Disturbing images - shooting fish in a barrel

[Sean Keegan]

... as people like Chris will just jump to conclusions without bothering to try to understand the situation. It has no journalistic value other than to incite anger and hatred since it is taken out of context of the full picture. Or if you are going to run it, make sure it is clear what the circumstances and what is really happening here. Otherwise it should not be made public. People with no experience in these things will of course jump to the wrong conclusions as it is horrifying. But war is horrifying, period. There was nothing illegal here, so why was it made public? Let the movies show how horrifying war is, at least you get the whole picture ususally. Clips like this taken out of context are wrong.

I wrote to these e-mails:

[email protected]
[email protected]

and I urge you to do the same as it should never have been made public.

Regards,
Sean

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story795.shtml

This is a case where black and white is of lesser impact than
color. Being in monochrome through IR, it probably makes it a
little easier to pull the trigger as well, with the target people
reduced to nothing more than white silhouettes...

 

[Chris Charlton]

To see people so efficiently killed using my tax dollars used to
develop such weapons.

Nice to know US soldiers don't have to adhere to the international
war crimes court, I guess it gives them a free hand to try out all
their neat litte killing devices on real humans, not those dummies
or computer simulations they are used to.

Once again, someone decides to make a comment without thinking
things through. Did you even read all the posts in this thread.

Oh forgive me, you mean comments like this one from "brandon" the facist pig?

"These islamic extremist murderous bast@rds are NOT humans. They deserve to be cut down like dogs just like we have seen here. We should bill their family for the cost of the bullets."

And thats supposed to make me feel all warm inside and happy that US soldiers have been given a free ticket by our glorious leader to blow up incapacited people that are lying on the ground bleeding to death?

Maybe you need to do some thinking before spouting off at the
mouth.

I've done plenty of thinking, more so than the hill billies that put bush in the whitehouse to destroy everything that America stands for and fought for in the past.

There is nothing immoral or illegal about what this video

depicts.

Blowing up an obviously incapacitated individual, whoever they are is as bad as any murderous fundamentalist in the world.

Is it horrible? Yes. Is it illegal? No.

Mute point, the US doesn't have to do anything legal anymore, bush inc sorted that out.

Is it war. Yes. Is

it the way wars are fought? Yes.

Er, no, I would have expected such treatment of people wounded from the ****'s, but not from the US military.

What do you think happens in the

world so you can keep your freedom of speach?

I don't have to worry about that for much longer, I am such John Ashcroft has a nice little search engine running right now and pretty much knows everything he wants to know about me.

Not just in this was,

but in every war ever fought! I would suggest reading all the posts
in this thread, maybe it will open your eyes a bit. Not everything
is black and white simple.

Sorry I am not a brainwashed sheep who "reads other opinions" and makes a complete U-turn against what I believe in, and its not government sponsored murder.

Doesn't look like much attempt was made to let the individuals
surrender or hand themselves over to police....much like bush when
he made up all his bull to go to war in the first place.

You think you know it all don't you. You had better read the rest
of this thread and then see what you think of these soldiers. You
have no idea what this video is showing.

Really? So the third guy in video who is partially blown apart but still alive is still a major threat to ANYONE? I guess the pilot did the right thing to spread his brains around the ground like the rest of them.

There is not much we can do to reverse what has happened in Iraq,
but if we don't hold presidents responsible for their actions, we
are going to see this again and again and again.

This is war. You think this is bad? Have you been paying attention
to history? War is always bad. No matter if the war is just or not.

What part exactly of history do you think I missed out on?

Yes war is bad, but if it doesn't start in the first place everybody wins, war for revenge is tantamount to state sponsored murder.

Regards,
Sean

 

[Chris Charlton]

... as people like Chris will just jump to conclusions without
bothering to try to understand the situation. It has no
journalistic value other than to incite anger and hatred since it
is taken out of context of the full picture. Or if you are going to
run it, make sure it is clear what the circumstances and what is
really happening here. Otherwise it should not be made public.
People with no experience in these things will of course jump to
the wrong conclusions as it is horrifying. But war is horrifying,
period.

