Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

[dragon]

I know when my old unit went the rules of engagement stated that having possession of weapons is not grounds to fire as their law allows possession of weapons such as AK. That roe only changed during an full scale operation at which point most Iraqis had enough common sense to stay off the streets during the fighting.

[Elfdart]

The entire 39 minutes 39 minutes of unedited footage from wikileaks is on youtube now.

I think it's good that Wikileaks release this unedited video, it gives them some credibility (well, not that much now when the damage is done) back after the first edited video.

Fuck you, you lying fuckhead!

Contrary to the lies and bullshit posted (and retracted) by The Weekly Standard, they released the entire video on their site when they broke the story. So take your concern-trolling about WikiLeaks' credibility, print it out on paper and shove it all the way up your ass you lying cocksucker. Feel free to do this any time you get the urge to smear the whistle-blower with bullshit accusations to change the subject from what is clearly a war crime carried out by psychopaths.

Now go fuck yourself, asshole.

[CJvR]

...clearly a war crime carried out by psychopaths.

Oh I think the debate here and elsewhere is ample proof that this is anything but clear.

[Mr. Coffee]

Contrary to the lies and bullshit posted (and retracted) by The Weekly Standard, they released the entire video on their site when they broke the story. So take your concern-trolling about WikiLeaks' credibility, print it out on paper and shove it all the way up your ass you lying cocksucker. Feel free to do this any time you get the urge to smear the whistle-blower with bullshit accusations to change the subject from what is clearly a war crime carried out by psychopaths.

So completely ignore them editing out the bits where the soldiers found weapons on the scene, or the parts where you can see what looks a hell of a lot like a loaded RPG, or the bit where another guy is carrying something that looks a lot like some sort of LMG, and totally down playing that the two reporters weren't easily identifiable, ect... Nope, clearly it is another case of the US Military butchering innocent civilians for shits and giggles.

Seriously, Elf, you'd have a better time at this and maybe make a morew convincing argument if you'd calm the fuck down and ditch the indignation.

[Julhelm]

what is clearly a war crime carried out by psychopaths.

It's not a warcrime when the ROE are followed. If you look at the whole video you can clearly make out men armed with AK's and what appears to be an RPG-7 walking around in the same area where Bushmaster ground elements have been taking fire for several hours. There are at least three levels of authority before firing commences, and they have to be repeated for the second burst. Pity about the van being an honest guy trying to help but then how is anyone supposed to know when the enemy doesn't play fair. And as for the pilots being psychos - why do people think soldiers should feel any kind of pity or compassion for people who are trying to kill them? Ain't gonna happen.

[Elfdart]

...clearly a war crime carried out by psychopaths.

Oh I think the debate here and elsewhere is ample proof that this is anything but clear.

Yeah, opening fire on a van with kids inside is such a grey area.

[Mr. Coffee]

...clearly a war crime carried out by psychopaths.

Oh I think the debate here and elsewhere is ample proof that this is anything but clear.

Yeah, opening fire on a van with kids inside is such a grey area.

Yes, because besides thermal imaging the TADS system also grants the Apache gunner x-ray vision to see through the roof of vans so he can better obliterate small children...

Could you possibly fake that indignation more? You haven't quite got it to 11 yet.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

To be fair, I did not pick up any indication of kids in the van until the video explicitly pointed it out later. And even then, I could see the figures as kids only when that was what my mind was already expecting.

[Elfdart]

what is clearly a war crime carried out by psychopaths.

It's not a warcrime when the ROE are followed.

What is the difference between "I was just following my rules of engagement" and "I was just following orders"? That's right -there's no difference whatsoever. Both are chickenshit designed to duck responsibility.

If you look at the whole video you can clearly make out men armed with AK's and what appears to be an RPG-7 walking around in the same area where Bushmaster ground elements have been taking fire for several hours. There are at least three levels of authority before firing commences, and they have to be repeated for the second burst. Pity about the van being an honest guy trying to help but then how is anyone supposed to know when the enemy doesn't play fair. And as for the pilots being psychos - why do people think soldiers should feel any kind of pity or compassion for people who are trying to kill them? Ain't gonna happen.

