WikiLeaks Releases US Military Video of Indiscriminate Killing of Over 12 (Including 2 News Staff)

[tekisui]

Collateral Murder

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.

more w/video at link: http://collateralmurder.com/

[tekisui]

1. Naturally, the US military labeled these dead civilians 'insurgents'.

Just like every dead person from our drones are labeled 'militants'.

[L0oniX]

24. Iraqi hippies n/t

[G_j]

2. K&R

[Robb]

3. Youtube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik

[Robb]

8. I recommend watching the full video first, then the annotated short video.

Eye-opening experience.

[tekisui]

4. Fucking assholes murdered the rescuers.

:grr:

[malaise]

6. Two words

War crimes

[Bolo Boffin]

13. They thought the rescuers were "cleaning up the site"

Getting rid of weapons (which were there) and saving insurgents.

[tekisui]

14. They just wanted more bodies.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Yes, they wanted more bodies of insurgents

That's who they thought they were shooting at.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. I'll defend this to a point.

A. The military thought they were engaging an insurgent group. And to a certain extent, they were. There were weapons on the scene. Why else would the Reuters employees be there taking pictures?

B. It's very clear that insurgents also try to get to attacks like this and clean up any overt signs of insurgency. That is what the soldiers were intent on stopping when the van pulled up.

C. The command structure is VERY apparent. There is no wanton destruction here. The attack is conducted by the book. I.E., no war crimes.

D. There is a certain amount of grisly humor. Show me a military that doesn't indulge in it.

E. No one in the military knew there were Reuters employees on the ground. This is one of the failings of war-by-video-camera.

F. For some reason not apparent in this video, the military was keeping a eye on this square. There are other videos from other helicopters, etc. In other words, we still don't have the full context of this engagement yet.

People who are surprised at the graphic nature of war will be shocked by this video. The Reuters employees were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[L0oniX]

30. Yea ...it's still a "war zone" and cameras can be weapons too...

as in "we don't want the truth to get out".

[Bolo Boffin]

31. No evidence of that motivation anywhere in this. n/t

[sabrina 1]

56. 'There were no U.S. troops in the vicinity'.

So, no American was threatened, were they? Just like no American was threatened by Iraq.

i am NOT shocked by how graphic the video is. I have seen far worse, much closer up, from that war, which has been described accurately as one big crime scene.

I have seen the work of some of the photo-journalists there, and every American who blindly supports this war should be made to watch what they are supporting. But on the contrary, understanding that the average decent American would never support what is going there if they were to see it, U.S. news is censored.

It is not a shock that the U.S. has committed egregious crimes there, nor is it any more a shock that U.S. citizens turn a blind eye to the crimes, as they would prefer to cheer for their team, right or wrong.

Just as the German people were accused of not standing up, one day, and certainly in other parts of the word (look at what is happening in S. America now) the American people will be judged just as harshly. We are not up to over 1.4 million dead in Iraq.

And don't bother me with any 'godwins law' garbage. I prefer 'if the show fits wear it'. It fits when you have Americans defending torture and slaughter of a population that never once threatened them. I hope that because of those of us who refuse to defend it in any way, the American people might be judged a little less harshly by history. Thanks for making that job a little more difficult.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. Go back and watch it. The insurgents move to a tactical position against the helicopter.

There were U.S. troops in the helicopter.

[sabrina 1]

60. I don't see 'insurgents' in Iraq. I see Iraqi citizens.

If helicopters from an invading army ever fly over a U.S. street, I would expect Americans to react appropriately, especially if they have killed so many of their fellow Americans.

The war is illegal. No need to get bogged down in semantics. They don't belong there, the Iraqis citizens do, it really is that simple.

[hfojvt]

99. thus it is okay for them to shoot at us

but not okay for us to shoot back? That seems to be your bottom line.

Never let it be said that we liberals don't support the troops.

And pay no attention to those Iraqis who are killing other Iraqis and doing so quite indiscriminately.

[Hannah Bell]

66. there were no "insurgents". and that word is a phoney, propaganda word, created by a PR team.

