Ugly and Sad

[VaporTrail]

Wikileaks is an organization that allows whistleblowers to send in information that can be published anonymously.

 

From Wikipedia

 

Airstrike Video Release

 

On July 12, 2007, the two Reuters news staff Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen were killed in Baghdad.[103] Lieutenant-Colonel Scott Bleichwehl, spokeman for U.S. forces in Baghdad, stated:

 

"There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force."[104]

 

Reuters subsequently asked the United States military to probe these violent deaths, and in particular requested answers to the following questions:[105]

 

An explanation of why the two cameras were confiscated.

Access to any cameras onboard the Apache helicopters that were involved in the incident.

Access to any voice communications between the helicopter crews and U.S. ground forces.

Access to reports from the unit involved in the incident, in particular a log of any weapons taken from the scene.

 

In a press conference on April 5, 2010 at the National Press Club (USA), Wikileaks released a video "showing murder of Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists".[106] The 38 min video shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site reveals that US military mistook the journalists' cameras for AK-47s and a Rocket-propelled grenade, and opened fire, resulting in the violent death of several people, including the two Reuters news staff Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen.[107]

 

Because wikileaks was going to show this video, US agencies attempted to coerce them into not showing it. They didn't succeed. Here is the video. Don't watch it if you can't stomach violence.

 

http://collateralmurder.org/

 

I think the Apache pilots could've used more caution, but that's easy to say when I'm not busy trying to protect my guys on the ground. I think the subsequent handling of the event by the US Army, denying the video and any evidence to Reuters and the families of those killed was disgusting. And to come after the human rights organization, wikileaks, was atrocious. If you're in the military, and you screw up, I think you should sack up and hold yourself accountable.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Jesus.

[Westside Steve]

From the header I thought Heck and Shep were doing a duo.

 

 

Sorry.

 

 

WSS

[Pumpkin Eater]

That sucks. Why would you take kids into an area like that? That was pretty stupid.

 

A couple things are not known, it would have been nice if they would show the video unedited. They make no mention if there actually were weapons being carried by some of the victims. Why were the people in the van even trying to pick up the bodies? I find that strange.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Um, did you watch the video? It's clearly a screw up. They mistake the cameras for weapons. No one else is carrying anything. They're just standing around talking.

 

As for the people who stopped to help, I have a hard time blaming people who stop to help a wounded man on the street. Nor do I find it "strange." It wasn't/isn't exactly a rare thing to see wounded Iraqis in Baghdad, after all.

 

Then the military lied about what happened. If you read the news, you should remember the incident. It got a lot of attention. The scene the military described looks absolutely nothing like what's on this video.

 

The only defense would be that this isn't the video from the incident, but I don't know if anyone is making that claim.

 

But if I have to break the news to you that the military often lies about things like this, I've also got some bad news about Santa Claus.

 

In fact, if you want another example, you can pick up any major paper today.

 

 

 

 

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Oh cry me a frigging river. Shit happens in combat. These Apache pilots/gunners have probably been through this dozens of times. It was a mistake, clear and simple. The alleged cover-up with a Bush-hating press constantly looking for "war crimes", etc was no surprise to me. Quit with your fake indignation.

[Pumpkin Eater]

As for the people who stopped to help, I have a hard time blaming people who stop to help a wounded man on the street. Nor do I find it "strange." It wasn't/isn't exactly a rare thing to see wounded Iraqis in Baghdad, after all.

 

It was incredibly stupid. The adults in the van main concern should have been the children in the van. If they must stop and help they should have made sure the children were safe first. I find it strange that they were not concerned about the safety of the children in the van.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Ah, today's right wing. Completely dismissive of the deaths of innocent people. Shit happens. Well, no shit shit happens. That's not really the point, is it?

 

Also, in my post I say it was a screw up. Then you say it was "a mistake, clear and simple." So what's your point? that you can't read? Of course it was a mistake.

 

As for the "alleged cover up", you don't have to look very far. This is how the military described what happened:

 

"The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.

 

“There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.

 

 

...Yes, Virginia, the military has a pretty solid history of lying or twisting the truth to cover up bad PR. Are you really so fragile that you can't take it when it someone points that out?