So the kids in the van were trying to kill our brave heroes? The man who got out of the van to pick up on of the wounded was trying to kill our brave heroes? Please show me the part of the video where either of those things happened.

[Mr. Coffee]

So the kids in the van were trying to kill our brave heroes? The man who got out of the van to pick up on of the wounded was trying to kill our brave heroes? Please show me the part of the video where either of those things happened.

Hey, asshole, how the fuck was anyone supposed to know that those children were present? Seriously, could you be any more obvious with your false indignation here? Go away and come back when you've got something to actually argue about and aren't obviously fucking trolling.

[Elfdart]

Hey, asshole, how the fuck was anyone supposed to know that those children were present?

Oh I don't know, maybe the fact that both kids are visible on camera [00:13]:



Which you might have noticed were you not such a complete fucktard.

[Mr. Coffee]

Oh I don't know, maybe the fact that both kids are visible on camera [00:13]:

Which you might have noticed were you not such a complete fucktard.

Wow, you mean when you crop and enlarge the image you see a blur that looks like someone sitting in the passenger seat? because in the unedited guncam footage (the side view of the van showing the passenger side window is at 8:00), you see an even more indistinct blob that looks like a person sitting there. Wouldn't you know it, much like the bit of camera lens sticking around a corner earlier, you can't make a call either way what the fuck is in the window of the van.

So again, spare us your false outrage, you fake ass trolling bitch.

[Mr. Coffee]

Now, this is probably going to sound mean, but when they start goign on about "why did they shot at us" in the vid Trolldart just linked to am I the only one that was thinking "What sort of fucking retard drives his children into an area where a lot of explosions just occurred and a few armored vehicles and lot of heavilly armed mean are heading for"? Because yeah, that wasn't really a good idea and my mind is kind of blown away at what the thought process behind that decision must have been.

[Aaron]

I suspect it wasn't so much a thought process as just becoming swept up in things. No one really knows how your going to act when something like this happens and I suspect by the time they figured out what was going on it was too late.

[Mr. Coffee]

I suspect it wasn't so much a thought process as just becoming swept up in things. No one really knows how your going to act when something like this happens and I suspect by the time they figured out what was going on it was too late.

It takes a special form of retarded to think taking your kids towards explosions is a good idea, man. First instinct of a parent should have been "get kids away from potential source of harm".

[Aaron]

You would think so but people can be pretty damn dumb.

[Mr. Coffee]

You would think so but people can be pretty damn dumb.

Yup, and that sap's kids got the scars to prove it now.

[Elfdart]

Oh I don't know, maybe the fact that both kids are visible on camera [00:13]:

Which you might have noticed were you not such a complete fucktard.

Wow, you mean when you crop and enlarge the image you see a blur that looks like someone sitting in the passenger seat? because in the unedited guncam footage (the side view of the van showing the passenger side window is at 8:00), you see an even more indistinct blob that looks like a person sitting there.

Because our heroes are only using small video windows on YouTube and not the video monitor, or their own eyes. You can see two people through one window. Two adults normally won't fit in such a small space, so either their children or midgets. Either way, troops are not supposed to open fire unless they know what the hell they're shooting at. That's what is known as indiscriminate fire and is in fact a war crime. So you're just bullshitting. You can whine and cry like you have sand in your pussy all you want, but pointing out these facts doesn't make me a troll, fuckhead.

So again, spare us your false outrage, you fake ass trolling bitch.

I guess you do have sand in your pussy after all. Awwwww, does it still hurt?

For the record, the kids' mother claims that her husband was bringing them home from class, and stopped to try to help the man who was bleeding to death.

At which point our courageous boys gunned them down. And fucktards like you are groping for excuses three years later.

[Simon_Jester]

what is clearly a war crime carried out by psychopaths.

It's not a warcrime when the ROE are followed.

I'm not sure I'd give this a blank check.