[tekisui]

76. Yeah, if some other country was firing on innocent civilians here,

I would be labeled an insurgent. I would be firing back, too.

Although, there was no sign that these guys were doing anything other than walking the streets. And now they are dead.

[mike_c]

74. that is utterly absurd-- there is no "tactical position" and they were not even aware...

...the gun platforms were there until the U.S. opened fire. Your numerous claims about weapons have already been debunked elsewhere. This was wanton murder, plain and simple. The victims were civilians, at least four of whom were acknowledged non-combatants (the Reuters journalists and the two children). The military LIED to cover it up for three years before WikiLeaks poked them in the eye. The Pentagon responded to the truth being revealed by deeming WikiLeaks a threat to U.S. national security.

I'll tell you who the real threat to national security is. It's the Pentagon and the rest of the military. When WE can no longer trust them, they are a threat to our security.

[kenfrequed]

98. Uhm

By tactical position...

Do you mean scattering and taking cover from gunfire?

Isn't that what you would ordinarily do if there was the prospect of being gunned down?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

51. Interesting. 'The reuters employees were in the wrong place at the w

wrong time'. Really? An illegal invasion of a sovereign country is underway. I would say that the invaders are in the wrong place. So would most Democrats I know.

Did you always support this illegal war or you just playing devil's advocate? I have yet to meet a democrat who ever supported it. Except those politicians who are associated with the DLC, the rightwing of the Democrat Party which does support our colonial wars.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Enjoy attacking my motives?

The Reuters employees were at the wrong place at the wrong time. That's why they are dead.

[sabrina 1]

67. Explain, how can you be in the wrong place when

you are in your own country and those who killed you are in your country illegally? I would say that those soldiers, who act as though this is a video game, are the ones in the wrong place. And so do most people in the world.

Not interested in propaganda or weasel words like 'collateral damage' or 'insurgents' or the extremely unbelievable claim that when children are killed in their own country as their father tried to help a wounded person, 'it's their fault for bringing their children along'. And just where should an Iraqi citizen be bringing his children?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Robb]

20. It's not the shooting, it's the cover-up.

To clarify, not the original shooting anyhow. Right up until they opened fire on the van, I was in the soldiers' corner. Could've been an RPG, could've been shoulder arms.

The van was never a threat. The soldiers broke the ROE and the military kept it quiet.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. They thought the van was insurgents scrubbing the site.

This happens. Once an attack happens, other insurgents will try to scrub the site of any evidence of insurgency. That's what the military thought was happening -- and very well COULD have been happening. Do we know the identities of the owners of the van?

The soldiers asked for permission to engage and got it on that basis. There was no breaking of ROE.

However, I wonder if the soldiers were so caught up in watching the wounded journalist get carried over that they missed the kids in the front seat. I did the first time through. I think that could have made a difference, although I might be wrong.

[Vinnie From Indy]

36. So,

based on your understanding of the ROE, the US military can indiscriminately kill ANYONE that wanders into an area that has seen recent violence. People walking home, running for cover, trying to get the hell out of the way etc. - these people are all targets. What about a shop keeper sweeping up the broken glass? Is he fair game? What about marked ambulances? It is well known that insurgents in many conflicts use medical vehicles to move weapons and insurgents around. Are you a devotee of total war?

I find your view of this incident grotesque. In fact, it is your thinking that would have us bomb every mosque in Bahgdad solely becuase one or two mosques in the past were used to hide weapons.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Please don't ascribe to me positions I haven't taken. That's called building a straw man.

The soldiers asked for and received permission to engage. There was no violation of the rules of engagement.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. Do the ROE authorize the killing of anyone "scrubbing the site"?

If they pick up weapons, I can perhaps see it. If they're taking away the wounded, no.