There was nothing illegal here, so why was it made public?

You really are either stupid or really really brainwashed.

Let the movies show how horrifying war is, at least you get the
whole picture ususally. Clips like this taken out of context are
wrong.

I wrote to these e-mails:

[email protected]
[email protected]

and I urge you to do the same as it should never have been made
public.

Regards,
Sean

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story795.shtml

This is a case where black and white is of lesser impact than
color. Being in monochrome through IR, it probably makes it a
little easier to pull the trigger as well, with the target people
reduced to nothing more than white silhouettes...

 

[Sean Keegan]

Oh forgive me, you mean comments like this one from "brandon" the
facist pig?

"These islamic extremist murderous bast@rds are NOT humans. They
deserve to be cut down like dogs just like we have seen here. We
should bill their family for the cost of the bullets."

Of course it goes both ways. You are an adult right? You can determine who to flat out ignore right? Brandon has his views, and even though they might be warped, it does not change the fact that no one, ESPECIALLY YOU, have the right to judge anything in this video. You do not understand it, no one here really knows what happened in this situation. So do not even try to judge from your high moral throne. Argue with Brandon about his views, but do not let someone like him sway you into thinking that you have the right to judge this video just because you think your opinion is morally superior to his.

And thats supposed to make me feel all warm inside and happy that
US soldiers have been given a free ticket by our glorious leader to
blow up incapacited people that are lying on the ground bleeding to
death?

That is war. Horrifying. That is the way wars are fought. Nothing illegal about it. You need to bone up on the Geneva convention.

Maybe you need to do some thinking before spouting off at the
mouth.

I've done plenty of thinking, more so than the hill billies that
put bush in the whitehouse to destroy everything that America
stands for and fought for in the past.

What has that got to do with this video? Lets keep to the topic, shall we?

There is nothing immoral or illegal about what this video

depicts.

Blowing up an obviously incapacitated individual, whoever they are
is as bad as any murderous fundamentalist in the world.

It is bad.. killing anytime is bad. No arguments there. But this is WAR. What about war do you not understand? DO not attack the soldiers for doing their job.

Is it horrible? Yes. Is it illegal? No.

Mute point, the US doesn't have to do anything legal anymore, bush
inc sorted that out.

Again, a crude attempt to duck logic. When faced with logic you start the spinning.

Is it war. Yes. Is

it the way wars are fought? Yes.

Er, no, I would have expected such treatment of people wounded from
the ****'s, but not from the US military.

Again, have you not kept up on history? This happens all the time in war. If you cannot take prisoners, you kill everyone there. Americans in WW2 did this all the time. Would you rather they live to kill more Americans later?

What do you think happens in the

world so you can keep your freedom of speach?

I don't have to worry about that for much longer, I am such John
Ashcroft has a nice little search engine running right now and
pretty much knows everything he wants to know about me.

Ahhh, so the truth comes out, you are a paranoid. This explains a lot.

Not just in this was,

but in every war ever fought! I would suggest reading all the posts
in this thread, maybe it will open your eyes a bit. Not everything
is black and white simple.

Sorry I am not a brainwashed sheep who "reads other opinions" and
makes a complete U-turn against what I believe in, and its not
government sponsored murder.

So do you think WW2 was government sponsered murder? When is war all right? And who are you to judge? Is war ever justified? Should we have just let Hitler do whatever he wanted? You have such an EGO!

Doesn't look like much attempt was made to let the individuals
surrender or hand themselves over to police....much like bush when
he made up all his bull to go to war in the first place.

You think you know it all don't you. You had better read the rest
of this thread and then see what you think of these soldiers. You
have no idea what this video is showing.

Really? So the third guy in video who is partially blown apart but
still alive is still a major threat to ANYONE? I guess the pilot
did the right thing to spread his brains around the ground like the
rest of them.