For one, it may well be a warcrime on the part of the guy who wrote the ROE even if it isn't one on the part of the soldiers. For another, you're talking about doing something illegal under international law purely because your specific orders didn't tell you not to do it. When there's already a standing rule against doing something, the ROE shouldn't have to go out of their way to ban it.

I mean, the ROE probably don't specify that you have to wear your uniform, but that doesn't mean you can go charging into battle naked and not get in trouble.

[Aaron]

What he should have said was "it's not a war crime if civilians are killed by accident in the course of attacking a legitimate target."

[Elfdart]

Daniel Froomkin points out:

The video shows otherwise.

Washington Post reporter David Finkel described the incident -- and the video -- in great detail in his September 2009 book, "The Good Soldiers". A summary can be found here.

Finkel also described a review session after Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, commander of the Army's 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment and his soldiers returned to base, which "concluded that everyone had acted appropriately." (Kauzlarich was also involved in the Army's Pat Tillman cover-up, and later told ESPN that the reluctance of Tillman's parents to accept the military's story that he was killed by enemy action, rather than friendly fire, was the unfortunate result of their lack of Christian faith.)

Boldface mine.

I'm surprised they haven't used this excuse yet. After all, I'm sure the families of the victims were also lacking in Christian faith.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What is the difference between "I was just following my rules of engagement" and "I was just following orders"? That's right -there's no difference whatsoever. Both are chickenshit designed to duck responsibility.

Could you be any more shrill in your false analogies? Following the rules of engagement in an armed conflict is done explicitly to protect civilians as much as is possible in said armed conflict. Accidents happen. Misidentifications happen. They are regrettable and ought be avoided but humans are not perfect.

Following the rules and making a bad judgement call in a stressfull situation is a far cry from intentionally and systematically slaughtering 12 million people. Moreover, even if it was identical, you can get a person to kill another by telling him it must be done while wearing a lab coat. All you have to do is make sure he cant see the guy when he screams.

So the kids in the van were trying to kill our brave heroes? The man who got out of the van to pick up on of the wounded was trying to kill our brave heroes? Please show me the part of the video where either of those things happened.

In this war, combatants regularly use children as human shields, and use unmarked vehicles for transportation of wounded and to move weapons and personnel from place to place. Should soldiers who already think they are shooting at combatants drop their weapons and stop firing when these tactics are used? If not, how are they to determine what is going on? Is it more likely that someone stopping to drag wounded off the street is a helpful but very unlucky person or another combatant?

That's what is known as indiscriminate fire and is in fact a war crime. So you're just bullshitting. You can whine and cry like you have sand in your pussy all you want, but pointing out these facts doesn't make me a troll, fuckhead.

Given the situation, should they have made a different call even if they knew they were firing at children? Given that children are used as humans shields?

[General Brock]

Er, Hmmmm. I think those pilots need to be taken off their 'go' pills. Speed does weird things to moral and material judgment. I'm surprised all the guys without guns weren't described as wearing suicide vests.

Of course, there is no reason that cameras can't be defined as weapons and that shooting them is an aggressive act during an occupation borne of lies. I mean, look at the damage those cams on the Apaches did to the struggle for hearts and minds at home and abroad.

I'm not surprised America is in no hurry to bring the troops home. Can't have people gone feral like that running around loose stateside in large numbers.

[Mr. Coffee]

Because our heroes are only using small video windows on YouTube and not the video monitor, or their own eyes.

They're using a combination of a TADS sensor and their own eyes. Turns out the helmet display for the TADS is even smaller than a youtube window and at 500m or more you can't really make out whats inside of a vehicle. But why bother thinking about shit like that when you can lash out with your false fucking indignation and cry out about how those baby killing soldiers are out to facerape the Iraqi people.

Seriously, get a new gimmick, Trolldart. Fuck, at least Shep sometimes adds useful content between trolling people. What the fuck do you do besides feign self-righteousness?

You can see two people through one window.

No, really you can't, in either the cropped version you showed or the original guncam footage. We only know it's children after the fact, and the only reason you're saying "It's obviously children" is because you were told "Those are children in the window" after the fact.

It's called selection bias, you trolling dickhead. Look it up.