[TorchTheWitch]

92. he knowingly claimed they were picking up weapons so he would get permission

for the strike knowing he would not have gotten the permission without that claim. He was ITCHING to kill them by his own words as he watched the wounded Saad crawl over the curb as he said he hoped he would reach for a weapon (though none was in evidence) so he could kill him. He was told and acknowledged that people from the van were picking up Saad with no mention of any weapon by either the guy who told Mr. Itchy Trigger Finger in the choper and Mr. Itchy Trigger Finger himself in his acknowledgement. It's absolutely clear none of the three - the two men carrying Saad between them - picked up or even had any weapons. By his own words and what he was watching he not only knew they had no weapons and that he wanted a weapon-reason to kill them. He knowingly lied about their picking up weapons which he clearly saw they did not so he could get the needed permission for the strike.

[Hannah Bell]

49. on what basis? anyone who has a weapon = "insurgent"? anyone who tries to help wounded

people = "insurgent"?



it looks like the shooters mistook cameras for weapons. if they can't even do that much, send them home.

there was nothing, from the start of that video to the end, that justified that mass murder. disgusting, cold, creepy, high-tech murder.

[Bolo Boffin]

59. Nope. Weapons were on the scene.

The military are IDing weapons.







Watch the video from 3:15-4:15 and look at the people Wikileaks don't point to. I thank them for IDing the journalists. However, some of the others are carrying weapons.

[Hannah Bell]

62. do you expect people to travel without weapons in bagdad? is the possession of a weapon

automatic grounds for assassination from the sky?

in vietnam, journalists traveled with weapons. not sure why you expect people to disarm in a war zone, or why you think possession of a weapon = automatic grounds for murder.

the same assholes killing anyone with a weapon in iraq are screaming about how anything less than open-carry everywhere in the us = human rights violation.

fuck this war. fuck the slimy vampires that brought it.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Plenty of people DO travel in Bagdad without weapons.

The soldiers were watching that area for a reason. The journalists were there getting a story for a reason.

The soldiers identified weapons on the ground. They observed the group getting into a tactical position against them. They sought permission to engage, received it, and then engaged. That is not murder.

Fuck this war, however.

[Hannah Bell]

65. it was unprovoked, unjustified murder. there was no reason to murder those people.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. You are incorrect. Murder is a legal term.

The soldiers asked for permission to engage based on evidence. They received permission to engage. They engaged.

You can call war murder as a rhetorical method, fine. But it is not murder.

[Hannah Bell]

69. "permission to engage" in murder = murder. "these guys look like enemies, can i kill them?"

"sure".

[tekisui]

77. Permission to murder.

How sweet.

It was murder, absolutely.

[Pavulon]

87. Cspan is your friend, not as splattery but far more deadly. That is when your government

authorized and continues to authorize this war. By ordering it to continue and funding it, they own this. Civilians own war here. Be sure we all understand that.

[paparush]

97. A scooter is a weapon?

[pasto76]

86. Positive Identification is a requirement

lots of times I thought I could shoot at something (remembering clearly a muzzleflash I saw once) but just wasnt airtight sure about it. Those are the rules. Soldiers follow them. Mercenaries dont.

SGT PASTO

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

43. 'Insurgents' are Iraqi citizens, who belong there.

Those who killed them are unlawful invaders who are committing war crimes jut by their presence there. Iraq was never a threat to the U.S. We are there to control their resources, to install a puppet U.S. friendly government and to kill anyone who gets in the way, including children and women.

This is a war crime. And I am sick of the excuses for these wars.

Two reporters were murdered and children injured and obviously there are people in the military who have a conscience and are leaking information like this.

If what they did was in any way defensible, they would not have lied about it.

That is why they lied to get us into this war. Because there was no way to defend it.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. There is no court which will call this a war crime.

You can throw that label around all you like, but it's not one.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but the video doesn't make your case. It's graphic and horrific, but there is still more to the story.

[sabrina 1]

48. The court of public opinion around the globe has

already called this war a crime.

Pretty strange to see someone on a democratic board defending, rather than demanding justice for this war crime.

It's tragic. Those people were lawfully there, the U.S. is unlawfully there and in this case took no trouble to determine what or who they were shooting at. It's pretty simple. And there was little doubt on democratic forums at least, that the Iraq War was a crime. Not a single person I know, even Republicans, and there are some sane ones, support these wars.