There are many cases where a soldier (usually against orders) spares an enemy because they are wounded and unarmed, only to have that same person recover and be back on the battlefield killing Americans left and right with no mercy. Your logic is very short sighted. In a war, if you cannot take prisoners you must kill everyone, wounded or not. It will save lives in the long run. It is not against the Geneva convention to kill a wounded soldier if you cannot take him prisoner. Those are the rules of war. If you do not like it, make it your agenda to change the Geneva convention. DO NOT blame the soldiers who are only doing their duty and following orders.

There is not much we can do to reverse what has happened in Iraq,
but if we don't hold presidents responsible for their actions, we
are going to see this again and again and again.

This is war. You think this is bad? Have you been paying attention
to history? War is always bad. No matter if the war is just or not.

What part exactly of history do you think I missed out on?

Looks like all of it to me.

Yes war is bad, but if it doesn't start in the first place
everybody wins, war for revenge is tantamount to state sponsored
murder.

Again, is every war bad? If so, you should give up your right to free speach, because it was a war that got you that. Sometimes war is the only way. As horrible as war is, it is sometimes the only option. Am I saying that this particular war is a just war. Not really. But at the same time, it got rid of Saddam, didn't it? The Iraqi people have a better chance at being free, right? War is bad, but some positives can come about because of war.

Regards,
Sean

 

[Sean Keegan]

There was nothing illegal here, so why was it made public?

You really are either stupid or really really brainwashed.

It was a sarcastic comment. I know why it was made public and deliberately editied.... someone has an agenda... just like you do.

Regards,
Sean

 

[Brandon Hamilton]

Which, if true, is why the US army killed them. They didn't
"deserve" it any more then the 2 dead Americans did. That's war.
The people who die rarely deserve it.

See that is where you are wrong. The US is in Iraq to reform its government for the sake of its own people. If all the insurgents gave up arms and walked in waving white flags, they would be just fine, nobody else would have to die, and we could quickly turn the country back over to a sane government and Iraq could start on its path to piece.

What you have here are troops standing in the way, detering peace in their OWN country. All these insurgents do is kill innocent iraqis, and the US/British troops trying to defend them. You don't see the Coalition setting up roadside explosives designed to kill whoever is passing by...

If you think the 2 US troops deserve to die just as much, you have one TWISTED way of thinking my friend.

I don't have the energy to reply to the rest of your message.

 

[inkyape]

I've looked at the video, and while it's been a few years since I
was in the Army, I'm fairly certain that on the left side is a
tank, and that it was recently fired (the barrel is quite hot and
was the first thing I noticed). I've seen tanks through IR at all
different angles, and the barrels are always the first thing that
jumps out at you. I don't see any problem with this video.

A tank with a plough? you can see the tracks it's made on the field.
that's a tractor with a hot exhaust pipe, imho.

 

[Sean Keegan]

A tank with a plough? you can see the tracks it's made on the field.
that's a tractor with a hot exhaust pipe, imho.

I agree, but that does not mean the people were just innocent farmers either. There is not enough info to make judgement on this video.

Regards,
Sean

 

[Ed43965]

It appears that most of the people replying to this thread are not aware of what transpired prior to the shooting. The shooting was justified! It's war folks, this is what war looks like, people die!

"The video, obtained by ABCNEWS, shows grainy images of three Iraqis on the ground handling a long cylindrical object that the helicopter pilots believe is a weapon.

The pilots, from the Army's 4th Infantry Division, ask their commanders for permission to engage, then take the three men out one by one, using the Apache's devastating 30 mm cannons.

Nighttime Scene

The video opens with the helicopter tracking a man in a pickup truck north of Baghdad on Dec. 1, one day after the 4th Infantry Division engaged in the bloodiest battles with Iraqi insurgents since the end of major combat.

The pilots watch as the man pulls over and gets out to talk to another man waiting by a larger truck.

