Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: SAMSON123 on April 06, 2010, 10:45:32 AM
-
Shameful is too weak of a term to use in this display of SAVAGERY against people who have done nothing...and sadly this resulted in the death of american journalist
-
Samson - is that you in the vid?
-
Samson - is that you in the vid?
No..not me 3, but some guy named T West who has been battling the Zionist, the american government and trying to wake the people up from their "sleep" on what is happening in america on all levels. I do like his videos...really knowledgeable guy
-
I have to say, Celente has been beating this drum for months about the blowback from shit like this.
-
Go team!
Love seeing the terrorists strut up, then run like rats...
-
Samson - is that you in the vid?
LOL - I thought the exact same thing the first time I saw an AfriSynergy video, and everytime I see an AfriSynergy video, but somehow I never got around to sending the PM asking him if he was that guy.
-
Military can't find its copy of Iraq killing video
By PAULINE JELINEK and ANNE FLAHERTY,
Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 50 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The U.S. military said Tuesday it can't find its copy of a video that shows two employees of the Reuters news agency being killed by Army helicopters in 2007, after a leaked version circulated the Internet and renewed questions about the attack.
Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said that the military has not been able to locate the video within its files after being asked to authenticate the version available online.
"We had no reason to hold the video at (Central Command), nor did the higher headquarters in Iraq," Hanzlik said in an e-mailed statement. "We're attempting to retrieve the video from the unit who did the investigation."
It's the latest twist in a three-year saga that raises questions about the rules of engagement in battle and the safety of journalists sent to cover wars.
Advocates for increased government transparency also have questioned why the military withheld the video from the public, even though Reuters requested a copy through the Freedom of Information Act after watching it in an off-the-record meeting with the military in 2007.
The video includes audio of troops calling to "light 'em up!" and referring to the men as "dead bastards." An internal investigation concluded that the troops had acted appropriately, despite having mistaken the camera equipment for weapons.
"Clearly, it is unflattering to the military, but that is not justification for withholding it," said Steven Aftergood, an expert on government secrecy with the Federation of American Scientists.
The July 12, 2007, attack has been reported before. But Web site Wikileaks.org on Monday posted the video shot from one of the Apache helicopters, putting it on "collateralmurder.com" site.
Military officials said they believed the video was authentic, but that they had to compare the images and audio with their own video before confirming it publicly.
When pressed Tuesday on why the military had not released the video when other documents related to the investigation were made public, officials said they were still looking for it and weren't entirely sure where it was.
The video was taken by the tactical unit that operated the helicopters. The unit has only been identified as a "1st Air Cavalry Brigade," which reported to the Multinational Division in Baghdad.
-
hey, the BBC claimed it lost all copies (including backup and offsite copies) of all its video from sept 11th.
These things happen.
-
hey, the BBC claimed it lost all copies (including backup and offsite copies) of all its video from sept 11th.
These things happen.
;D
-
Gimme a fucking break......it was 2007. These people were in violation of a friggen curfew and a member of the group engaged a Brad with AK fire...they lit them the fuck up....thats what we do, we kill people. Mistakes, if this was one, happen. I think its great they "lost' the gun camera video. If we have it, we'll put it out.
-
The libs on here think a stern talking to would have been a better course of action hh6.
Couldn't they have just reasoned with the terrorists instead?!? :)
-
LOL - I thought the exact same thing the first time I saw an AfriSynergy video, and everytime I see an AfriSynergy video, but somehow I never got around to sending the PM asking him if he was that guy.
Gee...why would you guys think that is me? He is much older than I and if I did any videos SAMSON would be the name I would use...not TWEST
-
hey, the BBC claimed it lost all copies (including backup and offsite copies) of all its video from sept 11th.
These things happen.
Riiiigggghhhhtttt!!!!
-
Gimme a fucking break......it was 2007. These people were in violation of a friggen curfew and a member of the group engaged a Brad with AK fire...they lit them the fuck up....thats what we do, we kill people. Mistakes, if this was one, happen. I think its great they "lost' the gun camera video. If we have it, we'll put it out.
Yes please...someone please BREAK HH6s back and let him live as a quadriplegic so he can learn first hand his own uselessness and learn what his american government really thinks of him. I say give him a big tablespoon of Obama care, but then again as a QUAD he has a pre-existing condition...therefore no help is available to him. Sorry guess you can be the burden on your family for care.
-
Yes please...someone please BREAK HH6s back and let him live as a quadriplegic so he can learn first hand his own uselessness and learn what his american government really thinks of him. I say give him a big tablespoon of Obama care, but then again as a QUAD he has a pre-existing condition...therefore no help is available to him. Sorry guess you can be the burden on your family for care.