Unfortunately, they shot reporters. News agencies around the world will be up in arms over it. Killing reporters is a war crime. No wonder they tried to suppress the video.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. Killing non-combatants?

The minivan was an unmarked ambulance. According to the Geneva Convention, ambulances are officially neutral.

The only court which will not call this a war crime is one on which I'm not a juror.

[bananas]

5. The video is also on youtube, short and long versions

http://twitter.com/wikileaks/statuses/11644444876

Video also online on Youtube: http://tinyurl.com/ybnyspu (full) and http://tinyurl.com/cmshort (short)

42 minutes ago via web

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. Now we will see what the world does with this information.

K & R for the truth.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Unbelievable.

I have always been against the draft, but it was an all-volunteer force that did this.

I find it hard to escape the conclusion that the all volunteer army is self selecting for people capable of this. How could anyone of normal conscience open fire on the van trying to rescue the wounded journalist?

The answer is, they couldn't, but the US military is not recruiting those of normal conscience.

[Hissyspit]

10. Jesus Christ...

[Hissyspit]

19. From AOL article a few days ago:

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/anti-secrecy-web-site-wikileaks-touts-pentagon-cover-up-video/19424566

- snip -

More recent speculation is that the video is one of three controversial May 4, 2009, air strikes near the village of Gerani in Afghanistan's Farah province, which were part of U.S. military operations targeting the Taliban. The air strikes killed a number of civilians, and McClatchy Newspapers last year cited two military officials who said a video of the strike revealed that "no one checked to see whether any women or children were in the building before it was bombed."

In an interview with NPR, Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, said that video of the air strike would be shown as part of a later press briefing.

U.S. Central Command later released the executive summary of an investigation into the three air strikes, which concluded that two of them did indeed cause civilian casualties. The report deemed the air strikes lawful, but said the inadvertent killing of civilians was "inconsistent with U.S. government objectives of providing security and safety for the Afghan people."

In June 2009, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commanding general in Afghanistan, strictly limited air strikes. The video of the May strike, however, was never released.

"The reason we declassify imagery and provide it to the media/the public is so we can provide a better understanding of things when there is confusion or misinformation," Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a U.S. Central Command spokesman, told AOL News in an e-mail. "In this case, we were able to provide a clear, written account of the investigator's findings, and the imagery didn't help clarify anything further."

If the video is of the May bombing and shows evidence not revealed in the written report, it could prove embarrassing for the U.S. Central Command.

"I don't have any reason to believe this was the video," Hanzlik wrote.

In the meantime, WikiLeaks has been content to offer tantalizing hints but no solid proof. "You will have to wait until the press conference, but the material is extremely serious," Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, wrote in an e-mail to AOL News.

[RedCloud]

11. But my "news" calls them heroes without exception!!!!

[L0oniX]

26. Defending our country over there n/t

:crazy:

[newspeak]

12. It seems journalists were fair game under the * reign

Only those embedded, puppet journalists were protected. Remember the Italian journalist who was shot--apparently had something about Falluja? I'd say the chickenhawks learned a lot about Vietnam--make sure nothing gets out, unless it's their controlled BS. Also, pacify the zombie masses, don't show them the realities of war or show very little--then they can pretend it's not happening in their name.

[Robb]

16. I doubt it was that targeted.

More like "good luck to you out there, we're not going to train anyone to consider a camera might be slung on a strap over a shoulder."

The effect of journalists "out in the field" getting killed is to keep journalists afraid and out of the field. Worked, too.

[Echo In Light]

23. 150 journalists at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad came under fire from US forces

http://www.ifj.org/en/articles/justice-for-journalists-killed-in-iraq-april-8th-protest

[G_j]

18. so will this be addressed by the media?

has it been?

[Hissyspit]

21. This is all I can find so far - CJR. It seems to indicate NYT reporter working on a story:

http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/wikileaks_releases_video_showi.php

The Kicker, Transparency — April 05, 2010 10:37 AM
WikiLeaks Releases Video Showing Death of Reuters Staff
By Clint Hendler

Single Page Print Email Comments Digg Facebook Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious This morning at an event at the National Press Club, WikiLeaks screened a video depicting a missile strike on a van in Baghdad that killed a Reuters driver and photographer in 2007.

