Reuters journalists thread thing

Temphage

<!--quoteo(post=1762857:date=Apr 5 2010, 11:42 PM:name=Scythe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scythe @ Apr 5 2010, 11:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762857"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>

Don't watch this unless you want to be depressed.

--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--quoteo(post=1762863:date=Apr 6 2010, 12:29 AM:name=Svenpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Svenpa @ Apr 6 2010, 12:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762863"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->RPG :/ really? Cameras recognized as weapons "definitively"? Laughter and "Oops"?

Well ain't this some sad stuff.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--quoteo(post=1762874:date=Apr 6 2010, 01:40 AM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DiscoZombie @ Apr 6 2010, 01:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762874"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why are we supposed to be all up in arms about two journalists who got killed by collateral damage, but no one ever talks about the other <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/" target="_blank">hundred thousand civilians</a> killed so far? I guess these two's lives were worth something because they worked for a Western company, and anyone else who lives in Iraq could be a terriss.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--quoteo(post=1762882:date=Apr 6 2010, 04:45 AM:name=JediYoshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JediYoshi @ Apr 6 2010, 04:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1762874:date=Apr 6 2010, 01:40 AM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DiscoZombie @ Apr 6 2010, 01:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762874"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Why are we supposed to be all up in arms about two journalists who got killed by collateral damage, but no one ever talks about the other <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/" target="_blank">hundred thousand civilians</a> killed so far? I guess these two's lives were worth something because they worked for a Western company, and anyone else who lives in Iraq could be a terriss.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably because we're able to see the actual footage of what occurred, hear the people doing it, and cross check it with the statement the government gives. People couldn't be any less phased by numbers and statistics; they're far less sexy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--quoteo(post=1762887:date=Apr 6 2010, 05:54 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Apr 6 2010, 05:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762887"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1762863:date=Apr 6 2010, 12:29 AM:name=Svenpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Svenpa @ Apr 6 2010, 12:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762863"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
RPG :/ really? Cameras recognized as weapons "definitively"? Laughter and "Oops"?

Well ain't this some sad stuff.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because mistakes are never made in war, and every time a soldier kills an enemy, he stands over his body and weeps for hours for him. And you know what? You do laugh in war. You do make light of it, because if you didn't the stress would crush you.

No really, when did the stupid populace of humanity get this ridiculous idea that civilians are never killed in war? If they saw a building they knew a bunch of guys were inside of building car bombs, and they knew there was a woman and a baby standing on the roof, it sucks to be her, because avoiding civilian deaths like that means you're justifying them using human shields to protect themselves.

What happened there was within the LOAC and the ROE. It entirely understandable how they could mistake them for insurgents. We know beforehand they had cameras. Soldiers are NEVER looking for cameras, so I can see this being an easy mistake - even cops mistakenly shoot people for holding things that look like guns. They explained the situation, sought permission to engage, and directed forces in to secure the area. We see later for a brief moment two people in the front seat of the van that we're supposed to know are children? What we should be saying is 'man that sucks, but you're a journalist in a warzone.' This is why journalists are almost always embedded with coalition military troops, and not doing what these knuckleheads were doing and running around Iraqistan doing your own damn thing. Even coalition troops who ARE in contact with each other bungle their communications and end up where they're not supposed to be.

Is it disappointing? Yes. Is the US some heartless evil entity that kills anyone they damn-well please? No. Is this stupid Iraqi Body Count propaganda going to change anything? No. This is what happens in war, in every war, and hearing "Oh man the United States are WORSE THAN NAZIS (but all those other countries that are there are okay)" is simply the reaction of the moronic ignorant populace who is finally confronted with the facts of armed conflict. It has always happened, it's happening now, and it will always happen in the future.

