This hasn't been posted, but anyways, this is just horrible. The military can't be any dumber. I expect war crime charges or something to go down, because this is not right. Obviously, during the Bush Administration, the military could do whatever they wanted, since Bush was of course blinded by the right. I mean seriously, laughing at dead people, or the guy who's crawling to get away. Seriously. You can OBVIOUSLY tell that they have cameras in their hands, not guns, and if your that ignorant, you shouldn't be there. War isn't a GAME. They treat it like it's some MW2 scene, but it isn't. It's fucking real life. I say fuck those guys who shot all those innocent people. The guy was seriously crippled and you could see that and they just shot him down when obviously he wasn't a threat. How low can you go?
Serious responses only.
Remember to read the rules thread before replying:
I'd just like to start by stating my opinion on how unnecessary that Orwell quote at the beginning of the video is. Nineteen Eighty-Four is an elucidating book, don't get me wrong, but it does not apply to the content in this case. Yes, I'm sure you may be thinking right now of a reply where you are able to link the totalitarian regime of Big Brother to the encryption of military intelligence such as this, but if you are, please be reminded of how important encryption of such recorded data is in any war scenario. Whether this footage should have seen the light of day sooner than it did is another question, and one which I shall not attempt to answer, but the fact that it was initially kept hidden seems to be a non-issue with this held in mind.
That leads me nicely into my perspective role as devil's advocate. I'd like to keep this reply short to encourage discussion, so let me simply just throw a few questions out there:
Where did the intelligence of there being an RPG wielded by these "targets" emerge from? Is this video cut in a way to make it seem that there was no preliminary, legitimate warnings of a threat? I'd like to be able to see more of this footage: there is obviously, certainly more.
What were these people doing where they were? This is obviously an area of some particular concern for the military, as it seems well covered by personal. Of course, journalists (I believe two of the "targets" were Reuters employees [which raises another question, actually: who are the others?]) need access to dangerous places; but the front line, itself? Certainly not.
Lastly, how do we know this audio is genuine? What is said during the clip is incriminating in the highest degree, that is undoubtable. To return to encryption: audio and video would certainly be encrypted separately, and perhaps even stored in different files. There is evidence for this in the delay between the two, here, although that can be explained by many other means. I'll just ask: how was Wikileaks able to access both files, if this is indeed the case, and again: how can we possibly know the audio has not been staged?
I understand that many of these questions may have already been answered, considering the date of this news, but I believe these questions are still valid in a theoretical context. I would also like to state that any views expressed are not necessarily my own, unless stated otherwise, but rather the voice of potential curiosity translated through a personal medium.
Last edited by Inq; 12-22-2011 at 01:54 PM.
To be fair, it isn't clear if they are cameras or weapons. Remember these guys are high in the sky and aren't on foot, where it would have been more obvious what the iraqi's were wielding. The guy peeking round the corner with the camera does look very suspicious and these guys are the military, they are going to take that as a threat. I am sure that this wasn't the best way to handle the situation, however I can sympathise with the crew in the attack helicopter.
It is blatantly obvious that the crew in the attack helicopter did sincerely believe that the suspects were armed so it wasn't as if they decided to randomly open fire on a group of civilians for no apparent reason. However, the attitude of the gunner later on in the footage is very unprofessional in my opinion and that in it's own would be reason for military discipline.
Last edited by jongeh; 12-23-2011 at 01:51 PM.
This is why I'm thankful I'm British sometimes- When we kill innocents we do it deliberately.
Cynical unfunny joking aside, I have a lot of sympathy with the people in the helicopter here. Even knowing that it was a camera, and having already watched this video sometime last year, I'm still unsure from looking at the video that it is indeed a camera rather than a weapon. And to put this in context, this is in the middle of a warzone. In everyday life, one would presume it were a camera rather than a weapon. In an army helicopter looking down at potentially hostile territory? I think you're far too harsh on the service people there(And god knows I'm not a fan of the military)
Does the whole scenario that the video depicts result from the simple fact that a patrol believed that a camera looked like an RPG? I somehow doubt that. They must have been following the vehicle in question before they stumbled upon this particular intelligence (or mis-intelligence). Was it acting suspiciously, or travelling without authorisation through a suspicious territory? Is it possible that suspected hostiles/wanted men were believed to be on board?
I'm still wondering about the true identity of those other people who were killed by the helicopter fire. Among other things, certainly.
Recently my local news station announced that "MILK REDUCES CHOLESTEROL! A recent study shows that people who replaced white bread with milk in their diets lowered their cholesterol [by such and such percentage to be inserted here]." This fallacy is ridiculous. If you know anything about white bread, you'd know that it's probably one of the worst 'foods' you could possibly eat ((if it's any indication there is a massive gap in the glycemic index that separates white bread from things like even ice cream and soda pop.)) Drinking milk didn't lower people's cholesterol, not eating white bread did. But by organizing the information just so a short media blurb about milk can convince enough people that the problem with their cholesterol isn't that they're eating bad food, but that they're not drinking enough milk! Of course! That's the obvious answer, right? xD'
I know that seems off topic but it's kind of the same thing. Not only do you have to look at what the piece is saying - but who paid to have this made? What do they have to gain by manipulating you into agreeing with their position? What actually happened and why did it happen? Where did this come from? What lead to the decisions made here - you can't just assume Bush called these guys up and said: "Find a house with random people in it and record you killing them all so it looks like we're doing something!"
Now, I'm not saying accidents don't happen - no matter how careful you are, innocent people die when weapons are drawn. Melodramatic media 'information' doesn't really help the situation at all, though.
I have seen this video before. I do not support the actions of the crew in this case. In no way should they have gotten clearance to attack these people. I understand that the military is trained, but i do not think they handled the threat correctly. Not only that, they was some extreme disrespect toward the people who were attacked. The crew seemed to take it as a joke. Also when the tank ran over the body i thought that was terrible, as well as engaging the van.