Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Collateral Murder

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
Author
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Collateral Murder
    Posted: 05 April 2010 at 3:52pm
Is the name lent to the video of the reporters being killed by the US Military.

Wikileaks has put up the video for all to see. I can pretty much already tell who will have which opinion on this forum, but decide for yourself.

*WARNING*
The link above contains a youtube video with people being killed from an aerial attack. It's on youtube, so it's likely okay, but not everyone wants to see that.
Back to Top
Ceesman762 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Time for a C-Section!

Joined: 15 November 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ceesman762 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 3:54pm
4Chan had it up an hour ago...
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!


Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 4:00pm
Whats your point, that's where they got it from...

(4chan got it from wikileaks, as it was scheduled to be posted today)

Edited by choopie911 - 05 April 2010 at 4:00pm
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 4:14pm
And we should be surprised when reporters on thier own free will place themselves in 'harms way'. War reporting and the reporters therein are not bulletproof, and military operations don't take into account Joe Reporter is interviewing 'enemy' personnel in the target area. Ernie Pyle died by 'colateral murder' by the Japanese, Walter Cronkite was wounded while on a bombing raid over Germany, Andy Rooney was under fire a few times, Dan Rether in Vietnam was underfire a few times, it is part of the job description, and being a reporter does not give you 'instant' bulletproof status.
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 4:17pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

And we should be surprised when reporters on thier own free will place themselves in 'harms way'. War reporting and the reporters therein are not bulletproof, and military operations don't take into account Joe Reporter is interviewing 'enemy' personnel in the target area. Ernie Pyle died by 'colateral murder' by the Japanese, Walter Cronkite was wounded while on a bombing raid over Germany, Andy Rooney was under fire a few times, Dan Rether in Vietnam was underfire a few times, it is part of the job description, and being a reporter does not give you 'instant' bulletproof status.


That's generally accepted, and people know that. I think the issue is more with the fact that they denied it/ tried to cover it up, etc.
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 4:17pm
^^^That.

However, based on the attitudes of some toward this subject, when I become an evil genius bent on world domination for my own personal amusement, I think it will probably be handy to keep some reporters around at all times (perhaps my own press corps) so as to render myself "off-limits" as a target.
Back to Top
Ceesman762 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Time for a C-Section!

Joined: 15 November 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ceesman762 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 4:29pm
I meant nothing by it , Choop, it just reminds me of something from years ago.
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!


Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 4:34pm
Site is borked.
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 4:49pm
Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

Site is borked.


Sure isn't, I'd say your browsers borked.

I'm curious to see Brihards opinion, etc
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 4:50pm
Absolutely love the neutrality of the video <--- note sarcasm.

It's obvious that the pilots felt threatened. Furthermore, the actions of the individuals who were fired upon were not "casual" as is suggested by Wikileaks or the video. An individual is clearly attempting to view something (helicopters, bradley fighting vehicle, whatever was down the street) from cover. If they were truly casual, they'd be walking in the open, not hunkered down behind a wall. Furthermore, when a threat is detected, you eliminate it, plain and simple. If they're running away, it doesn't matter. You don't stop firing on forces that are disengaging, you gun them down so that they can't engage you again later.

Does it suck for the two reporters involved? Yes. Does it suck that some civies were killed? Yes, but the fact of the matter is that at least 1 person with them was armed and deemed a threat. If you're going to go walking around a war zone with someone who is armed and can be deemed a threat, you're going to get killed just like they did.

There's no cover-up. The gov't was originally going to release the video and then didn't because they were investigating the incident internally. They've admitted that the reporters were killed, and that some civies were killed and wounded, and guess what, that happens in war. This whole thing is being blown out of proportion by people who aren't happy that we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they want to make us look bad to shame us into pulling out. I personally think wikileaks is an accessory to treason and wouldn't give two seconds of thought to them being arrested and tried by the Gov't. Freedom of speech is one thing, but they've continually allowed top secret information to be leaked to the enemies of our nation.
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 4:51pm
Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

Site is borked.


Sure isn't, I'd say your browsers borked.

I'm curious to see Brihards opinion, etc


Nah, site was flooded I guess. Tried for a few min to get on, but the DNS wouldn't resolve. Probably just flooded.
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 4:57pm
I don't think they admitted to it, nor were they going to release the video, that's kind of the whole point. I could be wrong, but I certainly dont recall seeing anything to that effect before they were exposed by others.