Wow. Wishing paralysis on someone you don't even know.
Pretty sick if you ask me. :-\
-
hey, the BBC claimed it lost all copies (including backup and offsite copies) of all its video from sept 11th.
These things happen.
so we need to add the BBC to the list of ppl/groups either responsible for 9/11 or the cover up of 9/11...
please give a list so we know who we can trust ;)
-
tony, you can make whatever assumptions you want.
The head of the BBC called it a 'cock up' that they lost all video backups of 911. The most important media day in history. Why?
Well, the day before, video footage had broken of a BBC reporter talking about how the SOlomon building (WTC7) had fallen. Unfortunately, it was clearly standing in the background, and didn't fall for another hour.
It looked to some that she was reading a script and they hadn't "pulled" WTc7 yet. Whatever the case (let's not make this a 911 CT thread), she reported on a event that had not yet happened, and which would be HIGHLY unusual that a building could collapse from fire.
When asked for their footage of 911, the BBC claims they have lost it. All of it. Do you believe this, Tony?
-
You know whats funny.If ANYONE on here that is a conservative says "you people" or any other thing that is percieved as racial,Jag is the first to call them out.Here Samson says "battling the zionist" and Jag is dead silent.I guess Jews dont count in her special protection of minorities.
-
Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video
By Justin Fishel
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- WikiLeaks, the self-proclaimed "whistle-blowing" investigative Web site, released a classified military video Monday that it says shows the "indiscriminate slaying" of innocent Iraqis. Two days later, questions linger about just how much of the story WikiLeaks decided to tell.
At a press conference in Washington, D.C., WikiLeaks accused U.S. soldiers of killing 25 civilians, including two Reuters journalists, during a July 12, 2007, attack in New Baghdad. The Web site titled the video "Collateral Murder," and said the killings represented "another day at the office" for the U.S. Army.
The military has always maintained the attacks near Baghdad were justified, saying investigations conducted after the incident showed 11 people were killed during a "continuation of hostile activity." The military also admits two misidentified Reuters cameramen were among the dead.
WikiLeaks said on Monday the video taken from an Army helicopter shows the men were walking through a courtyard and did nothing to provoke the attack. Their representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons, U.S. personnel killed everyone in sight and have attempted to cover up the murders ever since.
The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying.
However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.
"It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events."
Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs.
"Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat," Hanzlik said.
Military officials have also pointed out that the men in the video are the only people visible on those streets. That indicated something was going on and that these individuals still felt they could walk freely, one official told Fox News.
Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."
Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks became "unsure" about the weapons. He claimed the RPG could have been a camera tripod, so editors decided not to point it out.
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything," Assange said. Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area."
The military has said Army units on the ground were experiencing RPG fire before calling in close air support. And although it could be argued AK-47 rifles are common household items, RPGs are not.
Assange said video evidence of the cameras was much clearer than it was of the weapons and that military statements about the presence of weapons had already been widely distributed. But critics say those watching the video online or on television for the first time may not have had any knowledge of those statements.
"It's ludicrous to allege that we have taken anything out of context in this video," Assange told Fox News.
Another point of contention comes later in the video when U.S. Apache helicopters open fire on two men in a van who had arrived at the courtyard to carry away one of the wounded. It was later learned that the wounded man was one of the photographers. WikiLeaks argues that attack violated the Army's rules of engagement. However, the military says that because the van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle, it was fair game under Army rules.
According to Assange the assault on the van was the most damning piece of video evidence. "I'm very skeptical that was done under the rules of engagement; and if it was legal, the rules of engagement must be changed," Assange said.
So far the rules of engagement in Iraq have not changed.
Hanzlik called the death of the Reuters photographers "incredibly unfortunate." That sad part is, he said, they weren't wearing any markings or jerseys that would have signaled to U.S. forces they were members of the media.
WikiLeaks has another classified military video in their possession they plan to release in about a month. This time, Assange said, the public will see what happened during the controversial May 2009 NATO airstrike in Farah province, where Afghan officials say at least 150 civilians were killed.
-
Stupidest comment ever:
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything," Assange said. Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area."
Completely deflect attention from the fact that these people had RPGs.
-
I'm sure once the military finds this tape, they can release the version that hasn't been slowed down.
Oh yeah. They lost it. After making copies to allow Reuters to view it 2 weeks after the incident. After lawsuits began for it. So weird they lose something after it's such a big deal, and copies were made for viewing.
-
tony, you can make whatever assumptions you want.
The head of the BBC called it a 'cock up' that they lost all video backups of 911. The most important media day in history. Why?
