t do much except trying to sneak swiss knife in planes …
Your ignorance is astounding for on 9/11 the ‘other’ muslims were dancing in the streets. Radical Muslims have been attacking in the most barbaric way since the 70′s. No ‘bogey man’ there bud, just cold blooded MUSLIM men, all killers. It’s Your radical brothers that push hatered in todays world and only hatred.
When your brave and prideful countrymen capture Americans, not soldiers in uniform, they murdered then draw, quarter and burn their bodies in a horrific and barbaric public fashion – I’ll never forget those contract workers, not soldiers, murdered and their burnt corpses hung as the animals danced around waving their arms high in the air. They let their children do this and partake in this as well … this is the mentality and barbarity that is the enemy for all good people the world over – this is the face of the enemy in it’s full murderous glory – in the name of lslam as they state over and over…
Muslim killing everyone they hate – including other muslims – explain that.
Stop the hate – but you can’t -it’s your oxygen; you’ll be forced to though – has to be.
The blow back is building world wide; we’re getting fed up with being bent over by barbarics- and so are Muslim woman. Payback can be a bitch ‘ya know.
In a way hope your side keeps pushing, get this over with faster.
Obviously that site is just like paliwood – they’ve tried every other way to discredit the American right, now trying again – not a chance that they’ll do the progressive mantra and show the ‘other side’ like all the fake photos that reutres did with their embedded terrorist stringers,
but I won’t hold my breath.
There is no comparison with Japan and Germany, in both case the US won the war and needed to use Germany and Japan has road bump to the URSS menace … there is not such a thing now, there is no existential menace to the US.
On the other end other intervention of the US in other countries, mostly by supporting thugs and dictators, like returning the Sha in Iran, should give you a clue why not every foreigner by the ”US benevolence” … I however thank you for my Home Country Dictator and the one of my mothers countries ! I can’t be more happy to live in a country were free speech is none because the US decided that a DICTATOR WOULD BE BEST FOR ME and for your oil !
Treat Radical Muslim has they really are : Crazy moon-bats ! The are just like a bunch of Fidel Castros who read the Coran, are biggots and whinners!
What can they ? They are reduced to sneaky attacks, like terrorist actions, but nothing else. 9/11 was a big security breach, which enabled the murder of more than 3k people, but this was the best those guys could do … they don’t have much power and you could handle them by enhancing security, like you do with others crime … it is over the top going to war for 9/11, since it wasn’t an act of war, but a politically motivated crime
About the US citizens barbarically assassinated in Iraq … I remember that the North Vietnamese used also to torture and kill your servicemen and have even screwed John McCain arms… the bottom line is that walking in enemy country is not good for your help ! You can’t expect walking unarmed in the middle of jungle full of canibals!
All I see that the US has given the Radical Islamist what they needed : a reason to exist ! Islamism is a depressive curse, and just like other ideology, such has Nazism, it has become violent when the end is becoming apparent … but does Radical Islam has the power to destroy the US ? Not at all, does Blowing off the Iraqi civilians and children in the video make the US more safe ? not at all
Terrorist are criminals, you treat them like criminals and don’t give them the privilege of such an honour has fighting the #1 army on earth … they are spoilled brats and nothing else
“An assembly of Right-Wing Warmonger Conservative is always the same … so Apologist of the US army…”
Who’s apologizing?
Our troops killed a ton of Baathists and terrorists, and totally destroyed the Baath regime in Iraq. That’s what they were supposed to do.
“All I see that the US has given the Radical Islamist what they needed : a reason to exist !”
They create their own reasons, Sams, The United States has nothing to do with it. Radical Islamists were destroying the Byzantine civilization more than a thousand years before the United States existed. They attacked EVERY civilization they encountered: Visigoth Spain, Carolingian France, India, China, Africa…
This is the kind of historicism that doesn’t help to understand the situation … There is no muslim Army trying to conquer the world at this moment … the last time I checked Israel won Yom Kippour and no army was seen besieging Rome or Washington DC
Imperialism was an historical feature of all Cultures and the West had passed from the statute of victim of Islam to Global enslaved for most of the 1800′s so lets stop with the ”Muslim want to conquer the world scare”
The truth is that there are people who want to murder people and set bombs, what you do ?
Invading foreign countries, overturning governments and wage an schizophrenic war on one billion muslims ? No
You strengthen security, protect potential targets, profile potential terrorist, border check and have some real intelligence gathering. This the model that Israel uses
What if terrorist discover a way to attack anyway … use military force to prvent it, which Israel did during operation Cast Lead to prevent Kassam fires
Terrorist will always try to attack were security is loose, this is a fact of life, all we need to do is to strengthen security … but this will never guaranty 100% success, but the bottom line is that terrorism is not an existential threat
You can’t expect walking unarmed in the middle of jungle full of canibals!
Uh yeah, like the jungles of London, Madrid, Belsin, Bali x 2, India – all done by them or the canibals? Hm?
Big difference from a crazy moonbat with a swollen prostrate fully and disgustingly displayed in public protest to a terrorist who rapes children after killing their parents in front of them; ie, Beslin, then there’s the two Bail bombings, Madrid, London, India – yep just a buncha moonbats to you though, to me they tell me that they are “muslims” acting on the “koran” for “allah”, I’ll take them at their word. They’ve been saying it for longer than you’ve been born.
It’s their and YOUR claim not mine. As well they killed woman and men on camera to shove in the face of the world…not moonbats, just the sickest buncha humans on this planet – currently.