If it's any consolation, wartime technology has advanced to such a degree that I want you to imagine what the damage would've been if we were in the Middle East forty, sixty, or a hundred years ago. You know, back when the entire objective of war was to inflict such horrifying casualties on the enemy that they are shocked into surrendering. Where it was considered a military necessity to just carpet bomb the hell out of major population centers. Where weapons were so imprecise you simply threw the biggest, largest amount of explosives at a target and hoped a few of them landed on it. Where you destroyed any and everything that could possibly support a war including medical supplies and food sources with absolutely zero regard for the impact on the populace.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Temphage

<!--quoteo(post=1762902:date=Apr 6 2010, 10:42 AM:name=Scythe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scythe @ Apr 6 2010, 10:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762902"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, I agree. War sucks, mistakes are made. Looking back with perfect 20-20 hindsight may give humanitarians their jollies, but making the mistakes those soldiers made, given the information they had at that point, is entirely forgiveable. I doubt they've forgiven themselves though.

On the other hand, covering that ###### up was a bigger mistake than any soldier has ever made.

--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--quoteo(post=1762903:date=Apr 6 2010, 10:50 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Apr 6 2010, 10:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762903"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Who covered it up? They asked for the video and got it.

Even Nixon tried harder.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--quoteo(post=1762905:date=Apr 6 2010, 11:02 AM:name=Scythe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scythe @ Apr 6 2010, 11:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762905"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/04/05/1648251/Wikileaks-Releases-Video-of-Journalist-Killings" target="_blank">Details</a>.

There are quotes from the brass interspersed throughout the clip, no doubt cherry-picked to paint the absolute worst picture, but nonetheless accurate.

--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


<!--quoteo(post=1762907:date=Apr 6 2010, 11:07 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Apr 6 2010, 11:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762907"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ah yes, Slashdot. Hiding links that don't actually lead to any credible information beneath some random internet user's one-liner summarized spin of the situation.

Can I have a link to something that's actually real? I don't have the patience to deal with slashdot. You may as well have just linked me to google.

The best I can find is anecdotal evidence that they were investigated between the time period where they announced that they had some mysterious video and when they released it - and it's entirely understandable WHY they would be investigated. Even if you're whistleblowing, you're still breaking the rules in the military and they want to know who did it. Wikileaks could have classified information showing sensitive information or weapons being used. The government has a DUTY to do what they did.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--quoteo(post=1762912:date=Apr 6 2010, 11:46 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Apr 6 2010, 11:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762912"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no need to defend hired killers. You resign a claim to morality when you willingly invade another country.

A couple of dead journalists won't make much difference if millions of dead civilians never did, killed for profit under guise of despotic revenge.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--quoteo(post=1762939:date=Apr 6 2010, 03:49 PM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ Apr 6 2010, 03:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762939"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not so much about these two journalists. From my point of view, it makes us question not just this particular attack, but every single engagement they undertake. What are their rules of engagement? Where do they draw the line between terrorist and simple bystander? (and that's a pretty huge effin' line)

What disgusted me the most is how trigger happy they seemed. I can't see myself ever enjoying war as much as these guys.
A group of people walking around, one of them with a black rectangular object on shoulder? SHOOT!
A guy bleeding to death on the ground? "Pick up a weapon so I can shoot!"
"lol he ran over a corpse"

So yes, sure, there's been a lot of commotion about these two journalists, but that's because Reuters has the means to demand an investigation. This doesn't mean we don't care about the other people who died there.


Oh, and Temphage, there is a big difference between collateral damage (civilians thrown in as human shield ; something already difficultly justifiable but sadly inevitable) and openly attacking a bunch of civilians with no enemy in the vicinity. "They could have been a threat" is far from acceptable enough.

"Soldiers are NEVER looking for cameras, so I can see this being an easy mistake "
Then you know where the problem is. I can't see this as a proper excuse for attacking whoever just happened to be there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Draco_2k

Good job with that.

juice

Soldiers are forced to make split-second life or death decisions. It's easy for people to blame them, but shouldn't we instead be focusing on the politicians who promote perpetual war at any cost? From neocons thirsty for muslim blood, to apologists for our democratic president and congress who continue to vote to fund "preventive" wars of aggression across the middle east, we all share some responsibility for these tragedies.

puzl

See, I think the initial reaction is to focus on the soldiers, and though that is in itself dubious behaviour, the real exposure here is that this is the type of mission that is accepted ( i.e. covered up by ) those in command. I'm talking about a democratic government/military hiding the truth of its actions from its own people.