Well, the day before, video footage had broken of a BBC reporter talking about how the SOlomon building (WTC7) had fallen. Unfortunately, it was clearly standing in the background, and didn't fall for another hour.
It looked to some that she was reading a script and they hadn't "pulled" WTc7 yet. Whatever the case (let's not make this a 911 CT thread), she reported on a event that had not yet happened, and which would be HIGHLY unusual that a building could collapse from fire.
When asked for their footage of 911, the BBC claims they have lost it. All of it. Do you believe this, Tony?
Uh, you're the one who brought up 9/11 ct. Of course, then you like to cry like a bitch when called out claiming you don't want to argue the issue.
So, please do tell...do you have even a single shread of evidence to indicate the BBC is lying? Anything? Anything at all?
Or is this just another dumbass, "hey that looks like a box on that plane...what could that box be?"
-
nope. in this era of off-site data backups, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that a network accidentally loses all of its footage from the most important day in television history.
-
nope. in this era of off-site data backups, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that a network accidentally loses all of its footage from the most important day in television history.
So just to clarify, to my knowledge the BBC has never said the footage even made it to the back-up stage. Do you even know the BBC's back-up policy? Do you know what it was on 9/11? Do you know what back-up measures they would have used? Do you know what 3rd party companies may have been involved? Do you how the data is transmitted to back-up? Is the back-up digital or tape?
Human error is perfectly reasonable.
Some guy sitting in Florida who wasn't a part of any process whatsoever, doesn't have all the facts, isn't in the know, and claims conspiracy just because he can't figure out what happened - now that's unreasonable.
-
hey skip, it's cool if you buy their story. I do not.
I don't think they lost all copies. I think they didn't want to explain why they were able to report on future events. That's just my opinion, and you're entitled to yours.
One of the world's largest media entities 'loses' all video from the most important day in history, and we only find out after it's shown they knew of a building completely collapsing from fire (for the 3rd time in history) an hour before it happened.
We're just debating here... but if you had to bet $5 either way, which way would you go? Do you think they honestly lost the footage? yes or no?
-
Gimme a fucking break......it was 2007. These people were in violation of a friggen curfew and a member of the group engaged a Brad with AK fire...they lit them the fuck up....thats what we do, we kill people. Mistakes, if this was one, happen. I think its great they "lost' the gun camera video. If we have it, we'll put it out.
Man, thats a really low thing to say. There were 2 children in the van that were seriously injured. I'm sure you could show a little compassion for the innocent. It's not all black and white bro.
-
What kind of stupid mother fucker drives their van with children in it into a firefight? It's the soldier's fault that they were chasing a story and couldn't have cared less about the well-being of the children? Please. ::)
I didn't blame the soilders dipshit. I'm talking about the way he commented, there was no hint of any feeling for the innocent individuals, it took me aback.
-
hey skip, it's cool if you buy their story. I do not.
I don't think they lost all copies. I think they didn't want to explain why they were able to report on future events. That's just my opinion, and you're entitled to yours.
One of the world's largest media entities 'loses' all video from the most important day in history, and we only find out after it's shown they knew of a building completely collapsing from fire (for the 3rd time in history) an hour before it happened.
We're just debating here... but if you had to bet $5 either way, which way would you go? Do you think they honestly lost the footage? yes or no?
I work for an enormous bureaucracy. Important shit gets lost all the time. People who handle back-up, don't always know the content. So what's important to one person doesn't mean shit to another as they don't even know what it is. They're just looking at a file. So, yes it's entirely reasonable that a large company like the BBC had some schmuck in the background, saw a drive crash (or whatever happened), simply tossed out the data and stuck a new drive (or whatever) in the slot.
-
tony, you can make whatever assumptions you want.
The head of the BBC called it a 'cock up' that they lost all video backups of 911. The most important media day in history. Why?
Well, the day before, video footage had broken of a BBC reporter talking about how the SOlomon building (WTC7) had fallen. Unfortunately, it was clearly standing in the background, and didn't fall for another hour.
It looked to some that she was reading a script and they hadn't "pulled" WTc7 yet. Whatever the case (let's not make this a 911 CT thread), she reported on a event that had not yet happened, and which would be HIGHLY unusual that a building could collapse from fire.
When asked for their footage of 911, the BBC claims they have lost it. All of it. Do you believe this, Tony?
hey hey hey Ill I want is a list of ppl/organizations you think are involved in 9/11 or the cover up is all...is that to much to ask?
you brought it up
-
i didn't say they were involved with anything.
just that i think 'shucks, i think we lost all our footage' is a load of crap :)
whatever their motive, i'm not buying their story on this one. they don't give a crap what one fat kid in florida thinks, so it's no biggie. there are much cooler things to argue about :)
-
Man, thats a really low thing to say. There were 2 children in the van that were seriously injured. I'm sure you could show a little compassion for the innocent. It's not all black and white bro.