 

This isn't a case of "Bush-hating" or "fake indignation." That's just what you say so you don't have to think about what's on that tape, or what it means, either on a human level or on a policy level. Instead, you get to make this a side argument about unrelated things you don't like. You know, like children do.

 

There's a difference between supporting the military, and believing they're infallible or above reproach. They're neither. This is looking more and more like a case where the military made a mistake, innocent people died, and then they lied about it to cover it up.

 

Of course, I understand why they do this. Anyone can understand why they do it. That's a little different from imagining that it's fine, and that pointing out that it isn't fine is crying a river.

 

Jesus. What kind of asshole watches innocent people, including children, get gunned down and says, "Oh cry me a frigging river"?

 

"Ah, it's the Bush-hating press!"

 

You do realize that chances are someone in the military leaked this video, right? You should probably tell them to cry you a river, and that shit happens.

[calfoxwc]

This is sad. Stuff happens in war.

 

The point is, you get to change the subject from Obamao the AntiAmerican,

 

to Bush.

 

The evidence is confiscated by the investigative services of the military,

 

to find out what happened.

 

More anti-Bush cherry picking. Will it NEVER end?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Let's try it this way: say a Mexican army helicopter chasing members of the drug cartels mistakenly shoots up a group of college students and two journalists from Newsweek on Spring Break after mistaking their video cameras for weapons.

 

You're cool with that, right? Cry me a river, right? Shit happens, after all.

 

And if the Mexican military claimed that everyone they hit was a member of the drug cartels, you'd be cool with that too, right?

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

What does this have to do with the Bush administration or the Obama administration?? Holy shit.

 

Instantly into the partisan shell.

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Ah, today's right wing. Completely dismissive of the deaths of innocent people. Shit happens. Well, no shit shit happens. That's not really the point, is it?

 

Also, in my post I say it was a screw up. Then you say it was "a mistake, clear and simple." So what's your point? that you can't read? Of course it was a mistake.

 

As for the "alleged cover up", you don't have to look very far. This is how the military described what happened:

 

"The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.

 

“There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.

 

 

...Yes, Virginia, the military has a pretty solid history of lying or twisting the truth to cover up bad PR. Are you really so fragile that you can't take it when it someone points that out?

 

This isn't a case of "Bush-hating" or "fake indignation." That's just what you say so you don't have to think about what's on that tape, or what it means, either on a human level or on a policy level. Instead, you get to make this a side argument about unrelated things you don't like. You know, like children do.

 

There's a difference between supporting the military, and believing they're infallible or above reproach. They're neither. This is looking more and more like a case where the military made a mistake, innocent people died, and then they lied about it to cover it up.

 

Of course, I understand why they do this. Anyone can understand why they do it. That's a little different from imagining that it's fine, and that pointing out that it isn't fine is crying a river.

 

Jesus. What kind of asshole watches innocent people, including children, get gunned down and says, "Oh cry me a frigging river"?

 

"Ah, it's the Bush-hating press!"

 

You do realize that chances are someone in the military leaked this video, right? You should probably tell them to cry you a river, and that shit happens.

[/quote

 

xxxx you and your "fake indignation", because that is exactly what it is. Do you show such indignation when the insurgents blow up kids? Hell no. You like to take your gay little jab at the military. This wasn't done on purpose. But this kind of shit happens all the time. Sorry to confuse your stupid civilian liberal ass.

[Chicopee John]

Let's try it this way: say a Mexican army helicopter chasing members of the drug cartels mistakenly shoots up a group of college students and two journalists from Newsweek on Spring Break after mistaking their video cameras for weapons.

 

 

I would be very upset about the college students.

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, you're right, idiot. I love it when insurgents blow up kids.

 

And again, who said this was done on purpose? You guys are unreal.

[Mr. T]

Sounds like old news. Shall we dig up some old white water talk?

 

Nice misdirection piece.

 

 

By the way if u have not heard the mexican government is at war with drug cartels, and it is starting to get heated up.

[calfoxwc]

Apparently, T, Heck and his merry band of Obamao cult members,

 

don't care about these two Mexican kids....

 

why, there isn't any way they can bash Bush in the process, so

 

what the heck does it matter? Right?