I mean, whether you agree with war, the reasons for it, or the consequences of it, I think it is extremely dangerous that this level of information about the behaviour of armed forces only appears through the likes of wikileaks. Combat journalism was very important in helping the US citizens understand exactly what kind of a mess Vietnam was, and mobilised the grass roots support that called politicians to account. When governments get to hide behind secrecy they don't have to worry about the consequences of their actions and they can deviate from the moral compass that democracy provides.

tl;dr: The scary ###### is that the military get to hide this stuff in secrecy.

SentrySteve

This is why war sucks. I will say this though, the picture we view on youtube is nowhere near as clear as what the soldiers see in the field. If they said they saw an RPG then I'd bet they saw an RPG. Seeing how they had friendlies in the area I can understand why they opened fire initially. That said, I would have personally fired a warning shot into a nearby building, sidewalk, or ground when the van came to pick up the wounded instead of just straight destroying the van. They have a birds eye view of a city with several of their own vehicles closing in so even if the van was full of insurgents and it took off I'm pretty confident they could track it and stop it.

Sops

You can't wander around a war zone without letting the military know where you going and then expect them to realize there are friendlies in the area. If they did tell anyone where they were going to be that information never got to the Apache crews. I saw people walking around caring long weapon looking objects and one guy poking something around a corner, it would not have looked like typical civilian activity. I can not understand how you can fault the the helicopter crews.

<!--quoteo(post=1762993:date=Apr 6 2010, 06:39 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Apr 6 2010, 06:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1762993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That said, I would have personally fired a warning shot into a nearby building, sidewalk, or ground when the van came to pick up the wounded instead of just straight destroying the van. They have a birds eye view of a city with several of their own vehicles closing in so even if the van was full of insurgents and it took off I'm pretty confident they could track it and stop it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you really? You can wait for the convoy to arrive and risk these people (that you have no reason but to believe are aiding insurgents) escaping or worse starting a fire fight with the guys on the ground. OR you can pull the trigger and take care of it right there and not risk any soldiers life (which is the job of the Apache crews in the first place)

puzl

That cuts both ways SentrySteve: If their view of the situation was a lot clearer then they would identify the RPG, but they should have also seen the children in the van.

And people, stop fixating on the soldiers. This is not about the soldiers behaviour but the command structures that facilitate it and cover it up. I'm not even saying that the soldiers should be prosecuted or anything, but the public needs visibility on what exactly their tax dollars pay for, and what exactly their flag is being waved for.

It is bizarre that the whole "support our tropps" mantra is so strong in US culture that it blinds you from the real issues.

Draco_2k

In case anyone doesn't realize yet - doesn't sound like it anyway - this is far from the first or only incident of US troops openly attacking non-embedded journalists which was aggressively denied and covered up. One of the most egregious examples I can remember would be the tank firing upon a precise location of multiple journalist's stay in a hotel - without any possible provocation, of course - or friggin air-striking of Iraqi TV stations. So then, being non-embedded is indeed dangerous, but for the opposite reasons than you'd expect. Minding that, can you really wonder why you never see negative war coverage from people whose lives completely and solely depend on troops they're covering?..

So... Yeah. If you think anyone orchestrating open and offensive warfare has any moral priorities, think again.

<!--quoteo(post=1763051:date=Apr 7 2010, 10:59 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Apr 7 2010, 10:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1763051"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is bizarre that the whole "support our tropps" mantra is so strong in US culture that it blinds you from the real issues.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Convenient, surely.

puzl

Yeah, it is convenient too.

Also, Al Jazeera ( an excellent news source btw ) was bombed in Pakistan and has been targeted by the US on other occasions too:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera#Attacks_on_and_censorship_of_Al_Jazeera" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera#Att...p_of_Al_Jazeera</a>

Epidemic

I thought it was kind of strange that the group didnt react to the helicopter. You have a helicopter circling overhead, and you are in medium-sized group and you just walk nilly-willy?