Dude I don't care....not even close. We had 5 kids step on an old Saddam mine last week. I was with my boss so we rolled over because at first it sounded like it was a suicide vest or VBIED. 3 were killed 2 were injured. 2 of the kids disintergrated.....u get used to this crap. My concern is that the pilots invloved don 't get in any trouble for doing their job. We're not the fucking russians or militaries...not even close, we dont spray and pray. There are rules to such engagements. Pilots know that there is a gun camera or drone taping most things.
-
You know whats funny.If ANYONE on here that is a conservative says "you people" or any other thing that is percieved as racial,Jag is the first to call them out.Here Samson says "battling the zionist" and Jag is dead silent.I guess Jews dont count in her special protection of minorities.
That's where you'd be wrong. Ron and all the mods here have so frequently ignored my RTM posts about Samson's antisemitism, I've pretty much given up on reporting them. I have a problem with his constant reference of Israel as Israhell, ...but it's hardly a crime. It's right on par with some people refering to Canada as Canaduh, or when others refer to Americans as Murcans... although I'm sure with a meaner spirit. :-\
Btw - The phrase "Battling the zionist" is about as anti-semitic as Republicans talking about Battling Democrats. Zionism is a political movement, not a religion or race. Sheesh. When will you people learn the difference? ::)
-
Great...anyway back to the thread.
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=18385
Long form of the video and much like SAMSON unless ur in the service or have half a brain (240 ur included in this) u don't know what ur watching.
From the blog....
Everyone is talking about the video from Wikileaks. UberPig, Laughing Wolf, Rusty Shackelford, Ed Morrissey and Bill Roggio. Rusty takes the pertinent parts of the 17 minute video apart frame by frame.
Bryan Casler tries to muddy up the conversation at Iraq Veterans Against the War.Katie O’Malley sent us a link to Huffington Post’s discussion on the subject - providing smoke.
I wasn’t there, I didn’t see what happened before Wikileaks decided where we could begin seeing the video, but based on what I’m seeing, a bunch of friends with AK47s and at least one RPG are crowded on the corner, while one guy sets up security on another corner. Its obvious that they’re up to no good and need to get ventilated before the dismounted US infantry gets in trouble. Simple.
This is how little the Left knows about what they’re watching. In the narrative, Wikileaks calls Bradleys tanks (that REALLY pisses me off). Then the idiot at Huffington Post describes a Bradley running over a body, but in the video, it’s clearly a HUMV. I guess there isn’t much difference between a hummer and a Brad, huh?
I’m guessing the anti-war crowd couldn’t watch the video past the title pages
-
Great rundown...learn something.
First off, watch the full, unedited one, without the political editorializing:
A little background is given in this one that is absent from the edited one. First off, the Apache’s mission was to support that infantry platoon. A few minutes before the video starts, that platoon takes RPG and small arms fire in that vicinity, so the Apache is called up to find the guys doing it. Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hsNUgILqRcy2oq1uFmVilJ1iQeAAD9ET6UK01 the 12th paragraph.
Our video starts. They see a large group of people, all adult males, several of whom are armed. You can see 2 AK’s and at least one actual RPG around 3:30-3:45 http://i.imgur.com/vMZAE.png . Next, they see a man peeking around the corner and pointing what looks like an RPG at the infantryman about four blocks away. Armed men? Check. Immediate threat to American lives? Check. They get permission to fire, and as soon as they have a shot, they take it.
(For what it’s worth, the actions of this group of people are very suspicious looking, especially in a combat zone mere minutes after US forces have been fired on. Including having the RPG firer simply poke around the corner and fire while everyone else hangs back to avoid backblast. See here for a slightly humorous example: http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq318/ChristoffTravel/Insurgent_RPG_Fail-c01.gif . Obviously one example does not a trend make, but I’m just bringing it to your attention)
Secondly, I have yet to see anyone say that the group of guys with the reporters were NOT insurgents. For extra emphasis, at 30:45 there is more small arms fire. At 31:10 you see guys with AK’s and body armor running away from the area. There was DEFINITELY a battle going on in this area, something that Wikileaks biased editing job carefully omits.