"Uh, big truck over here," one of the pilots is heard saying. "He's having a little powwow."

The pickup driver looks around, then reaches into his vehicle, takes out a tube-shaped object that appears to be about 4 or 5 feet long, and runs away from the road into a field. He drops the object in the field and heads back to the trucks.

"I got a guy running throwing a weapon," one of the pilots says. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, an ABCNEWS consultant who viewed the tape, said the object looked like a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, "or something larger than a rifle."

The pilots check in with their operational commander, who is monitoring the situation. When they tell him they are sure the man was carrying a weapon, he tells them: "Engage. Smoke him."

The pilots wait as a tractor arrives on the scene, near the spot where the pickup driver dropped the object. One of the Iraqis approaches the tractor driver.

Then, within minutes, the Apache pilots open fire with the heavy 30 mm cannon, killing first the Iraqi in the field, then the tractor driver. The pilots then fire at the large truck and wait to see if they hit the last of three men.

When he rolls out from under the truck, one of the pilots says, "He's wounded."

The other pilot says, "Hit him," and the Apache opens fire again, killing the man.

The Apache fires nearly 100 30 mm cannon rounds in all.

Engagement Called Justified

A senior Army official who viewed the tape said the pilots had the legal right to kill the men because they were carrying a weapon. He said there were no ground troops in the area and if the Apache pilots had let the three Iraqis go, the men might have gone on to kill American troops.

Keane agreed. "Those weapons were obviously not being pointed at them in particular, but they [the three Iraqis] are using those weapons in their minds for lethal means and they [the Apache pilots] have a right to interfere with that," he said.

Anthony Cordesman, an ABCNEWS defense consultant who also viewed the tape, said the Apache pilots would have had a much clearer picture of the scene than what was recorded on the videotape. He also said they would have had intelligence about the identity of the men in the vehicles. "They're not getting a sort of blurred picture. They have a combination of intelligence and much better imagery than we can see."

As to whether the Apache pilots could have called in ground troops to apprehend the men, Cordesman said: "In this kind of war, wherever you find organized resistance among the insurgents, you have to act immediately. If you wait to send in ground troops almost invariably your enemy is going to be gone."

Army officials acknowledged that the 30 mm cannons used by the Apache gunners were far bigger than what was needed to kill the men, but said it is the smallest weapon the Apaches have

 

[Bill Robinson189160]

It is not good that these images are aired on public television/mass media and it is no consellation to "not" see them and to know this sort of behaviour takes place.
Bill
DSC 2100,C750,FL40......

 

[Chris Charlton]

"These islamic extremist murderous bast@rds are NOT humans. They
deserve to be cut down like dogs just like we have seen here. We
should bill their family for the cost of the bullets."

Of course it goes both ways. You are an adult right? You can
determine who to flat out ignore right?

You asked me to listen to the views in the thread before I expressed mine, I quoted a line from one of the threads, which exactly do you suggest I "follow along with?"

ESPECIALLY YOU, have the right to judge anything in this

video.

I have my opinion on it and of the whole mess and I'm damn well gonna express it.

You do not understand it, no one here really knows what
happened in this situation.

My quick take:

1/ guys around a cannon that has just fired
2/ apache watches them for a while
3/ apache starts shooting with a view to kill
4/ apache does not succeed in killing the third person outright
5/ offering no hope of surrender, apache fires again at incapacitated person
6/ incapacited person dies

So do not even try to judge from your
high moral throne.

high moral throne? pleasseee

let someone like him sway you into thinking that you have the right
to judge this video just because you think your opinion is morally
superior to his.

You asked me to look at the other views expressed in the thread, and that is what I found.

blow up incapacited people that are lying on the ground bleeding to
death?

That is war. Horrifying. That is the way wars are fought. Nothing
illegal about it. You need to bone up on the Geneva convention.

This isn't a war! a war is when a country that threatens and has the capability to carry out a serious attack is stopped after it makes aggressive moves.