SentrySteve

<!--quoteo(post=1763043:date=Apr 7 2010, 02:09 AM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Apr 7 2010, 02:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1763043"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Would you really? You can wait for the convoy to arrive and risk these people (that you have no reason but to believe are aiding insurgents) escaping or worse starting a fire fight with the guys on the ground. OR you can pull the trigger and take care of it right there and not risk any soldiers life (which is the job of the Apache crews in the first place)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yeah dude, I really would. You're in the middle of a crowded city and a van, which could be insurgents or just do-gooders, pulls up and starts helping the wounded. The van and the people in the van gave no direct or indirect, aside from helping the wounded, indication that they were involved in anyway. You can't just open up on a van in the middle of a city because they decided to check on a dude crying out for help. When the line between combatant and civilian are as blurred as they are here the attackers (us) have to be extra careful who they're killing. If that's too much effort then maybe we shouldn't be so quick to rush into war. In my first post I said "this is why war sucks" and war should be used for a last resort, literally, every time. If you're going to invade a country and then attempt to rebuild it you should expect a long, costly, frustrating, and deadly battle that will basically never end as it may come back 30 years later to bite you in the ass. That's not the kind of thing you should rush into.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That cuts both ways SentrySteve: If their view of the situation was a lot clearer then they would identify the RPG, but they should have also seen the children in the van.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I actually thought of this while replying but decided to wait until someone brought it up. They most certainly should have been able to see that at least others, maybe children or not, were in the van, but the gunner most likely had tunnel vision or didn't care enough to look at the situation objectively. I also didn't like how the individual solider reported what was happening to the higher command. He basically said "we have a van here picking up the wounded." I don't know about you, but if I heard that, I would just assume the people in the van had given the gunner some indication that they were insurgents. I think the american gunner did a very poor job of describing the situation to whoever gave the kill order.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I thought it was kind of strange that the group didnt react to the helicopter. You have a helicopter circling overhead, and you are in medium-sized group and you just walk nilly-willy?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

These dudes are so far away they probably didn't even hear it. Look at the travel time and how the gunner has to lead those shots which travel pretty damn fast. He's far away.


Case in point: We will have the people in Iraq so afraid that they'll be unwilling to help their own countrymen without fear of being blown up from someone miles away.

tankefugl

I got to side with puzl's statement here; the gunner and pilot are not the major concern here. They might even be dragged forward to be used as scapegoats and help obfuscate the real issue, which is a chain of command and rules of engagement that allows this to happen as well as the denial of the incident's happening.

The video is in one way unfortunate, because it is too easy and too tangible to use the gunner and pilot and claim the incident resolved. We tend to want human faces on the bad guys, and the voices there provide perfect targets for this. Just look at how the cherry picked lines have been used in media these last days to shock the general public.

X_Stickman

<a href="http://postgradbonanza.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/collateral-murder/" target="_blank">An interesting write up of the full, unedited video.</a>

I agree with pretty much everything in that write up. Some people in that group were armed, they were the wrong place (if they weren't going to attack the troops, that is) at the wrong time. Again as the write up notes, Apache helicopters don't just randomly roam the sky of Iraq, looking for suspicious people to shoot. They're called in to specific areas at specific times because something is going down. Those helicopters were called in because a group of soldiers was under fire from a rooftop in the area.

Looking at it now, with hindsight, you see that there were two journalists who got shot, and then their friends/coworkers/whatever trying to rescue them got shot, for no reason. That sucks. But at the time, the apache crew saw a group of people, at least one of whom was definitely armed with an AK-47, hanging around near a us army group that had already reported that they were under fire from people in the area. So they take them down which is, y'know, the point of a gunship helicopter. Shooting at the wounded is pretty ######, though. And if they believed there were weapons, including an RPG, in the area, then shooting at the van is somewhat justified too: you don't want them to gather up the weapons and get out of there. You want those weapons gone.