WikiLeaks is a non-profit supported entity that offers those with undisclosed documents and records a safe space for their anonymous dissemination.

Reuters editors were shown the video in an off the record briefing shortly after the killings, and the news agency reportedly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the video, which apparently went unfilled.

Wikileaks promises to have the video more widely available this afternoon. In the meanwhile, its contents have been described by former New York Times reporter Jennifer 8. Lee, who saw the video at the conference and offered some tweets, including this one:

Wikileaks video offers unusual view of casual banter of attack pilots when killing people: “sweet” “look at that bitch go” “nice missile.”
This was not the video depicting a 2009 air strike in Afghanistan that may have killed approximately 1000 civilians, which Lee reports WikiLeaks has but is not yet prepared to release.

In the run up to the release of this video, WikiLeaks principal Julian Assange claimed that his organization had come under “an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation,” charges that CJR found the Icelandic media have been unable to substantiate. WikiLeaks later signaled it might no longer fully stand behind elements of the alleged surveillance stemming from the arrest of a Icelandic teenager who had volunteered with the site.

The WikiLeaks Twitter account offered this warning on March 23: “If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible.”

Update: And the video is now available on YouTube, in short and long versions.

Further update: I’d like to warn you that this footage has a relatively tight field of vision, and is quite a bit more graphic than some bombs-bursting style aerial attack video you may have seen before. Also seems worth noting that the pilots, if WikiLeak’s annotations are correct, confused the camera held by Namir Noor-Eldeen, the 22-year-old photographer killed that day, for an rocket propelled grenade.

[Hannah Bell]

46. "Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle." "Right."

Fuckers. The whole city is apparently a battle zone, where does he suggest they keep the children?

[G_j]

52. it will be interesting to see how this gets handled

and it's not the only coverup being alleged right now.

[L0oniX]

22. It's ONLY a few bad soldiers ...so please keep cheer leading the sign up squad.

[tekisui]

25. And this is completely different than constant drone strikes.

:mad:

[PufPuf23]

29. "That's their fault for bringing kids to a battle"

"Just drove over a body <laugh>"

"Shoot his ass"

"Two civilian children casualties"

"There it (Hellfire missile) goes; Look at that bitch go! Patoosh!"

I just watched this 39 minutes plus another 8 minute video of deformed babies in Fallujah.

"I thought I was going to have triplets, instead a skull and one with two heads"

At the moment I am finding it hard to have much sympathy for volunteer troops.

End the wars now. Prosecute the war criminals.

Note we are expanding our military footprint in Latin America and Africa.

[L0oniX]

34. Deleted messge

If you are not cheer leading the troops and those that sign up you may find your posts deleted. I hate the military.

That worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor . . . This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism–how passionately I hate them! – Albert Einstein

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight Eisenhower

[L0oniX]

35. Ignored

Message ignored or deleted because we must support the fucking troops in these illegal and wrong wars.

[PufPuf23]

38. Just had my 2nd post ever deleted at DU upthread nt

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Don't personally attack posters and your posts won't be deleted. n/t

[PufPuf23]

41. Ironically both posts were to you. So I apologize for my name calling.

Seriously.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. No problem.

This is a very tense issue and a graphic video. Of course I think this was a horrible mistake (especially the journalists and the kids), and while I understand the grisly humor of the soldiers, I don't endorse it.

There is still a lot we don't know about this incident (and by the way, the army spokesperson who said they didn't know how the kids got hurt lied his or her ass off). I want to see the other helicopter's video, the one that actually took out the van. At least that's what it looks like. If they had had someone on the ground to identify both the journalists and the kids in the van, perhaps this wouldn't have happened.

