Wikileaks Releases Video Depicting US Military Slaying Of Dozen Iraqis Including Two Reuters Employees
Same as the last one but annotated. Yea you can really tell the difference between a camera and a weapon..
.
aka This Fucking "Overseas Contingency Operation"
"This is the Army, son. Your opinion doesn't matter.
- Roger. Acknowledged. I'd figure I'd proffer it, just in case."
~LT G
...Famous last words of a Milblog.
posted by madtom at 4:28 PM
2 Comments:
And let's say you can tell one of them was carrying a camera (I couldn't). Haven't you seen the jihad porn? Taken out of context, viewed know when dozens of US aren't dying every month, and with the preamble that tells you what you are seeing before you see it with facts the pilots obviously didn't know, they look terrible. And was the view available to the pilot and weapons officer as clear as the video? I doubt it. But if they were responding to units under fire in this place and came across a group with some weapons, they did the right thing. I noticed the streets were otherwise empty, which might mean there was a firefight going on and the residents not involved were staying inside. It could very well be that the armed guys were part of the insurgency or even AQI and the Reuters people were 'embedded' with them to get some high impact footage. I read elsewhere that the cameraman was known for getting insurgency point of view footage, but I don't know how accurate that is. And maybe the guy in the van with kids was innocently, and stupidly, trying to get aid for the injured--- or he may have been part of the group and was there to pick up the insurgents and had kids with him as cover. I don't know, but the way the video is cut and presented, they aren't giving any facts just manipulating emotional reaction. That was particularly true where it was obvious they zoomed in and enhanced the view of a child in the front seat. You know they guys in the Apache couldn't have seen that. And I find it interesting she was sitting with her head practically outside the window which only increases my suspicions of why she was there in the first place. Seems likely she was told to make herself visible. At the very least her father, if he was that, would have told her to get down and take cover in the situation.
No, I don't think you can see any of that detail from the air, thought the first time I ran the video a few days ago, it was not the annotated one, only the airmen's words were transcribed, While watching that one I could not tell weather most of the shooting was good or not, in a few places they seemed to be shooting anything that moved, yet they were constantly trying to verify that the target had a weapon, getting fire control at every shot.
Post a Comment
<< Home