 

(This is also very sad, and even though you can't bash Bush, Heck

 

If you really CARED a freakin frack, Heck, you would post more like these,

 

without any partisan sniping:

****************************

<H1 id=yn-title>2 children killed in Mexico border state shootout</H1> By JORGE VARGAS, Associated Press Writer Jorge Vargas, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 43 mins agoNUEVO LAREDO, Mexico – A shootout in northern Mexico between soldiers and suspected drug cartel gunmen killed two children and wounded five of their relatives who were caught in the crossfire, the latest in a string of deaths of bystanders in the nation's drug war.

 

The 5- and 8-year-old brothers were traveling in their family's car when the gunbattle broke out on a highway near the border city of Nuevo Laredo, the Tamaulipas state government said in statement Sunday night. The statement corrected an initial government report that only bystander was killed in the confrontation Saturday night.

 

Two suspected gunmen were also killed.

 

"We ran and tried to hide in the brush, but they kept shooting," said Maria Guadalupe Delgado Castillo, an aunt of the dead children.

 

She sobbed as she waited outside the Nuevo Laredo General Hospital where her relatives were being treated. One family member was shot in the stomach and the other four had less severe injuries.

 

The state government said 11 family members were in the car, which it described as an "all terrain vehicle" similar to the ones in a convoy of drug cartel suspects. The statement did not say which side fired the bullets that struck the family's car.

 

The army had no comment.

 

Innocent people have increasingly been caught in the crossfire of Mexico's gang battles, from waitresses killed in bar shootings to doctors ducking for cover as gunmen burst into emergency rooms to finish off rivals.

 

Saturday's shooting was the second time in less than a month that bystanders were killed battles between soldiers and gangs sweeping northwestern Mexico.

 

Two university students were killed in the crossfire of a shootout between gunmen and soldiers outside the gates of their campus on March 19 in the city of Monterrey in Nuevo Leon state.

 

Military patrols and checkpoints have repeatedly come under fire in Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon, where armed gangs have raised roadblocks in the middle of cities and around army bases in a bold new tactic to impede security operations.

 

Mexican authorities say a split between the Gulf cartel and its former ally, the Zetas gang, is fueling the violence in the region.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

I can't fathom the depths of your stupidity.

[VaporTrail]

Whoa. What the xxxx are you guys talking about? The only one to mention to mention Bush was someone that was siding with you guys. I don't see what he has to do with this video. While I completely understand that this is war, and this happens, I don't place much blame on the helicopter pilots, they thought that they were making the area safer for their guys on the ground. Well, you saw how the guys on the ground reacted when they got to the site, when they rushed to save the children.

 

Sure, it wasn't the smartest thing to go and help out a bunch of people that just got shot up by an Apache. But xxxx, you can't criticize them for trying to help out a wounded man. They probably thought that the Apache would've seen that they were unarmed instead trying to pick up weapons off the guys they just killed. It's a screw-up and then it was covered up. I'm very critical of the coverup. Just sack up and chalk this one up to a xxxxup. Like you said, it happens. But hiding this, like they did, sure helped out their point of view...

 

And was the information from the Mexican shooting (which is irrelevant to this btw) covered up by the US government? And then when it got to wikileaks, did US agencies try to coerce them into not showing it? That's what the fcuking problem is! This isn't a non-issue. It wasn't done by people who are for the Obama administration. Guess what, he's the CiC of the armed forces, this falls under his responsibility. But Christ... You guys are unbelievable, why the hell are you bringing up Bush?

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

You're new at this, but you'll get it pretty soon, Vapor - they're not very smart.

 

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Heck is a phony. That about sums it up.

[Mr. T]

Your right Diehard, Heck never shows any evidence or links to back up what he types.

 

It is all opinion based with emailed talking points.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Let's recap this one:

 

Here's a video of the US military killing innocent Iraqis, including two Reuters journalists, who they mistook for insurgents. Then they shoot up a van of people who try to help one wounded journalist, killing more and wounding two children in the process.

 

Me: Jesus.

 

Steve: tries to make joke, apologizes for not succeeding.

 

Pumpkin: They shouldn't have taken kids into that area. And they shouldn't have tried to help the wounded man. That was stupid.

 

Me: Huh? How it their fault for being shot, or trying to help the wounded? Aren't you more upset that this happened and we covered it up?

 

Pumpkin: Quit your whining. Shit happens. You just want to blame Bush, along with your media buddies.