It wouldn’t be the first time that Reuters stringers were hanging out with insurgents for some good pictures. For instance, this picture:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/14/content_391288.htm
Was taken by none other than Namir Noor-Eldeen, one of the photographers killed in this attack. Wonder how he got that? How about THIS one:
http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/18/losses-in-the-family/
Here, Namir is obviously standing about 10 feet away from insurgents as they commit an act of violence. I’m not passing judgement on him, I actually think it’s good to have reporters as close as possible to the conflict, but I’m merely pointing out that hanging out with insurgents is something that Noor-Eldeen had been doing for a few years prior to his death.
Anyways, back to the video.
At 19:20, someone reports finding an RPG round.
At 32:54, someone asks if it’s been defused yet, and is told “no, it’s still live”
Even if everyone in Iraq has an AK, only the bad guys have RPG rounds. The discovery of an RPG round among the bodies makes me believe that Namir Noor-Eldeen was yet again hanging out with an insurgent group looking for great shots. He and the other photographer were almost certainly innocent of actual wrongdoing, but the armed men they were with were in all likelihood some of the ACTUAL insurgents who fired on US troops before the video started.
As for the van that was attacked, I’ll admit that it’s slightly sketchier, but I’ll clarify that by noting that insurgents often clean up their own wounded, so an black van showing up with three or four adult men who immediately jump out and start aiding wounded insurgents is absolutely suspicious enough to make a case for engaging it. I don’t know that I personally would have engaged that van, but I find in totally understandable that they did. Although, again, there’s no proof that the men in the van weren’t also insurgents, since the video leaves out a lot of context.
Yes, this video is disturbing simply for the sheer violence and immediate destruction. But think about it before mindlessly jumping to conclusions regarding what actually happened that day.
-
Apache helicopter gunners talk good game 'so the people don't seem real'
WASHINGTON: US military veterans have spoken out about a video released this week of a US Apache helicopter crew gunning down people in a Baghdad street in 2007, in an attempt to explain why the soldiers joked and jeered as they carried out the killings.
A report yesterday said many people found the cockpit chatter in the Apache the most disturbing detail about the video, released this week by the advocacy group WikiLeaks.org.
The video shows the US military killing a Reuters photographer and his driver on a Baghdad street in 2007. The video, confirmed as authentic by the US military, shows repeated fire by two US Apache helicopter crews on a group of men including two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh.
The soldiers joke and jeer as they shoot: "Look at those dead bastards," one helicopter pilot says. Another replies: "Nice . . . good shootin'."
Reports yesterday said many veterans who viewed the footage made the point that soldiers cannot do their jobs without creating psychological distance from the enemy. One reason that the soldiers seemed as if they were playing a video game is that, in a morbid but necessary sense, they were, experts told The New York Times.
"You don't want combat soldiers to be foolish or to jump the gun, but their job is to destroy the enemy, and one way they're able to do that is to see it as a game, so that the people don't seem real," Bret A. Moore, a former US army psychologist and co-author of the forthcoming book Wheels Down: Adjusting to Life After Deployment, told the newspaper.
Military training is fundamentally an exercise in overcoming a fear of killing another human, Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, author of the book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, told the paper.
Combat training "is the only technique that will reliably influence the primitive, midbrain processing of a frightened human being" to take another life, the colonel writes. "Conditioning in flight simulators enables pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations even when frightened."
The report said the men in the Apache helicopter in the video flew into an area that was being contested, during a broader conflict in which a number of helicopters had been shot down.
Several other factors are on display during the 38-minute video, psychologists in and out of the US military, told the paper. (A shortened 17-minute version of the video has been viewed about three million times on YouTube.)
Soldiers and marines were taught to observe rules of engagement, and throughout the video those in the helicopter call base for permission to shoot. But at a more primal level, fighters in a war zone must think of themselves as predators first, not bait, the report said. That frame of mind affects not only how a person thinks, but what he sees and hears, especially in the presence of imminent danger, it said. The fighters in the helicopter say over the radio that they are sure they see a "weapon", even though the Reuters photographer, Noor-Eldeen, is carrying a camera.
"It's tragic that this all begins with the apparent mistaking of a camera" for a weapon, David A. Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, told the paper. "But it's perfectly understandable with what we know now about context and vision. Take the same image and put it in a bathroom, and you swear it's a hair dryer; put it in a workshop, and you swear it's a power drill."
To a soldier or a pilot, it can look like life or death. "I worked with medevac pilots, and vulnerability is a huge issue for them," Dr Moore told the paper.
The video does show that the second object that the soldiers identified as a weapon was a rocket-propelled grenade, or RPG. "An RPG can take them down in a second," Dr Moore told the paper.