Admitting something because its already exposed isn't the same.
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 5:04pm
Also just saw this, be interesting to see what comes of it:

Botched special forces op
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 5:04pm
Maybe there are other factors to be considered. National Security concerns, foriegn laws that have to be addressed. The word 'coverup' is as always being used to frequehtly, and later found to be untrue.

Lets say one of the 'reporters' was an operative of our or a foriegn intelligence service, not unheard of, but an issue that has to be addressed before release of any 'news'. The world is too complex for simple unresearched agenda based 'coverup' claims.

And what is the 'status' of a reporter imbedded with a foriegn military power at war with the US or allied forces. The reporter who covered the insurgents that shot a US Serviceman in that 'sniper video' could the US reporter who shot that footage from the aspect of the insurgent be considered under treason laws. It is the responsibility under law if your are a SU citizen to cause no harm, or expose personnel involved in military operations in a combat zone.

Edited by oldsoldier - 05 April 2010 at 5:07pm
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 5:18pm
There were obviously armed people. Someone was peering around a corner in a suspicious manner. You had a person talking on a cell phone next to a guy with an AK... and cells are often used for IEDs.

This wasn't a planned attack on journalist. The gunner asked for permission. The gunner waited till permission was granted before he shot. Several times, he waited for permission.

It sucks that the kids were hurt. It sucks that other civilians were hurt. But don't stand next to an obviously bad guy and expect to be safe.

I thought it was common sense to not bring your kids to a place where people were just shot. Maybe that's just me. (EDIT: Nope, the pilot and gunner agree with me)



Can someone tell me how Wiki was able to tell which person was which, and not just make it up? I mean, it's a good video, but I can't see faces and I have magnifying glasses on my face.

Edited by Linus - 05 April 2010 at 5:23pm

Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 5:49pm
Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

Does it suck for the two reporters involved? Yes. Does it suck that some civies were killed? Yes, but the fact of the matter is that at least 1 person with them was armed and deemed a threat. If you're going to go walking around a war zone with someone who is armed and can be deemed a threat, you're going to get killed just like they did.


Shazzam.

I don't think it's that easy to think the cameras are weapons (which they did), but I'm pretty sure one of the guys at 3:40 is carrying an RPG. It could have been a tripod, but the characteristic shape of the grenade flashes before you which makes it pretty clear. A reporter should have kept significant distance away from anyone with a weapon.

As far as him being in cover, I don't see merit in your statement. In a place where a guy on a cellphone could be shot, I would take no chances around people with guns. From far, I'm sure there are plenty of cues that make a photographer resemble an RPG carrying enemy. That quick shot was probably the safest thing he could have done (disregarding his idiocy in hanging out with armed people).

The thing that disturbs me the most is how the shooter expresses no regret in the fact that he nearly killed two kids. He's got a point, but you'd think he would feel bad. And maybe that's why that justification was said.
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 5:51pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Can someone tell me how Wiki was able to tell which person was which, and not just make it up? I mean, it's a good video, but I can't see faces and I have magnifying glasses on my face.


Knowing the context of the video, it's pretty clear who has the cameras. It's also known that the person on the cell phone was having a conversation with somebody else, as read in part of a testimony later in the video.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 6:01pm
Originally posted by Tolgak Tolgak wrote:

The thing that disturbs me the most is how the shooter expresses no regret in the fact that he nearly killed two kids. He's got a point, but you'd think he would feel bad. And maybe that's why that justification was said.


Gallows humor / remarks. Not uncommon, not unexpected, and I don't fault anyone with it in that type of work especially considering the remarks were only meant to be heard by his partner.

Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 6:07pm
Ahem . . .

While I am no war reporter, and have no interest in being one, I have had extended talks with a few of them A photographer for the AP, a reporter for BBC and two reporters for Al Jazeera.

My current Photojournalism III professor has worked for Getty Images and was a war photographer during Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

What she has told me is exactly what OS said:

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

War reporting and the reporters therein are not bulletproof . . . it is part of the job description,



It's easily the most dangerous job you can do within the realm of news. When you accept the assignment from your company, when you decide to go into a war zone, you except the possibility that both sides of the conflict are just as willing to blow you up as anyone else.

You accept those consequences, and you put yourself in harms way because you feel that it is the duty of a journalist to inform the rest of the world as to what is going on where you are.

That's just the nature of the business.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 6:11pm
Let's take cover behind a building and aim our 2 foot long camera with a sling down a street with apaches flying over our heads. Let us do this with armed people about 30 feet behind us.

That is a good idea.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.