 

Me: I think you're missing the point. And your rage is directed in all the wrong places. I question your morality. You'd have to be an asshole to be so flip after watching children and innocent people get shot.

 

Cal: This is just to distract people from Obama's failures. And to hate on Bush.

 

Me: Wha??

 

DieHard: xxxx you. You're gay. You like it when insurgents blow up kids. You never served in the military, and I did, so there.

 

Mr. T: This is all misdirection to avoid talking about the tyranny of Obama.

 

Cal: Here are two other children who were killed in Mexico. Since you didn't post about them, that means you don't care that they're dead.

 

Me: That's an indescribably dumb thing to suggest.

 

Vapor: What's wrong with you nutcases?

 

Me: They're not very bright.

 

Diehard: Heck is a phony.

 

Mr. T: You're right he is. Because I imagine that he gets talking points emailed to him.

 

 

....Another fun day on The Browns Board.

[Pumpkin Eater]

Yikes man many people on here can attest to the fact that I think George W. Bush was a terrible president. I'm certainly not a supporter. But I guess no one can be moderate these days, huh? It's either the right or the left with you political hacks, which is both sad and pathetic.

 

I have issues with the way the video was edited. That doesn't change the fact that this was a terrible mistake. The video clearly tries to place the blame entirely on the US soldiers involve and I don't necessarily feel it was their intention to wound children as the video tries to portray.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't really care if you think George Bush was a lousy president. I still don't know what this has to do with anything we're talking about here.

 

As for the video, I don't see it that way at all. I'd agree that whoever posted it sees it that way, but I think it shows a horrible mistake. They're trying to kill who they believe to be insurgents.

 

As someone said, it's "ugly and sad."

 

But I'm glad the video is out there. These are the types of things the American public rarely gets to see, but should.

 

[calfoxwc]

aw baloney.

 

Look at the date of the incident. Who was president then?

 

You think Obama was? Or Reagan?

 

Why are you bringing up crap from 3 years ago, when the Mexico

 

killings were recent?

 

The logical conclusion, is, that you went back that far because Bush was president.

 

Sorry you have no sense of humor and can't fake it, but at least try to keep up, Heck.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't know. Maybe because the video was just leaked and is a really big news story today? Because it's everywhere on the web, and lots of people are talking about it - you know, today?

 

Maybe that has something to do with why someone else posted it today, and I commented on it. It might even be a more logical explanation than the ones you keep making up in your head.

 

 

 

[Mr. T]

I see a lot of opinion from the left.

 

 

Where are the facts?

 

 

Your cup is empty because your cup has a hole in the bottom. so unless you have factual evidence that these guys were not targeted as the enemy and murdered then you have a case. But in the video you here that the pilots did get an okay to fire.

 

cheezz! It is a war and people die in wars.

[calfoxwc]

But they are TALKING about the killings in Mexico. TODAY.

 

but that doesn't matter, right, Heck? Because it didn't happen

 

during the Bush admin?

 

got your number, It's a negative one. @@

[VaporTrail]

This isn't news because two civilians were killed. This is news because of its subsequent handling and the attacks on wikileaks that came to light just last month, under the Obama administration. If you want the unedited version, here it is. 40 minutes.

 

 

The first 30 minutes is more or less what you got in the edited video, just a little more commentary and downtime. The final ten minutes show the apache engaging two insurgents that engaged the ground forces with small arms fire. The insurgents ran into a building, where they were engaged with hellfire. There was an apparently unarmed man walking past the building as the hellfire hit, and it looked like he was close enough to be pretty unhappy afterwards, yet no one is criticizing this, which is fine, it's just collateral damage in this case. This whole thing is an issue because Reuters requested information about how and why two of their guys died, and the government tried to keep it hush-hush and intimidate wikileaks into not showing this video. This was all within the last couple of months.

 

While it's unfortunate that the journalists were misidentified as carrying weapons, they know the risks of being a cameraman in a combat zone. The criticism lies in the coverup and withholding of information.

 

I'll admit, I did overlook the date of the video, but I still don't see this as an attack on Bush.

[Westside Steve]

I'll admit, I did overlook the date of the video, but I still don't see this as an attack on Bush.

 

 

Vapor, I can't imagine you haven't seen a marked change in reporting on the military since Obama decided to ramp up the meat grinder.

 

WSS