• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Collateral Murder

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
ok i took another look the two cameras are clear enough about 2mins in two guys one with striped T shirt looks like weapons ? were there two tripods? that's why i asked for info? any weapons found on scene? and i still think their in the middle of something.

Late Monday, the United States Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released the redacted report on the case, which provided some more detail.

The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees “made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.”

Video Shows 2007 Air Attack in Baghdad That Killed Photographer - NYTimes.com

I repeat that all civilian deaths are regrettable but i also think its wrong to post this without some info to go along with it, and i think Journalists are recklessy endangering their own lives and others for not wearing press vests.

I know it's hard to come to terms with, but simply putting someone in a uniform doesn't magically transform them into an infallible exemplar of honor and valor. Police and military are still humans, and are just as susceptible to abuse, corruption and misconduct as anyone else. Perhaps even more so due of the power placed in their hands. It irks me how society worships them as if they can do no wrong.
 

kai

ragamuffin
I know it's hard to come to terms with, but simply putting someone in a uniform doesn't magically transform them into an infallible exemplar of honor and valor. Police and military are still humans, and are just as susceptible to abuse, corruption and misconduct as anyone else. Perhaps even more so due of the power placed in their hands. It irks me how society worships them as if they can do no wrong.



what has that to do with my post?
 

Zardoz

Wonderful Wizard
Premium Member
Saw it. Not that different from what we saw in Nam, really. The sad result of guerrilla warfare; when the enemy shooting at you looks like the civilians, soon the soldiers shoot at civilians who look suspicious.
 
Sick and disgusting, and tragic. Shocking. No doubt about it. Even if the guy ducking behind a corner with a camera tripod was mistaken for an RPG and the camera over the shoulder mistaken for an AK47, it seems impossible to excuse the massacre of all three unarmed men at the end of the attack, simply because two of them arrived to pick up the wounded man.

The soldiers involved should stand trial.

I do have some questions. Before 3:40 two men are identified as the AP reporters with cameras and/or tripods over their shoulders. I'm not a military expert, but the one reporter peeked around the corner with his tripod and it did look like a heavy weapon of some sort, and this was exactly the way the US vehicles approached, so it did look like an ambush. They did not have "PRESS" in big white letters on their shirts which I thought they are supposed to do for their own safety. But around 3:40 there are two more men holding what appear to be guns. They are not identified by the video editing as reporters, like the other guys were. Who were they and what were they holding?

Secondly, what were the soldiers and helicopters doing in this area? What were the war photographers trying to photograph? It seems plausible that they were all there because a battle was going on in that area between US military and insurgents. At the end of the video, the text mentions that another reporter's car was delayed by the "chaos". What chaos? The chaos of a battle with insurgents?

Anyway like I said, even if they were insurgents and there were weapons, the men in the van at the end of the engagement were clearly unarmed. All they were doing was picking up a wounded man, even if they had been Nazi soldiers that would be a war crime. In this case I suppose it's even worse than a war crime, it's murder.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
Yet another reason we should never had invaded Iraq, and the coalition shouldn't even be in there now.

Oh wait, they had like a totally Democratic election not too long ago so I guess that makes everything a-okay. :sarcastic
 

kai

ragamuffin
the prime motive for any engagement is to destroy the enemy or prevent that enemy from engaging your own troops, now posting this video without any information to go along with it to put it in context is suggesting Cold blooded murder and its suggesting it on purpose.

I suggest there was an operation going on there in that vicinity and that there were armed men in that group the guys in the helicopters are there to support ground troops and thats what they beleived they were doing. I ask this:

If no one told you they were camera men how would you know without them wearing press vests ?
would you immediately come to the conclusion that they were carrying cameras and tripods?

Do you usually see tripods in war zones? i mean are they common enough for Coalition sodiers to recognise?

Are you aware that insurgents photgraph their own operations?

Do you know the rules of engagement?

They asked permission to open fire and they recieved it ?

Its easy to sit back and judge when you have no idea what its like to be in such an environment.

Yes its Tragic, its tragic end to a chain of events that led up to it .
 

Ciscokid

Well-Known Member
I feel similar to Kai. I watched the video this morning and it was hard to watch. I'm just as shocked however at the comments of some of the folks in this thread. I wonder if they even feel that much hatred towards the worst terrorists?

I have trust that those soldiers thought those guys were the enemy. If that turns out not to be true then they should be in prison.
 

Rain Drops

Member
A Good example of what happens in all Americas wars. How much more information and events do we not know? This is just the tip of the iceberg.
 

MSizer

MSizer
please believe. because this is what hell was created for and awaits them with eager..

I sound like a broken record, but it keeps coming up in so many threads. Nobody can choose to believe anything. Alcest can't choose to believe in hell, just like you can't choose to believe rain is made of moth balls. It drives me bananas that so many religious poeple tell non-believers to believe. It's not a choice!
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
The video is indicative of how war creates an inhumane attitude in normally rational and humane people. The dismissive attitude of the pilots and gunners, the orders given by some remote officer, the glee demonstrated in a kill.
This video should be an indictment of war itself, not the participants that have been created by the war. What these men did in the video is no different that what they do every day. It is what they were trained to do. Their actions and attitudes are necessitated by the very situation they have been forced into. War itself is the ultimate culprit.
It does not matter who started a war, it is who has the guts to peacefully end it.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Any info to go with the footage? . was this going on in the middle of some kind of operation ? i mean what were Bradleys and Apaches doing in the area? and what were they gathering and photographing , i have a feeling something was going on and theses people got caught up in the middle of it. On the surface it looks like an unprovoked attack ( i did clearly see a weapon) but i want to know the context. All civilian deaths are a tragedy and this is no exception.
I want to know the context as well.