The video's emotional impact on viewers is also partly rooted in the combination of intimacy and distance it gives them, some experts told the paper. The viewer sees a wider tragedy unfolding, in hindsight, from the safety of a desk; the soldiers are reacting in real time, on high alert, exposed.
Agencies
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/apache-helicopter-gunners-talk-good-game-so-the-people-dont-seem-real/story-e6frg6so-1225851572372 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/apache-helicopter-gunners-talk-good-game-so-the-people-dont-seem-real/story-e6frg6so-1225851572372)
-
Iraq War Vet: "We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us"
Wednesday 07 April 2010
by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Report
On Monday, April 5, Wikileaks.org posted video footage from Iraq, taken from a US military Apache helicopter in July 2007 as soldiers aboard it killed 12 people and wounded two children. The dead included two employees of the Reuters news agency: photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh.
The US military confirmed the authenticity of the video.
The footage clearly shows an unprovoked slaughter, and is shocking to watch whilst listening to the casual conversation of the soldiers in the background.
As disturbing as the video is, this type of behavior by US soldiers in Iraq is not uncommon.
Truthout has spoken with several soldiers who shared equally horrific stories of the slaughtering of innocent Iraqis by US occupation forces.
"I remember one woman walking by," said Jason Washburn, a corporal in the US Marines who served three tours in Iraq. He told the audience at the Winter Soldier hearings that took place March 13-16, 2008, in Silver Spring, Maryland, "She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."
The hearings provided a platform for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan to share the reality of their occupation experiences with the media in the US.
Washburn testified on a panel that discussed the rules of engagement (ROE) in Iraq, and how lax they were, to the point of being virtually nonexistent.
"During the course of my three tours, the rules of engagement changed a lot," Washburn's testimony continued, "The higher the threat the more viciously we were permitted and expected to respond. Something else we were encouraged to do, almost with a wink and nudge, was to carry 'drop weapons', or by my third tour, 'drop shovels'. We would carry these weapons or shovels with us because if we accidentally shot a civilian, we could just toss the weapon on the body, and make them look like an insurgent."
Hart Viges, a member of the 82nd Airborne Division of the Army who served one year in Iraq, told of taking orders over the radio.
"One time they said to fire on all taxicabs because the enemy was using them for transportation.... One of the snipers replied back, 'Excuse me? Did I hear that right? Fire on all taxicabs?' The lieutenant colonel responded, 'You heard me, trooper, fire on all taxicabs.' After that, the town lit up, with all the units firing on cars. This was my first experience with war, and that kind of set the tone for the rest of the deployment."
Vincent Emanuele, a Marine rifleman who spent a year in the al-Qaim area of Iraq near the Syrian border, told of emptying magazines of bullets into the city without identifying targets, running over corpses with Humvees and stopping to take "trophy" photos of bodies.
"An act that took place quite often in Iraq was taking pot shots at cars that drove by," he said, "This was not an isolated incident, and it took place for most of our eight-month deployment."
Kelly Dougherty - then executive director of Iraq Veterans Against the War - blamed the behavior of soldiers in Iraq on policies of the US government.
"The abuses committed in the occupations, far from being the result of a 'few bad apples' misbehaving, are the result of our government's Middle East policy, which is crafted in the highest spheres of US power," she said.
Michael Leduc, a corporal in the Marines who was part of the US attack on Fallujah in November 2004, said orders he received from his battalion JAG officer before entering the city were as follows: "You see an individual with a white flag and he does anything but approach you slowly and obey commands, assume it's a trick and kill him."
Bryan Casler, a corporal in the Marines, spoke of witnessing the prevalent dehumanizing outlook soldiers took toward Iraqis during the invasion of Iraq.
"... on these convoys, I saw Marines defecate into MRE bags or urinate in bottles and throw them at children on the side of the road," he stated.
Scott Ewing, who served in Iraq from 2005-2006, admitted on one panel that units intentionally gave candy to Iraqi children for reasons other than "winning hearts and minds.
"There was also another motive," Ewing said. "If the kids were around our vehicles, the bad guys wouldn't attack. We used the kids as human shields."
In response to the WikiLeaks video, the Pentagon, while not officially commenting on the video, announced that two Pentagon investigations cleared the air crew of any wrongdoing.
A statement from the two probes said the air crew had acted appropriately and followed the ROE.
Adam Kokesh served in Fallujah beginning in February 2004 for roughly one year.
Speaking on a panel at the aforementioned hearings about the ROE, he held up the ROE card soldiers are issued in Iraq and said, "This card says, 'Nothing on this card prevents you from using deadly force to defend yourself'."