[Turborama]

32. These scenes brought back memories of this video filmed by CNN in 2003

Take No Prisoners


U.S. Marines execute an Iraqi to the cheers of fellow marines

-:WARNING:-

This Video Should Only Be Viewed By A Mature Audience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-WRipsF8dE

Transcript:

CNN Presents: Fit To Kill

Aired October 26, 2003 - 20:00 ET

CROWLEY: Wounded, another Iraqi writhes on the ground next to his gun. The Marines kill him -- then cheer.

RIDDLE: Like, man, you guys are dead now, you know. But it was a good feeling.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fire!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah!

CROWLEY: When the battle is over and you are still standing, the adrenalin rush is huge.

RIDDLE: I mean, afterwards you're like, hell, yeah, that was awesome. Let's do it again.

Full Transcript of "Fit to Kill": http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5369.htm

Responses: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/DOD/iraq_II_videos/fit_to_kill.htm">Background - Iraq, Autumn 2003
Information Clearing House has a video clip from a CNN Presents segment entitled ‘Fit To Kill.’ The video clip features the slaying of a wounded Iraqi lying prostrate on the ground ‘next to his gun.’ It is hard to discern any weapon near the man in the video; nevertheless, he was incapacitated and the marines kept firing at him. Next a bullet rips into the doomed man’s body; it heaves one final time; the neck snaps back and flips forward, and his body slumps deathly limp. Whoops of merriment are plainly audible from the killers. It used to be that morality decreed that one should ‘never hit a man when he's down.’ The inescapable conclusion is either that this morality is no longer in effect or that these killers are behaving immorally. <…>”

Excerpt from a “Dissident Voice” http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/archive/media/2003-2/20031215.htm">article from December 15th, 2003

[newspeak]

37. does any one remember the story a couple of years ago

about some Iraqi workers-They had befriended some of the soldiers in a unit--another unit came in and killed them? I believe it was a Lt. they interviewed about the incident. The commander apparently was not moved about these soldiers being upset over the killings--it was body counts. I am so tired of this shite and I do not want to see my SIL going back over there. I am afraid he's going to be heading for Afghanistan.

[951-Riverside]

50. I think this comment on digg says it best

This is pretty messed up. How many similar cases do we have like this. Helicopters just flying around shooting at gatherings of people. The only reason this one probably stands out is because one of those that died was a reporter. They probably flew missions like this on a daily basis. Living around the biggest infantry base in the U.S. it's pretty obvious that it is an inside secret that Iraq was one big war crime. When the troops first starting coming back from Iraq the local rock station constantly played this one song with a chorus of "Getting away with murder" as the troops were enjoying some play time after their heroic deeds in Iraq.

At the beginning of the video the person on the radio clearly states that there are no U.S. troops in the vicinity and showed no aggression towards the helicopters flying around them. This is just another Vietnam for the younger generation, no doubt these murderers will come back over here and expect to be called heroes. Far as I can tell these troops haven't done ***** for me but go fight unemployment on the other side of the planet while our media went to ***** to justify it. Which by the way opened the door for the continuation of lies to help prop up the economy and the media spin about the "jobless recovery". Now lies and distortion of the truth have become common place, terrorist attacks are every day events in the places where "terror is being faught" with no end in sight, and the economy is hanging by a thread thanks to government stimulus, also with no end in sight.

The only people winning this war are those profiting from it and live to keep their mouth shut.

[Poll_Blind]

53. For just two paragraphs that pretty much nails it. n/t

PB

[NNN0LHI]

55. Oh, fuck

[justinsb]

61. Keep a copy of this so it doesn't get disappeared

Just to make sure that the file doesn't disappear I've grabbed it from YouTube and uploaded it to mediafire

Torrent
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?m1mmynywjdz

.mp4
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?n0z0cneqm0z

Please help preserve it by grabbing a copy and sharing it.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

70. You noticed that too ~

They can try to defend this all they want, but the U.S. illegally invaded a sovereign nation and every death there is a crime. This is probably just one of thousands of such videos.

A real world wide honest media, like WikiLeaks, if it was everywhere, would end these wars.

The U.S. media is beyond useless, much like the Russian media was as far as informing the people there.

[disillusioned73]

71. Thanx fo confirming....

I can't stand it when someone tells me that water isn't wet.... like I'm incapable of processing the video and AUDIO(important to note) that I just watched...