Two adults normally won't fit in such a small space, so either their children or midgets.

I see an indistinct blob with a head, not two head, just the one.

Also, I take it you've never had a girl sit in your lap in a vehicle before, otherwise you'd understand that yes, to adults really can fit in the front seat of a van.

Either way, troops are not supposed to open fire unless they know what the hell they're shooting at.

Ok, then by all means, show us what part of the ROEs were violated here. They've got a vehicle that looks like it's trying to remove wounded combatants and arms from the scene, and could not tell that children were present or that the guy driving the van was acting purely out of concern for some wounded schmuck. But hey, Obersturmfurher Trolldart of the 101st Chairborne Brigade says they violated some previously unknown law of warfare or rule of engagement...

Whelp, I'm waiting, cupcake. What violation was there again?

That's what is known as indiscriminate fire and is in fact a war crime.

Even though they could see the van, see military aged males attempting to remove armed military aged males they'd just shot up and had received permission to fire through the proper chain of command...

But hey, Command Master Private Trolldart says it was indiscriminate fire!

So you're just bullshitting. You can whine and cry like you have sand in your pussy all you want, but pointing out these facts doesn't make me a troll, fuckhead.

Pointing out what facts, you fucking numbskull? Wait, you mean the fact that even in the cropped and and blown up version of the guncam footage you showed that all you see in the van's window is an indistinct blob with a head and the only reason we know it's children is because we were told AFTER THE FACT? Or the fact that Wikileaks decided to release an edited version of the original guncamera footage that neglects to mention the fucking RPGs and LMGs the guys around the two cameramen had?

You've been full of shit since your first fucking post in this thread and I'm only one of about three people so far who've called your ass on it. So take your fake ass indignant trolling bullshit and go whine someplace else. No one is buying it, so get yourself a new gimmick already.

For the record, the kids' mother claims that her husband was bringing them home from class, and stopped to try to help the man who was bleeding to death.

She can claim whatever she wants. Still doesn't change the fact that she's married to a fucking retard that almost got his children killed by driving them towards the explosions instead of away from them. With a father that fucking dumb I'll be shocked and amazed if those kids live long enough to see their 18 birthdays.

At which point our courageous boys gunned them down. And fucktards like you are groping for excuses three years later.

Who's excusing anything, you trolling fuck? By all means, please quoite me where I've said that what the pilots did was excusable. Understandable how they made the mistake, but not excusable. They fucked up. I've said this many times, but you're to busy jerking yourself off at the thought of US Soldiers being baby killers to bother to read the fucking thread. Fuck, at this point I doubt you've even watched the guncam video.

You're a fucking ghoul, Trolldart. You offer nothing insightful, no new perspective, and all you've brought to the thread is a perverse glee that some kids were hurt because it supposedly proves your little world view that the US Military is covering up everything while they gorge themselves on dead babies and burning villagers or whatever freshman college protester mastrubation fodder you're on this week.

You actually make Shep look sane, reasonable, and well adjusted. Bravo, fuckwit.

[Elfdart]

What is the difference between "I was just following my rules of engagement" and "I was just following orders"? That's right -there's no difference whatsoever. Both are chickenshit designed to duck responsibility.

Could you be any more shrill in your false analogies?

"Following orders" wasn't just the excuse used by the Nazis. Lynddie England also used it for what she and her boyfriend did at Abu Ghraib.

In this war, combatants regularly use children as human shields, and use unmarked vehicles for transportation of wounded and to move weapons and personnel from place to place. Should soldiers who already think they are shooting at combatants drop their weapons and stop firing when these tactics are used? If not, how are they to determine what is going on? Is it more likely that someone stopping to drag wounded off the street is a helpful but very unlucky person or another combatant?

Another convenient excuse. Think about that for a moment: Why on earth would anyone who is fighting against the US ever bother to use kids as human shields? When has that EVER stopped Americans from firing on them? Especially when they have the hall pass of "following orders/rules of engagement".

Given the situation, should they have made a different call even if they knew they were firing at children? Given that children are used as humans shields?

Evidence please.