pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

I have to say this has given me something to think about ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&aia=true

Overview
WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

ross_wrx

I would have to disagree with this... It does not CLEARLY show any reporters or anyone wearing 'Press' labelled body armor. I would also disagree with the fact that it was unprovoked... Walking the streets with AK-47's and popping your head around a corner with what looks like an RPG whilst an Apache is in the area is more than enough... I would like to see anyones reaction in that situation.

As for the children that is more laughable propaganda to make the war look bad. If you were driving into an area there had been a contact would you be stupid enough to take your children with you???

Alan Jeffery

It's a fact that war kills people. Read Anthony Beevor's "Stalingrad" and nothing that happens in the Middle East will even raise your eyebrow.

juggers

iTrader: (1)

Does'nt change the fact that the war is illegal and every death there is murder. The only propganda i know of is the bull#s##t terrorism issue. We never had any threats in the uk before that idiot Blair took us to war.

OIL thats all it's about.

banny sti

iTrader: (68)

Agreed its all about the black gold as mysteriously there was no WMDs

Banny

jiha4

iTrader: (3)

in the defence of the apache pilot, news reporters have this annoying habit of going wherever they like, which is fine, but not telling anyone else that they are there. if you look at min 03:52 the us forces ground controller talking to the apaches says there is no us forces east of his position which would prob mean they were there without telling any american liasion it does look like some of the blokes have long object which are weapon looking and at 04:08 it does look like one bloke with a weapon crouching near the corner of a building with something long and weapon like which is suspicious. hitting the van that comes to pick the guy up is a little out of order but you can't see any kids in there till you zoom right in on a still of the footage.
i'm not wanting to get into an arguement about anything and everyone is intitled to an opinion (the beauty of living in a democracy i suppose )

ARM-Scooby

should this be in off topics?

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Yet since the 70's there have been repeated offences (try the Iraq/Iran war) of the use of chemical weapons on Civillian populations, then in the 80's still the use of chemical and biological weapons on the Kurdish people in the north, even in the first Gulf Conflict there were reports of useage of chemical weapons on allied troops, yet Sadam didnt let anyone go look around without 48-72hrs notice of going to a facility, the threat of chemical weapons is good enough sometimes to take action.
I do agree that to some extent that oil played a part, but the fact is you cannot say one side is murdering people and the other side isnt, I think someone who explodes a car bomb in the middle of a street with the intent of causing extensive collateral damage and doesnt give a damn about who they kill to a pin point accurate military strike who try to reduce damage as much as possible whilst said "terrorists" use civillians as cover, is a totally different situation.

There was the issue when some british troops fired upon and killed a "civillian" who had run out and picked up an RPG7 round, they repeatedly told them to place the round on the floor, they didnt and the consequence of that action was that they were shot and killed.
If you understand the rules of engagement then you understand that this was a perfectly legal situation to shoot said person, though that took 2 years of legal action and millions of taxpayers money for something that shouldnt have even gone to court.

Tony

ice643

Who gave Saddam the WMDs in the first place,it was the west.Once they had used him against Iran ,he became the enemy.
whilst you have israel killing its own people ,children throw stones they use aircrafts to kill them.They have barricaded all of gaza but nobdoy does anything.These are the double standards of the west.
The Iraq war was about oil not about Wmds.

stevie333

iTrader: (2)

9/11 HELLOOOOOO,has everyone forgot about this already?
3000 innocent western civilians?

What should the pilot have done?waited till they fired the RPG and then made the decision?

Pretty obvious none of you who have commented so far have had to make a decision anything like this,so your not really placed to comment.

All in my opinion of course.

Scooby Arthur

iTrader: (2)

"We never had any threats in the uk before that idiot Blair took us to war"

Hmmm must have been in my imagination all the innocent people that were killed by the IRA then.

HM Forces have no choice about going to these ****holes, the press do, its hard but they choose to go there.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Who gave Iran their chemical weapons? Oh sorry, it was the other side at the time, ie USSR/Soviet block (remember the cold war? damn Vietnam etc, all cold war backed, cuba etc, the list is endless).
Oh and scud missles, not western, neither are T55's, 62's, 64's, 72's or BDM's BTR's etc, or AK47's and RPG7's or the MIG aircraft that were used.

Remember when Iran was a nice friendly country? I remember when they had the uprising, then it all changed..... (its a nice bit of history, worth reading about, they had schools for boys AND girls!!!)

Remember the 7 day war?
I dont agree with what is going on in Israel, you know that they use to kill British troops?


Nope, there was still legitimate cause for concern in that area, Saddam was destabilising it to start with, WMD's had not been accounted for, ive also said it before, chemical weapons have been used indestriminately by that regime before, even on allied troops, I agree that oil played a part, but never discount any wmd, chemical, biological or nuclear, if a country has had them, used them and has the facility to make them, they will.