But I agree with puzl, too. Exactly what happened is basically irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was covered up. This video only came out because someone leaked it to <i>wikileaks</i>. Do you even get how crazy that is? The BBC didn't get this video. Fox didn't get this video. Reuters didn't get this video. The US military didn't officially release this video, edited or otherwise. Someone had to leak it to wikileaks for it to become public knowledge. That's crazy by itself. Someone, likely a group of people, have gone to some deal of effort to keep this video hidden, and <i>that</i> is what should be worrying people the most. And yeah, it was covered up because Reuters has been FOIA (freedom of information act) requesting this exact footage since 2007, and have been consistently denied. That makes it even worse. This isn't like, this video has only been released recently because no one thought to ask about it. The US military has been constantly denying people's requests for this video, which means they didn't want people seeing it.

Vietnam proved just how important it is for a country to know what it's military is doing, fully. War journalism in vietnam showed the world that hey, war isn't all great. It's not heroes shooting evil men and then getting the woman, and it showed people that your country is not always in the right. It showed people that you don't have to support your own troops unconditionally just because they're your own troops. It made the US military <i>accountable for what it did, because everyone knew what they were doing</i>. And now we're in the 2000s and people either don't give a damn or have forgotten that lesson. Or the military learned their lesson and are now tightly controlling information coming out of the warzone. None of those possibilities are good.

juice

The general public has historically been opposed to war. That's why almost all wars are based on lies. The only question for the thinking person is: does the end justify the means?

And what is the end? How many terrorists did we create in this one event? Perpetual war and occupation in every muslim country is a bad strategy, even for someone with no conscience.

snooggums

The media outlets keep announcing the group on the streets as civilians per the wikileaks description, despite the long video showing that several of them (edited out for the most part in the shorter propaganda version) were carrying the AKs and RPGs that the pilots noted, were in the area where US forces had been receiving fire from insurgents and were walking nonchalantly near recent combat, hinting that they were not just civilians enjoying the day. The group was insurgents or people moving with insurgents (ie the Rueter's staff) are impossible to tell from the insurgents they were with.

In the long version the van or one very similar is spotted near the group at the beginning of the video, suggesting a possibility of working together with the insurgents when ###### appears again shortly after the chopper fires. As insurgents in that area were known to pick up weapons from fallen insurgents to make incidents like this look like civilian victims and to put those weapons back into use the pilot's eagerness to take out the van is understandable.

The group was not civilians unless they were stupidly hanging out with armed insurgents like the Rueter's pair. their death might have been a tragedy and the FOIA request should have been filled years ago, but the soldiers themselves did not just open fire on some random civilians out for a stroll, and it is a shame that it is portrayed that way when wikileaks posted the longer video and details on the combat in the area is readily available.

That_Annoying_Kid

the guy who combs the whole video has the right idea.

It saddens me that wikileaks would throw a spin of any angle, they just need to be a portal for questionable stuff to be exposed and then examined.

Chris0132

I would have thought wikileaks would always have a definite anti-authoritarian spin on everything, given that it's, you know, a website for people to defy authority on by posting videos that authorities might object to?

Miltiaries are the ultimate expression of authority, therefore expect it to be heavily anti-military.

lolfighter

Anti-authoritarian people tendentially favour objectivity and fair treatment. Authoritarians tend to be much more willing to put a spin on things at the expense of objectivity. Those are tendencies though, and exceptions exist in both camps. I haven't been following this closely enough to say anything definite, but if wikileaks is putting their own spin on things, that is a sad state of affairs and not what I think the site's purpose is (or should be).

That_Annoying_Kid

I just get the feeling they are giving it so much focus to get the wikileaks name out, collateral murder just seems a bit loaded of a term. Especially when you have things like <img src="http://blackmage.org/bbs/src/1270963413503.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

Sops

<!--quoteo(post=1763204:date=Apr 7 2010, 09:35 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Apr 7 2010, 09:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1763204"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If that's too much effort then maybe we shouldn't be so quick to rush into war. In my first post I said "this is why war sucks" and war should be used for a last resort, literally, every time. If you're going to invade a country and then attempt to rebuild it you should expect a long, costly, frustrating, and deadly battle that will basically never end as it may come back 30 years later to bite you in the ass. That's not the kind of thing you should rush into.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not disagree that people should think about this when thinking of war, I question whether this would be at the forefront of your mind when you are in war.