Raping another country for revenge and oil using vastly superior technology compared with broken down 30 year old russian military junk is what this is.

We ARE at war with al queida, but I don't think many american voters with their goldfish memories remember that, iraq makes a convenient scape goat.

put bush in the whitehouse to destroy everything that America
stands for and fought for in the past.

What has that got to do with this video? Lets keep to the topic,
shall we?

Bush started the war for revenge and oil, he is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people, I think he is quite relevant.

Blowing up an obviously incapacitated individual, whoever they are
is as bad as any murderous fundamentalist in the world.

It is bad.. killing anytime is bad. No arguments there. But this is
WAR. What about war do you not understand? DO not attack the
soldiers for doing their job.

As I said, Iraq was no threat and is no threat, they had no WMD, nothing, just broken down old russian military hardware, there never was any war with iraq.

Mute point, the US doesn't have to do anything legal anymore, bush
inc sorted that out.

Again, a crude attempt to duck logic. When faced with logic you
start the spinning.

Ok, so assuming you are correct and the US and bush inc has broken no international laws, why did they feel it necessary to exempt themselves from justice? The international court was mainly set up BY THE USA, so why the duck out?

Again, have you not kept up on history? This happens all the time
in war. If you cannot take prisoners, you kill everyone there.

Looks like you found a way to cut labor costs in the US, perhaps instead of killing them we could exploit them for cheap labor, perhaps walmart would be interested?

I doubt the geneva convention says anything about killing people because you don't have enough jail space for them, maybe they could gas them instead?

Americans in WW2 did this all the time. Would you rather they live
to kill more Americans later?

Well every possible Islamic person could be one of these "wackos" so why don't we kill all of them just to make sure, we don't want to take any chances do we?

I don't have to worry about that for much longer, I am such John
Ashcroft has a nice little search engine running right now and
pretty much knows everything he wants to know about me.

Ahhh, so the truth comes out, you are a paranoid. This explains a lot.

Yes I am so paranoid, when anyone can be canned off to an illegal camp in cuba for years at a time with no access to any form of justice. Sounds like germany in the 1940's again doesn't it? not quite what anyone would imagine in 21st century America.

Sorry I am not a brainwashed sheep who "reads other opinions" and
makes a complete U-turn against what I believe in, and its not
government sponsored murder.

 

[Chris Charlton]

So do you think WW2 was government sponsered murder? When is war
all right? And who are you to judge? Is war ever justified? Should
we have just let Hitler do whatever he wanted? You have such an EGO!

If you can't see the difference between WW2 and invading iraq for its oil, you really are stupid and I'm wasting my time.
But to answer your question, (about hitler) the answer is:

If hitler had international sanctions against him stopping him from acquiring WMD.
If he had no WMD or any threatening military hardware.
If hitler's country was a broke third world country.

Then the answer is NO we should have left hitler alone, he was voted into power (not fairly I am sure) and we would not have the right to interfere with another countries problems.

How would you feel if the EU invaded the USA because they thought bush was a bad person and might be a threat? (although I think this would be a good idea)

There are many cases where a soldier (usually against orders)
spares an enemy because they are wounded and unarmed, only to have
that same person recover and be back on the battlefield killing
Americans left and right with no mercy.

That is why prisoners are captured and imprisoned in war, and not killed because hell ! all the prisons are full !! just kill em!!

ur logic is very short
sighted. In a war, if you cannot take prisoners you must kill
everyone, wounded or not.

Really? everyone? so why don't the US just nuke the entire country and kill everyone? its war right?

will save lives in the long run.

Great logic, kill everyone because it will save lives, do you work for the bush administration?

It is
not against the Geneva convention to kill a wounded soldier if you
cannot take him prisoner.

Depends on why you can't take him prisoner doesn't it? what about if you can't be bothered?

Those are the rules of war. If you do not
like it, make it your agenda to change the Geneva convention.

I keep telling you, it doesn't matter what the geneva convention says, the US doesn't care. right?

