News: US Troops Kill Civilians in Iraq and Cover it up).
-
.jpg)
Pict: seconds before they were gunned down by 'CH18': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik&#t=3m13s.
US Troops Kill Civilians in Iraq and Cover it up Wikileaks Video 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-FvRngn81Y
US Troops Kill Civilians in Iraq and Cover it up Wikileaks Video 2 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvA6hGjttdw
WikiLeaks Iraq Shooting Video Analysis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20LkYvEZOZs -
There are others wrong-doings by US and UK troops in Iraq and Afhganistan which the world ignored as no one dare to accuse US or UK. Examples are uranium-tipped missiles, chemical weapons used in these 2 countries which resulted in many birth defects babies now. Even Israelis used against Palestians in Gaza during 2009 war in Gaza Strip. Hypocrisy is the word to describe world leaders who supposed to champion for world peace and reduction in nuclear weapons. Can you imagine if China used such weapons? Leaders of the Western countries will be the first to cry foul and condemned China with strongest words. This will be followed by other countries including leaders of Asean to condemn China. What a sad world?
-
yes, there's a hidden NUCLEAR war going on in Iraq, Afganhistan and Gaza using depleted uranium ammo.............
with US/UK/Israel controlling most of the world's media..............they have immunity............the Israelis also used phosphorus to burn the people in Gaza.................
-
There were clearly guns by the group of 5 behind the reporters. I think any journalist needs to be careful of who they hang around with especially when a "surge" is going to occur. Nothing about ethics but common sense.
-
I looked at the video. It is a pretty long video.
Is this a video footage from the 'gun camera' of an Apache helicopter?
I wasn't sure whether the targets were carrying any weapons. According to the audio, they were armed with RPGs and AKs but the weapons isn't clearly visible. But of course maybe the weapons will eyeballed instead of using the gun sight?? or identified by other helicopters or other elements on the ground?
so benefit of the doubt that that group is armed.... does it mean that any unarmed men standing around armed men are targets as well?
Also, they targeted on a man who is wounded and crawling away but is unarmed. I think they didn't shoot at him.
A van came up and some unarmed men from the van tried to carry the wounded guy away... and the helicopter fired at the van and the people who tried to help the wounded. There was no weapons visible at all
If this had been a conventional war, the van would have a red-cross and the attack would have been a clear violation of international law.
I am quite surprised that a humaritarian act would be responded with lethal force. I think the rules of engagement seems a bit loose.
Also two children will wounded in the exchange, if these were insurgents, i wonder why they brought children into the fight!??!?
The attach helicopter also attacked a building with hellfire missiles. Armed men were seen entering a building and the buidling was attack with missile. It was clear that there was an innocent passerby walking past the building but the helicopter fired the missile nevertheless and hit both the passerby and the building.
-
this is atrocious....
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
There were clearly guns by the group of 5 behind the reporters. I think any journalist needs to be careful of who they hang around with especially when a "surge" is going to occur. Nothing about ethics but common sense.
Put yourself in that journalist's shoes in this situation and I start spraying bullets at your direction cause you're with "insurgents", what would you think? How would you feel?
Or you're the driver of the van who saw some people got gunned down. You got down wanting to transport the wounded to the hospital and I start spraying bullets at you, what would you think? How would you feel?
I watched a video on the present generation of American soldiers sent to Iraq, they call them the first Playstation generation (they grow up watching Hollywood war movies and graphic video games)
Evan Wright explains: "One thing about them is they kill very well in Iraq."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y_5vxM8PYM
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
There were clearly guns by the group of 5 behind the reporters. I think any journalist needs to be careful of who they hang around with especially when a "surge" is going to occur. Nothing about ethics but common sense.
and as far the the apache crew was concerned, those on the grd were not journalists. it was only later that it turned out they were journalists. -
here's another view...
-
If I were in the journalists' shoes, I wouldn't be there, period. Not because I don't wanna cover the story from the other perspective, but because I know the Americans won't be able to tell whether I'm carrying a camera, rifle or an RPG. They even got trouble trying not to hit their own guys, I'm pretty sure they'd have trouble figuring out who is journalist or who is insurgent. If I am hanging out with some triad members and I kena wack by riot police, its just tough luck man.
Why did the van get shot up for a "humanitarian" act? The Americans believed it was not an rescue but rather a clean up. I.E, trying to quickly remove evidence of weapons and bodies. Was the van a labeled ambulance? It doesn't seem like it carried and crescent or red cross markings to me. A vehicle that approaches to assist a combatant that is not marked as an ambulance could have been considered a combatant.
Why did the insurgents bring children? A more apt question is why are the insurgents fighting in an urban population where there are children. What would you have the American troops do when they are faced with an enemy who engages from civilian populated areas?
-
Considering the intensity of fighting in civilian populated areas where the insurgents choose to fight, it is a wonder that there are not more incidents like this.
The insurgents make no apology for collateral damage when so many innocent civilians are killed and maimed on a routine basis when they blow things up. There are only statements of outrage by governments when these acts of terror are perpetrated and the insurgents are not held to account for their actions. They are a faceless enemy.
How wud you like to fight as a soldier in an environment where the rules of engagement favor the insurgents ? As constrained as coalition forces are by these rules unfortunate events do occur in war. On the other hand , insurgents do not have rules ( except to kill and maim ) to follow nor are they accountable to anyone.