That_Annoying_Kid

Wikileaks mentions that one of the people in the group "may have" a weapon but they never "raise it" or "attempt to use it" even though according to what I can tell there had been hostile actions towards US troops within the last 30 minutes within a square 1/2 mile

tjosan

<!--quoteo(post=1767917:date=Apr 20 2010, 02:24 AM:name=That_Annoying_Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (That_Annoying_Kid @ Apr 20 2010, 02:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1767917"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wikileaks mentions that one of the people in the group "may have" a weapon but they never "raise it" or "attempt to use it" even though according to what I can tell there had been hostile actions towards US troops within the last 30 minutes within a square 1/2 mile<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Hey, if I walked around in an area like that in Baghdad, I'd sure as hell carry a gun >_<. Even more so now when I've seen that photage, it's just not safe around there.

lolfighter

Like a gun's going to help against a gunship that can kill you while hovering two kilometres away.

That_Annoying_Kid

the guns in question was an bunch of ak's and specifically an rpg-7 (look at said animated gif) which can do more than enough damage to the humvee seen in the last photo on one of the reporters cameras, it was about 150 yards away.

The ground troops called the helicopters in, the choppers weren't just on free for all hunt... They were looking for people who could be a threat to the ground troops in the area, rpg makes you a threat even if you don't use it.

lolfighter

<!--quoteo(post=1768133:date=Apr 21 2010, 03:00 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Apr 21 2010, 03:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hey, if I walked around in an area like that in Baghdad, I'd sure as hell carry a gun >_<. Even more so now when I've seen that photage, it's just not safe around there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1768226:date=Apr 22 2010, 03:54 AM:name=That_Annoying_Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (That_Annoying_Kid @ Apr 22 2010, 03:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768226"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the guns in question was an bunch of ak's and specifically an rpg-7 (look at said animated gif) which can do more than enough damage to the humvee seen in the last photo on one of the reporters cameras, it was about 150 yards away.

The ground troops called the helicopters in, the choppers weren't just on free for all hunt... They were looking for people who could be a threat to the ground troops in the area, rpg makes you a threat even if you don't use it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was replying to the first quote. The point is that it seems like carrying a gun around is actually more dangerous than not carrying a gun, because it's going to get you reduced to a nasty smear on the ground.

Chris0132

Yeah it isn't generally a good idea to carry guns around in a warzone if you aren't a soldier.

That_Annoying_Kid

<!--quoteo(post=1768241:date=Apr 21 2010, 09:36 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Apr 21 2010, 09:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768241"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was replying to the first quote. The point is that it seems like carrying a gun around is actually more dangerous than not carrying a gun, because it's going to get you reduced to a nasty smear on the ground.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Well then, It would appear I missed that one


carry on


Does anyone else think wikileaks is reaching with the coverage they are putting on it?

Chris0132

"reaching"?

You mean 'preaching'? Or something else?

snooggums

<!--quoteo(post=1768274:date=Apr 22 2010, 07:07 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Apr 22 2010, 07:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768274"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"reaching"?

You mean 'preaching'? Or something else?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I think he means stretching past what the video shows. Like using a 15 second video clip of a cop roughly arresting someone and leaving out the previous 30 seconds where the suspect had assaulted the officer with a bat that was knocked out of camera view before the 15 second clip, then saying that the guy was totally innocent and should have simply been allowed to go on his way instead of being beaten up by a cop.

Chris0132

Ah, well in that case I would have thought any publicity would do that.

Unless you just post transcripts of the video, any publicity is going to be 'oh man these guys are totally innocent of anything and the military is obviously trying to kill everyone'.

The internet is hardly known for being reasonable and caring about accuracy.