Mass Murdering Muslims are not moonbats dear, they are only SUPPORTED by the moonbats, try to keep up ok?
Lets stop with this dishonesty ! My comment was related to the point that some make that Muslim are evil because of the US personnel who were brutally murder by angry mobs in Iraq or executed by terrorist, My point it that Iraq is enemy territory and just like North Vietnam or North Korea, landing in the hand of Vietcong or Iraqi Insurgent is not different … and this can be solved by not being there in the first place
The relevant point of discussion is the capacity of terrorist to attack in other parts of the world like US, India, Indonesia, or London… How can we prevent those things from happening is the ONLY QUESTION THAT MATTER
Preventing terrorism actions in those places requires law enforcement and security … just like the one needed to prevent pyromaniacs, spree shooters, organized criminals, serial killers, rappist and the like … There is not magic about terrorist … they are the most easy kind of criminal to deal with : They are almost all middle eastern, Muslim, Self-righteous Big mouthed and love to make firework in symbolic targets
Profile, Investigate, Infiltrate and protect targets are the only predicaments … bombing Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan is laughable and a sad destruction of human lives
Tell me, does the US Federal Government plan to Invade Texas to deal with all the right wing nut-job home-grown terrorist ?
The point is that the right, not only in the US, but in the rest of the world, since it has lost the small government ideals, need to cling to the ”Fight Radical Islam” mantra has an ideological rally point ! This is just the cause ”Celebre”of the right … being impossible to attain and useless … will provide right wing with enough stuff to mumble its mouth during the talking point fight against the left … bussines has usual … Maybe the US can’t be saved in 2012 … there will likely be a GWB II by then
The Americans long ago left behind any claim to moral superiority in war. Might makes right is the only rule they follow.
America dropped poison gas on Iran for years in the 1980s, but we’re all supposed to be horrified because the Iranians now hate the West. Well, duh! Who’d have thunk it?
America installed Saddam in Iraq – assassinating his predecessor to make way for him. Then they supported him as he slaughtered his population and walked away from his enemies after the 1st Gulf War just when they needed support against his revenge. And we are supposed to regard the War on Terror as some sort of righteous jihad where machine-gunning the wounded (a classic American tactic dating back to WWII and beyond) and people trying to move the wounded is justified by the murderous nature of the *other* side?!
Less than 3,000 innocent civilians were killed on 9/11. More than that are killed by Americans every year. But we’re supposed to expect the families and leaders of those dead to chalk it up to “one of those things” and forget about it? Grow up.
Actions have consequences, including those actions shown on this video. Only a child would pretend or expect otherwise.
Only a child or one with the mind of a child would pen such one-dimensional, intellectually lazy tripe as #33. Put your Howard Zinn down, little boy.
I don’t understand why people are so quick to pigeonhole themselves into a position based on the narrow political ideology they have previously pigeonholed themselves in. Just because you identify as “republican” or “conservative” or, if you are really dumb and paranoid, “tea party”, you don’t have to think along party lines. To do so is the surest sign of a fool; he who makes up his mind, then seeks justification is an idiot of the highest order. Don’t be so quick to write off the murder of civilians in the name of “supporting the troops”. The military, both high and low in hierarchy, commit crimes on a daily basis. This happens everyday, so don’t hold up the military on a godda*n pedestal every time something like this occurs.
1. The U.S. has been engaged in many wars that have dubious justification. This is a fact.
Ex.: Spanish American War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Perhaps you cannot agree with me that these wars are unjustified, but you should be able to agree that there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the justification.
2. An occupying force can never “win” against an occupied people that simply do not want them there. There are two reasons: One being that “winning” isn’t really possible since there is no singular entity to fight,only ideas, and ideas cannot be fought with military means. Two, because the people being occupied, if anti-occupation, will resist whenever convenient.
3. Many of these comments smack of intolerance and racism. Simply because someone was not born in America, or cannot speak/write our fairly complicated language with adroit grace, does not make him a fool. In addition, I noticed many grammatical errors in those trying to correct “sams”. Secondly, you cannot hope to fight “radical Islam” by sparking hatred in the very people you hope to win over. One does not gain peace by waging war, one does not fight ignorance with more ignorance. I believe a lot of people here are alluding to fighting Islam itself, rather than radicalism, which is bred by poverty, ignorance, and fear. Do our schoolchildren, who generally enjoy a high standard of living, join terrorist camps? No, they do not. Do their children, who are undereducated, underfed; who witness atrocities committed by Americans against their own people, who are told by their ignorant elders that America is to blame for all their problems? They sure as f*ck do.
4. There’s a foreign army you neither trust (with good reason, nor support, walking around like it owns the place. What do you do? You can best believe I’d try to dispatch them. And you wonder why Iraqis/Afghans get so…annoyed?
5. If we have done nothing wrong in the “Collateral Murder” video, then why is the gubmint scrambling to fix this fiasco? They claim that it will endanger more people by angering the Iraqi people…maybe that’s because there’s a video showing soldiers callously murdering their countrymen.
6. Assange is a hero. Yes, he broke the law. However, I’d have done the same thing given half a chance. People need to know when their government is lying; people need to know when their government is killing innocent people.
7. Do yourselves a favor and quit dwelling on this whole pointless “liberal/conservative” sh*t. All it is doing is distracting you from what is really happening. You bicker and scrap over pointless issues, while the real ones get ignored. Does conservatism define you as a person? It shouldn’t; think on a purely logical level, do not think on one centered on mere politics.
8. I am an anarchist, so I don’t want to hear any silly sh*t about how left-leaning I am and therefore cannot be trusted.