Kokesh pointed out that "reasonable certainty" was the condition for using deadly force under the ROE, and this led to rampant civilian deaths. He discussed taking part in the April 2004 siege of Fallujah. During that attack, doctors at Fallujah General Hospital told Truthout there were 736 deaths, over 60 percent of which were civilians.
"We changed the ROE more often than we changed our underwear," Kokesh said, "At one point, we imposed a curfew on the city, and were told to fire at anything that moved in the dark."
Kokesh also testified that during two cease-fires in the midst of the siege, the military decided to let out as many women and children from the embattled city as possible, but this did not include most men.
"For males, they had to be under 14 years of age," he said, "So I had to go over there and turn men back, who had just been separated from their women and children. We thought we were being gracious."
Steve Casey served in Iraq for over a year starting in mid-2003.
"We were scheduled to go home in April 2004, but due to rising violence we stayed in with Operation Blackjack," Casey said, "I watched soldiers firing into the radiators and windows of oncoming vehicles. Those who didn't turn around were unfortunately neutralized one way or another - well over 20 times I personally witnessed this. There was a lot of collateral damage."
Jason Hurd served in central Baghdad from November 2004 until November 2005. He told of how, after his unit took "stray rounds" from a nearby firefight, a machine gunner responded by firing over 200 rounds into a nearby building.
"We fired indiscriminately at this building," he said. "Things like that happened every day in Iraq. We reacted out of fear for our lives, and we reacted with total destruction."
Hurd said the situation deteriorated rapidly while he was in Iraq. "Over time, as the absurdity of war set in, individuals from my unit indiscriminately opened fire at vehicles driving down the wrong side of the road. People in my unit would later brag about it. I remember thinking how appalled I was that we were laughing at this, but that was the reality."
Other soldiers Truthout has interviewed have often laughed when asked about their ROE in Iraq.
Garret Reppenhagen served in Iraq from February 2004-2005 in the city of Baquba, 40 kilometers (about 25 miles) northeast of Baghdad. He said his first experience in Iraq was being on a patrol that killed two Iraqi farmers as they worked in their field at night.
"I was told they were out in the fields farming because their pumps only operated with electricity, which meant they had to go out in the dark when there was electricity," he explained, "I asked the sergeant, if he knew this, why did he fire on the men. He told me because the men were out after curfew. I was never given another ROE during my time in Iraq."
Emmanuel added: "We took fire while trying to blow up a bridge. Many of the attackers were part of the general population. This led to our squad shooting at everything and anything in order to push through the town. I remember myself emptying magazines into the town, never identifying a target."
Emmanuel spoke of abusing prisoners he knew were innocent, adding, "We took it upon ourselves to harass them, and took them to the desert to throw them out of our Humvees, while kicking and punching them when we threw them out."
Jason Wayne Lemue is a Marine who served three tours in Iraq.
"My commander told me, 'Kill those who need to be killed, and save those who need to be saved'; that was our mission on our first tour," he said of his first deployment during the invasion.
"After that the ROE changed, and carrying a shovel, or standing on a rooftop talking on a cell phone, or being out after curfew [meant those people] were to be killed. I can't tell you how many people died because of this. By my third tour, we were told to just shoot people, and the officers would take care of us."
When this Truthout reporter was in Baghdad in November 2004, my Iraqi interpreter was in the Abu Hanifa mosque that was raided by US and Iraqi soldiers during Friday prayers.
"Everyone was there for Friday prayers, when five Humvees and several trucks carrying [US soldiers and] Iraqi National Guards entered," Abu Talat told Truthout on the phone from within the mosque while the raid was in progress. "Everyone starting yelling 'Allahu Akbar' (God is the greatest) because they were frightened. Then the soldiers started shooting the people praying!"
"They have just shot and killed at least four of the people praying," he said in a panicked voice, "At least 10 other people are wounded now. We are on our bellies and in a very bad situation."
Iraqi Red Crescent later confirmed to Truthout that at least four people were killed, and nine wounded. Truthout later witnessed pieces of brain splattered on one of the walls inside the mosque while large blood stains covered carpets at several places.
This type of indiscriminate killing has been typical from the initial invasion of Iraq.
Truthout spoke with Iraq war veteran and former National Guard and Army Reserve member Jason Moon, who was there for the invasion.
"While on our initial convoy into Iraq in early June 2003, we were given a direct order that if any children or civilians got in front of the vehicles in our convoy, we were not to stop, we were not to slow down, we were to keep driving. In the event an insurgent attacked us from behind human shields, we were supposed to count. If there were thirty or less civilians we were allowed to fire into the area. If there were over thirty, we were supposed to take fire and send it up the chain of command. These were the rules of engagement. I don't know about you, but if you are getting shot at from a crowd of people, how fast are you going to count, and how accurately?"