I wonder whether this was some sort of routine patrol, or whether it was a mission with a specific objective. I think it changes things quite a bit if the helicopter crew was told "patrol this area and make sure there's no trouble" versus "go find the insurgents who just shot up a convoy and fled to this area".

What you "clearly saw" was one guy with a camera slung over his shoulder and another guy with a tripod in his hand and about half a dozen unarmed guys mowed down. There were no guns. Maybe you should have another look?
I saw two men off to the side that I believe were carrying some sort of rifles. Not the two journalists with the cameras that the video pointed out; two guys off to the side just standing there watching things.

This by itself doesn't mean bad intent - I'd think that if I were a journalist in that sort of environment, I'd see the appeal of having some armed guards with me. However, I can understand why it would alarm the helicopter crew. An AK-47 is powerful enough to do real damage to a helicopter, and as the video indicates, there were other soldiers in the area.

Sick and disgusting, and tragic. Shocking. No doubt about it. Even if the guy ducking behind a corner with a camera tripod was mistaken for an RPG and the camera over the shoulder mistaken for an AK47, it seems impossible to excuse the massacre of all three unarmed men at the end of the attack, simply because two of them arrived to pick up the wounded man.
I make the same distinction.

I think it's possible that, depending on what was going on that wasn't shown in the video, the first part might be excusable. I think it's certainly unfortunate, but I'm not sure I pin the blame on the helicopter crew. It seems to be a product of the circumstance; IMO, the way to avoid it in future would be to either train soldiers to not have as much regard for their own safety, or to simply not be there in the first place.

I do have some questions. Before 3:40 two men are identified as the AP reporters with cameras and/or tripods over their shoulders. I'm not a military expert, but the one reporter peeked around the corner with his tripod and it did look like a heavy weapon of some sort, and this was exactly the way the US vehicles approached, so it did look like an ambush.
I agree. The crew had a matter of seconds to decide whether the person was a threat or not. I think it's somewhat unfair for us to now base our assessments of what the crew "should have" done on a slow-motion review of the video and extended reflection.

They did not have "PRESS" in big white letters on their shirts which I thought they are supposed to do for their own safety.
Given what happened to Daniel Pearl and others, I can see why a reporter would, for safety, choose NOT to put "PRESS" in big white letters on their shirt.

But around 3:40 there are two more men holding what appear to be guns. They are not identified by the video editing as reporters, like the other guys were. Who were they and what were they holding?
I saw that, too. I think they were armed. However, I can think of several legitimate reasons for them being armed.

Secondly, what were the soldiers and helicopters doing in this area? What were the war photographers trying to photograph? It seems plausible that they were all there because a battle was going on in that area between US military and insurgents. At the end of the video, the text mentions that another reporter's car was delayed by the "chaos". What chaos? The chaos of a battle with insurgents?
That's what I wonder about as well. The video doesn't give us the whole story.

Anyway like I said, even if they were insurgents and there were weapons, the men in the van at the end of the engagement were clearly unarmed. All they were doing was picking up a wounded man, even if they had been Nazi soldiers that would be a war crime. In this case I suppose it's even worse than a war crime, it's murder.
I think I agree. In the radio voice-over, either the pilot or the gunner says that they're picking up "wounded and weapons", but the video never shows them going near the "weapons" at all. I get the sense that it's said as an excuse or justification.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
please believe. because this is what hell was created for and awaits them with eager..
I take it you want justice. Setting aside the question of whether hell is just, let's think about this:

- you leave justice to God: if hell exists, the evil get punished. If hell doesn't exist, the evil receive no punishment at all.

- you seek justice yourself: the evil get punished either way.

I know which option seems better to me.
 

Ciscokid

Well-Known Member
The video is indicative of how war creates an inhumane attitude in normally rational and humane people. The dismissive attitude of the pilots and gunners, the orders given by some remote officer, the glee demonstrated in a kill.
This video should be an indictment of war itself, not the participants that have been created by the war. What these men did in the video is no different that what they do every day. It is what they were trained to do. Their actions and attitudes are necessitated by the very situation they have been forced into. War itself is the ultimate culprit.
It does not matter who started a war, it is who has the guts to peacefully end it.

Excellent post, for God's sake we don't send passive timid men and women out to war we send people who are trained to kill. Unfortunately they misidentified the targets in this case.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
typical.

they kill the innocent civilians themself and then they go there helping the wounded. pathetic.
this is how it's been from the begining. all the killings are done by americans, al qaeda is controled by the US all that sunni, shia killing propaganda is done by the US.

i just saw the video on the news channel not 5 mins ago. very pathetic. and yet people still think the US is "helping" the iraqis against al qaeda. what a deceit. a very thought out deceit.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I wonder if soldiers on the ground confirmed that there were no weapons.

There are a lot of cuts in the film, and it is obviously bent against the US military.
 

kai

ragamuffin
I wonder if soldiers on the ground confirmed that there were no weapons.

There are a lot of cuts in the film, and it is obviously bent against the US military.

the United States Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released the redacted report on the case, which provided some more detail.

The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees "made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them."



Read more: Video Shows American Killing of Photographer
 
Top