DO
NOT blame the soldiers who are only doing their duty and following
orders.

Where have I heard that phrase before...Mmmm let me think.....Mmmm yes I think at the trials of the ****'s after the war!

"I was only doing what I was told to!"

But actually I think a lot of the soldiers don't even know why they are there, I know I don't I wish bush would explain to us all because I'm confused!

Yes war is bad, but if it doesn't start in the first place
everybody wins, war for revenge is tantamount to state sponsored
murder.

Again, is every war bad? If so, you should give up your right to
free speach, because it was a war that got you that.

Thats correct and you've hit the nail on the head, if the US breaks the very laws that were kept alive by the sacrifice of millions of people, then they all died for nothing. (and cuba is just one example)

Sometimes war
is the only way.

Thats laughable! bush was drooling at the bit to have his moment of glory, he had no patience for any other way!

As horrible as war is, it is sometimes the only

option.

Yes, but I'm still wondering what happened to the other options in this case.

Am I saying that this particular war is a just war. Not
really. But at the same time, it got rid of Saddam, didn't it?

So would a snipers bullet, or letting him get old and die. and lots of people would be around today that aren't.

The

Iraqi people have a better chance at being free, right?

Possibly but for us things may get worse, there are plenty of nut cases that saddam oppressed, without him around they could rise up when the US leaves and take over again, creating a new terrorist state, what do you think we should do then? invade again?

War is bad,

but some positives can come about because of war.

True but not in this case, its a lose lose war, the only people that have won is halliburton and **** cheney and co with all those juicy stock options. Oh and bin laden, he must be laughing at us in those hills while we waste our time and blood in iraq.

 

[Jason Busch]

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story795.shtml

This is a case where black and white is of lesser impact than
color. Being in monochrome through IR, it probably makes it a
little easier to pull the trigger as well, with the target people
reduced to nothing more than white silhouettes...

In this case, the video is totally edited to appear like the US is shooting innocent farmers.The video is actually about 4mins in length, not 1min as posted by the website you mention. The 3mins of footage that was EDITED, is very revealing for those who want to know the entire truth of what was going on.

--
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://www.digitaldingus.com/forums

 

[inkyape]

A tank with a plough? you can see the tracks it's made on the field.
that's a tractor with a hot exhaust pipe, imho.

I agree, but that does not mean the people were just innocent
farmers either. There is not enough info to make judgement on this
video.

Regards,
Sean

I agree on that. I have no idea if they were farmers or soldiers or both.
But that's a tractor that looks like it just stopped ploughing.

I'm in absolutely no position to judge the decicions of the apache crew, but it's spooky that the tractor driver ploughed the field minutes before this footage. Look at the precice tracks from the plough behind and on the right side of the tractor.

Ret. Gen. Jack Keane:

"The pilots wait as a tractor arrives on the scene, near the spot where the pickup driver dropped the object. One of the Iraqis approaches the tractor driver.

Then, within minutes, the Apache pilots open fire with the heavy 30 mm cannon, killing first the Iraqi in the field, then the tractor driver. The pilots then fire at the large truck and wait to see if they hit the last of three men."

 

[Sean Keegan]

A tank with a plough? you can see the tracks it's made on the field.
that's a tractor with a hot exhaust pipe, imho.

I agree, but that does not mean the people were just innocent
farmers either. There is not enough info to make judgement on this
video.

Regards,
Sean

I agree on that. I have no idea if they were farmers or soldiers or
both.
But that's a tractor that looks like it just stopped ploughing.
I'm in absolutely no position to judge the decicions of the apache
crew, but it's spooky that the tractor driver ploughed the field
minutes before this footage. Look at the precice tracks from the
plough behind and on the right side of the tractor.

Ret. Gen. Jack Keane:
"The pilots wait as a tractor arrives on the scene, near the spot
where the pickup driver dropped the object. One of the Iraqis
approaches the tractor driver.