If "rules of engagement" weren't circumvented in this instance - our military has become a mercenary entity, or the usual "bad apple" excuse is forthcoming...

[sabrina 1]

72. And, going further. The claim is that we 'have to wait for the full

story'.

The military already issued THEIR version of this tragedy two years ago. This video contradicts that 'story'.

Additionally, I read that the Commander responsible for the report, was the same one responsible for the Pat Tillman cover up in Afghanistan.

I will have to find a convenient link to the military's version of these events.

[tekisui]

80. "I must wait for the official spin before I can think for myself."

Bullshit. They are waiting for the spin. They are eager to defend murder. Sickening.

[disillusioned73]

100. Looks like my original pst was scrubbed... my ffirt one,

I guess I popped my cherry.. I suggest the moderators re-read the "rules of engagement" on DU because I have and there was nothing in that post that violated the "rules" - well, other than truth and apparently someones desire to supress it.... ;)

toodles

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mehdi kiril]

73. The National: Wikileaks' had "more scoops in its short life than The WAPO has in the past 30 years"

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091119/BUSINESS/711199966

[TexasObserver]

78. Another example of excess in war.

They were shooting fish in a barrel, and knew it.

[tekisui]

79. And getting off on it.

Sick fuckers.

[TexasObserver]

83. This is what happens to some in war. A loss of humanity.

If these guys have any sense of self respect, one day they'll agonize over what they did. Some of them probably already do. It's easy to talk big in a war zone when you have virtually unstoppable weapons, but when they come home, they'll have their dreams to fight.

[tekisui]

84. Your comment reminds me of 'Hearts and Minds'

The victims of war include those who are conditioned to kill. Their lives will never be the same.

[Rex]

82. Murdered in cold blood, shame on the U.S. military. Take some

responsibility for once imo.

[Pavulon]

88. Sorry brother, you blame goes to DC. Funded and ordered there, this video

is just how we are carrying out US foreign policy. Ever wonder why you dont see GCF from drone strikes? You know the ones that are going on right now?

Remember men in suits start and continue wars. Men in uniforms carry out those orders.

[tekisui]

89. Top to bottom, they share the blame.

I hold no illusions that the policy comes from the top, those in uniforms spill the blood.

[Pavulon]

90. Those at the top have a choice. The guy in uniform

follows legal orders. No choice on his part. Make no mistake, congress and the president (executive) own war.

[Rex]

95. The problem is it was not a legal order and the video shows that.

Now if someone in charge won't take responsiblility for it, then the ROE really don't mean shit. And that is bad in war, very bad.

[KansDem]

96. I agree...

But the "guy in uniform" doesn't have to laugh when killing civilians.

And to think these "guys in uniform" could return home and become my neighbors!

[VMI Dem]

91. Disgusting murdering fuckers.

No honor.

[NJCher]

93. What will ever end this?

As a boomer, I remember My Lai. I see what happened in this video as one more atrocity in a long, long string of atrocities. This is a country whose economic and power system facilitates the matter-of-fact, high-tech, removed-from-it-all killing.

Will it ever stop? Who will stop them? If millions of people marching on Washington over and over doesn't stop it, what then?

And isn't it just oh-so-interesting that we elected a president who promised to take us out of there and who has now turned his back on that promise and actually escalated these wars?

Why? What happens to them when they get into that office and try to reflect the will of the people?
Who gets to them and what will they do to them if they don't fall into line? No one needs to answer that question because we all know the answer to it.

There may come a day when this corrupt and rotten to the core government fails economically and if that happens we all may lose our own personal wealth, or whatever's left of it. And when that happens, I will be thinking of the actions on this video.



Cher

[MrMickeysMom]

94. The exposure of this video is a start

We had Dan Rather reporting as a witness in Vietnam, but this is like jumping inside the head of someone who by virtue of being there is doing the only thing he/she knows how to do... treating it like all the video games he/she's practiced on over and over.

It's not gonna be real until more people can see this and it won't be real for those soldiers until they come home and relive it.