Moon brought back a video that shows his sergeant declaring, "The difference between an insurgent and an Iraqi civilian is whether they are dead or alive."
Moon explains the thinking: "If you kill a civilian he becomes an insurgent because you retroactively make that person a threat."
According to the Pentagon probes of the killings shown in the WikiLeaks video, the air crew had "reason to believe" the people seen in the video were fighters before opening fire.
Article 48 of the Geneva Conventions speaks to the "basic rule" regarding the protection of civilians:
"In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives."
What is happening in Iraq seems to reflect what psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton calls "atrocity-producing situations." He used this term first in his book "The Nazi Doctors." In 2004, he wrote an article for The Nation, applying his insights to the Iraq War and occupation.
"Atrocity-producing situations," Lifton wrote, occur when a power structure sets up an environment where "ordinary people, men or women no better or worse than you or I, can regularly commit atrocities.... This kind of atrocity-producing situation ... surely occurs to some degrees in all wars, including World War II, our last 'good war.' But a counterinsurgency war in a hostile setting, especially when driven by profound ideological distortions, is particularly prone to sustained atrocity - all the more so when it becomes an occupation."
Cliff Hicks served in Iraq from October 2003 to August 2004.
"There was a tall apartment complex, the only spot from where people could see over our perimeter," Hicks told Truthout, "There would be laundry hanging off the balconies, and people hanging out on the roof for fresh air. The place was full of kids and families. On rare occasions, a fighter would get atop the building and shoot at our passing vehicles. They never really hit anybody. We just knew to be careful when we were over by that part of the wall, and nobody did shit about it until one day a lieutenant colonel was driving down and they shot at his vehicle and he got scared. So he jumped through a bunch of hoops and cut through some red tape and got a C-130 to come out the next night and all but leveled the place. Earlier that evening when I was returning from a patrol the apartment had been packed full of people."
http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378 (http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378)
-
The author of this article is a piece of shit and been on the bs insurgent sympathy radar for a long time. Winter soldier hahahaahahaahahaahahaaha hahahahah...........plea se. Anybody who believes anything those guys said needs to dig really deep and read or watch the testimony. They had guys who never went but heard stories....then when milbloggers and vets stood up to challenge their testimony, the libs kicked them out. I'm not letting this go because ur all getting one side.
“Everyone was [in the mosque] for Friday prayers, when five Humvees and several trucks carrying [US soldiers and] Iraqi National Guards entered,” Abu Talat told Truthout on the phone from within the mosque while the raid was in progress. “Everyone starting yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’ (God is the greatest) because they were frightened. Then the soldiers started shooting the people praying!”
“They have just shot and killed at least four of the people praying,” he said in a panicked voice, “At least 10 other people are wounded now. We are on our bellies and in a very bad situation.”
Iraqi Red Crescent later confirmed to Truthout that at least four people were killed, and nine wounded. Truthout later witnessed pieces of brain splattered on one of the walls inside the mosque while large blood stains covered carpets at several places.
See? Americans just pull up in their Hummers and start spraying a group of worshipers in a mosque. I’m sure some of you have seen this during your tours. It was probably like a game to you, right? Funny thing is; this interpreter was supposedly telling Jamail about this while it was occurring from inside the mosque. Four dead and nine wounded, but Jamail’s interpreter remains unscathed while he calmly describes the scene to Jamail over the phone. Odd.
Yes, Jamail hates American troops and maintains an archive of dubious quotes from IVAW that perpetuate his caricature of the kid next door who answers his country’s call. And like a parasite, drags those quotes out when an opportunity to smear the troops presents itself.
...I have tons of shit like this. If u believe axe grinding shitbags who don't verify facts and pretend to be journalists then there is nothing I can do to convince u otherwies. We don't shoot people for fun, we don't operate that way.
-
I wont comment on this particular article.
But I know from personal experience that much of what HH6 is saying is true.
Journos the world round often do work for Political units
Many journos also don't want to report they want to influence events, just like many people accused CNN of doing for the USA for the gulf war many other agencies do the same for the other side.
It is a great cover, be a free lance or affiliated Journo and then walk around look at and report on what you want.
If the "enemy" complains brand them as opposing free media............ works like a dream.
They will try and use their "Journo status" to block events happening or even start events happening ( like riots)
We actually caught BBC journos doing this in South African during the mid 1980s for pictures, stories, ratings or political motivation.
If you are in a combat zone expect that you may die.
And if you have never been in a combat zone especially where hostile civilians are involved you actually have very little right to comment on what the soldiers are saying.