Then, within minutes, the Apache pilots open fire with the heavy 30
mm cannon, killing first the Iraqi in the field, then the tractor
driver. The pilots then fire at the large truck and wait to see if
they hit the last of three men."

Again that is taking things out of context. They had been watching these people for quite some time... longer than the 4 minutes of tape show. The people who have reviewed the complete unedited tape all 100% agree the helicoptor gunner had complete justification for shooting the soldiers, and that is also the opinion of the ABC defense consultant. Too bad they only show this edited version to the public, because people jump to conslusions where they have no place in second guessing what happened. From what I have learned, the full tape clearly shows them stashing weapons of some sort. Why do edit this from the video they show the public? Doesn't that seem a bit strange?

Regards,
Sean

 

[Sifodyas]

Do you links to any sites that show who they were, and what they were doing?

Again that is taking things out of context. They had been watching
these people for quite some time... longer than the 4 minutes of
tape show. The people who have reviewed the complete unedited tape
all 100% agree the helicoptor gunner had complete justification for
shooting the soldiers, and that is also the opinion of the ABC
defense consultant. Too bad they only show this edited version to
the public, because people jump to conslusions where they have no
place in second guessing what happened. From what I have learned,
the full tape clearly shows them stashing weapons of some sort. Why
do edit this from the video they show the public? Doesn't that seem
a bit strange?

 

[inkyape]

A tank with a plough? you can see the tracks it's made on the field.
that's a tractor with a hot exhaust pipe, imho.

I agree, but that does not mean the people were just innocent
farmers either. There is not enough info to make judgement on this
video.

Regards,
Sean

I agree on that. I have no idea if they were farmers or soldiers or
both.
But that's a tractor that looks like it just stopped ploughing.
I'm in absolutely no position to judge the decicions of the apache
crew, but it's spooky that the tractor driver ploughed the field
minutes before this footage. Look at the precice tracks from the
plough behind and on the right side of the tractor.

Ret. Gen. Jack Keane:
"The pilots wait as a tractor arrives on the scene, near the spot
where the pickup driver dropped the object. One of the Iraqis
approaches the tractor driver.

Then, within minutes, the Apache pilots open fire with the heavy 30
mm cannon, killing first the Iraqi in the field, then the tractor
driver. The pilots then fire at the large truck and wait to see if
they hit the last of three men."

Again that is taking things out of context. They had been watching
these people for quite some time... longer than the 4 minutes of
tape show. The people who have reviewed the complete unedited tape
all 100% agree the helicoptor gunner had complete justification for
shooting the soldiers, and that is also the opinion of the ABC
defense consultant. Too bad they only show this edited version to
the public, because people jump to conslusions where they have no
place in second guessing what happened. From what I have learned,
the full tape clearly shows them stashing weapons of some sort. Why
do edit this from the video they show the public? Doesn't that seem
a bit strange?

Yes, maybe a bit out of context. He could have just stopped ploughing to pick up a grenade launcher, what do I know? The ABC defense consultant says "a tractor arrives on the scene, near the spot where the pickup driver dropped the object". I just meant that it's chilling that the tractor driver is still following the ploughing tracks in the field, (this is clearly visible) until he stops do do whatever it is.

Again: I'm not judging this, as I know nothing.

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/apache_video_040109.html

regards, Inkyape

--

http://members.chello.se/uz/canon.htm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[inkyape]

See that is where you are wrong. The US is in Iraq to reform its
government for the sake of its own people.

Do you sincerely believe that is the only reason? Sorry, I just have to ask. Oh, I know I'll get flamed for this......

 

[Ken Phillips]

So do you think WW2 was government sponsered murder? When is war
all right? And who are you to judge? Is war ever justified? Should
we have just let Hitler do whatever he wanted? You have such an EGO!

If you can't see the difference between WW2 and invading iraq for
its oil, you really are stupid and I'm wasting my time.
But to answer your question, (about hitler) the answer is:

If hitler had international sanctions against him stopping him from
acquiring WMD.
If he had no WMD or any threatening military hardware.
If hitler's country was a broke third world country.