Tony

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Iraq had nothing to do with either 9/11 or Al Qaeda, get your facts in order first. Saddam was an evil man but shooting innocent civilians whilst doing your best Rambo impression will create many more terrorists.

Scooby Arthur

iTrader: (2)

Really!!!

BIG FUD

iTrader: (84)

All the war's i have ever read about and all the documentaries i have seen all end the same way loads of innocent dead and no change in the situation what started the war.

I feel for all those who are involved but can not understand why you would go there knowing what will and can happen to you its crazy.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Mate, war resoves nothing. Soldiers sent in to do the bidding of politicians with hidden agendas. Since time immemorial this has been the case and many more innocent people will die.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Yes really!!!!

ice643

Iran was a friend when there was the Shah in charge the Americans gave them weapons,once the Islamic revolution came ,the west knew they cant get oil cheap anymore so they used saddam to attack Iran.
Iran was never soviet block get your facts right before commenting.
The west gave saddam the chemical weapons.
They used him like the americans always do and left him after the war .
He didnt have any money left so he invaded kuwait.
The americans allowed him to do so ,so they can take him out because he was athreat to israel.
Iran still has schools for boys and girls ,have you ever been there.

Bush and his poodle blair took the country to war on lies,no wmds have ever been found .Where are they?

zakscooby1

iTrader: (8)

9/11 inside job.thought everyone would know that by now
tbh if anyone came into my territory and tried taking my subaru off me,i would skin the ******* alive

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

You seemed to be the one misinformed, I think you best look at this first
(your quote by the way)

I then quite happily pointed out that all their other weapons were infact soviet block items, or can you not read?
Iran is a different matter, of course the chemical weapons they had were from a different side

YOU get your facts right, your saying now that they ran out of money, errrrm so invading a country is a good way to get more cash?

Tony

ice643

your talking out of your ar$e your the one who cant read i was talking about saddam who ran out of money.:hjt wofing

juggers

iTrader: (1)

I am talking about terrorist from the middle east and UK who have arisen since the war in Afganistan and Iraq. The IRA seem to have took the backburner while so called "muslim" extremest fill the front pages since 9/11.

I personally think 9/11 was concocted by the Americans themselfs it just takes an open mind to realise that as the facts speak for themselfs.

Any war instigated by America and the UK is not for "national security" it's for financial security.

Am sick of America and the UK going into countrys and killing innocent people. as soon as someone is killed here or we lose a soldier everyones in moarning. No one blinks an eyelid as young children and women fathers and mothers brother and sisters are slaughterd in Afganistan and Iraq by UK and US forces it's a joke.

Life is sacred yet we value money more then life.

Immy

reano

iTrader: (2)

Iraq just didn't make sense it wasn't linked to 911 (no proper evidence to suggest other wise). Was Saddam more a threat to world or rather American safety than North Korea, China, war lords in Africa, What about South Africa when they oppressed their people for decades as well as countless other criminals

Bush and Blair...... the historical records always takes a bit of time to mature but when we get there and people look back (if they haven't seen already) they will realise it was a war based on spin, ego's and legacies.....

Mus

iTrader: (2)

War cost money all that money wasted in war could of had us all out of the recesion by now or gone towards something that would benfited everyone.

It's so sad when you think of all the lost lifes


Mus

ice643

spot on Immy

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

You need to read up more on the middle east when you do, come back with the right facts

Tony

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Blinkered yet again

Tony

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Immy, type in Bosnia, africa, libya, add muslim or terrorist, even shove lockerbie in there, the only reason that muslim terrorists are now front page is that they put themselves there, they have been active around the world for decades, some of the russian satelite states have been fighting for years before 9/11, those muslim terrorists did an attack only last week in moscow, dont point fingers until you see 2 sides of the story, most people seem blinkered on this subject

Tony

stevie333

iTrader: (2)

Of course it was all interlinked somehow,always has been,even if you are just supporting their aims that makes you involved.
Since when did innocent civilians start carrying RPG,s,yes i realise the kids did,nt have them,but that was,nt the pilots fault,their equipment is good,but it cant see through cars,i,m afraid the people to blame for those poor kids being killed was the guy who drove them into the situation,not the pilots who did,nt know they were there.
As for the cameramen/journalists,its simple,you hang around with terrorists you put yourself in danger,ALL FOR MONEY,there not there to help us by letting us know whats going on,they are doing a job and making bloody good money i bet,not like our soldiers who are making a pittance,and being targeted daily by the terrorists/taliban/al qaeda.

juggers

iTrader: (1)

Tony your very one track minded. What's the root cause of every issue. It's OPRESSION.
If you have botherd to read so much i suggest you read a little on the islamic history and you'll see from the start the west has employed many ways in breaking up the eastern muslim states causing civil war and unrest where every they go and palastine afganistan iraq and india/pakistan are just a few to be named. Do you see the pattern occuring now?