Then the answer is NO we should have left hitler alone, he was
voted into power (not fairly I am sure) and we would not have the
right to interfere with another countries problems.
How would you feel if the EU invaded the USA because they thought
bush was a bad person and might be a threat? (although I think this
would be a good idea)

There are many cases where a soldier (usually against orders)
spares an enemy because they are wounded and unarmed, only to have
that same person recover and be back on the battlefield killing
Americans left and right with no mercy.

That is why prisoners are captured and imprisoned in war, and not
killed because hell ! all the prisons are full !! just kill em!!

ur logic is very short
sighted. In a war, if you cannot take prisoners you must kill
everyone, wounded or not.

Really? everyone? so why don't the US just nuke the entire country
and kill everyone? its war right?

will save lives in the long run.

Great logic, kill everyone because it will save lives, do you work
for the bush administration?

It is
not against the Geneva convention to kill a wounded soldier if you
cannot take him prisoner.

Depends on why you can't take him prisoner doesn't it? what about
if you can't be bothered?

Those are the rules of war. If you do not
like it, make it your agenda to change the Geneva convention.

I keep telling you, it doesn't matter what the geneva convention
says, the US doesn't care. right?

DO
NOT blame the soldiers who are only doing their duty and following
orders.

Where have I heard that phrase before...Mmmm let me think.....Mmmm
yes I think at the trials of the ****'s after the war!

"I was only doing what I was told to!"

But actually I think a lot of the soldiers don't even know why they
are there, I know I don't I wish bush would explain to us all
because I'm confused!

Yes war is bad, but if it doesn't start in the first place
everybody wins, war for revenge is tantamount to state sponsored
murder.

Again, is every war bad? If so, you should give up your right to
free speach, because it was a war that got you that.

Thats correct and you've hit the nail on the head, if the US breaks
the very laws that were kept alive by the sacrifice of millions of
people, then they all died for nothing. (and cuba is just one
example)

Sometimes war
is the only way.

Thats laughable! bush was drooling at the bit to have his moment of
glory, he had no patience for any other way!

As horrible as war is, it is sometimes the only

option.

Yes, but I'm still wondering what happened to the other options in
this case.

Am I saying that this particular war is a just war. Not
really. But at the same time, it got rid of Saddam, didn't it?

So would a snipers bullet, or letting him get old and die. and lots
of people would be around today that aren't.

The

Iraqi people have a better chance at being free, right?

Possibly but for us things may get worse, there are plenty of nut
cases that saddam oppressed, without him around they could rise up
when the US leaves and take over again, creating a new terrorist
state, what do you think we should do then? invade again?

War is bad,

but some positives can come about because of war.

True but not in this case, its a lose lose war, the only people
that have won is halliburton and **** cheney and co with all those
juicy stock options. Oh and bin laden, he must be laughing at us in
those hills while we waste our time and blood in iraq.

--
I don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8!
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm

 

[dbevis]

You have no idea how many 10's of thousands of people have viewed this video and seen the terrible, deadly consequence of war - first hand, and for the first time. It is considerably different - much less impersonal - than the view from a video camera mounted on the front of a laser-guided bomb, isn't it? Who has reacted to the image of an A-bomb's mushroom cloud rising into the sky with the same discomfort that this video generates?

For my money, the more people that see this clip and are thoroughly disgusted by it, the better.

Maybe a few people will get the message and be motivated by it - to live the rest of their lives working to wipe out wars, the worst sort of behavior that mankind has ever conceived. Whoever said, "War is Hell" was right. Study and learn. Those who fail to learn from history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

War is ugly, shocking, disgusting, evil, wasteful, and deadly. People die. That is the message - pass it on. Eventually, the message will reach the Saddams and Osamas of the world, and they will understand, too.

Then maybe we can all be assured that no more Sept. 11th's loom in our planet's future.