Wikileaks Collateral Murder

[anthony]

For those that didn't know about the video released earlier this year, here is the original source by wikileaks containing all the footage, that they obtained and decrypted from the US military.

http://

 

[intothelight]

I watched this and have a few questions in my mind:

One: It seems the issue of a RPG and an AK47 were confirmed. Can a RPG take down a helicopter?
Two: Is it normal military protocol to engage when weapons that could present an immediate threat are identified?
Three: The fact the van was unmarked and visibility was poor as to the van occupants. Did that contribute to opening fire on the van? (It didn't look like an ambulance, but the occupants appeared to have gloves on.) What is the protocol?

It just seems like everything else the media give us, it presents one viewpoint and there is no real analysis. How can anything improve when no one puts the "whole" picture out there?

Just some observations. Any more its what I do, analyze everything.

 

[anthony]

If a threat is identified, it is normal protocol to shoot the threat, not shoot everyone and everything in that area.

The van... there was no threat! The people where only picking up the wounded, which regardless of good or bad guys, depending on which side you're on... is allowed and you cannot shoot at people who are not a direct threat and rendering aid to someone wounded.

 

[intothelight]

Anthony,

Good points and it answered the questions. It is difficult when you don't have a military background to really understand what transpired. If you don't ask, you don't learn.

I think more people should ask so they can make sure they understand.

Debbie

 

[anthony]

Glad that helped.

What they did, was execute people without any cause. You cannot execute people in war. That is the same as shooting the wounded. They are no longer a threat... so you can't just execute them... which is what those pilots did.

If a wounded picked up a weapon, then that makes them a threat again, and shooting them is all good. If not... they are unarmed, then they are no longer a threat and cannot be shot at.

 

[intothelight]

That was pretty clear in the video. Especially since ground troops were coming in. I understand staying in the air to provide cover. if necessary, but the continued firing did seem excessive. But I really didn't want to form a judgment without understanding from a military perspective.

Also, no one had responded to this thread, so I was not sure if the questions were good ones or not. But since it was posted in "chit chat", I took a chance.

 

[anthony]

I thought the initial post was warranted from some reactions to wikileaks in general... but when you see these sort of things that they get hold off and post to the world, unedited... I tend to appreciate seeing the truth instead of the BS that the media otherwise provide us... all edited and censored, stories completely jumbled and mixed in order to sell vs. the truth.

 

[Lady of Longbourn]

Its completely f*cked up.

Everything is.

 

[anni]

It's the 'up' side of a complicated issue, to be sure. This has to be seen, and the consequences of things like this remaining unpublished include public backing, flags in hand, of people who have less political aspirations than monatary, even. Both suck but money seems the huger evil since the intent is manipulating a world stage for profit. I won't start on companies like Haliburton, BUT... . There's a power source with God- unimaginable power in terms of our lives, as a bottom line than anyone is ever allowed to see. Anyone catch the news item, quickly, quickly pulled out of the public eye, where this company was also responsible for providing the cement which failed to hold the finally dealed oil leak in the Gulf? Go for it, Wikileaks, with this stuff. Give us more! But please be cognizant in the extreme of the power you folks have, by virtue of releasing anything you please, in now swinging the balance too far the other way and revealing things which could also cause vast harm to some precarious peace in places of the world where we need them badly. We do indeed, need watchdogs-no questions about it, but who is watching them, by way of ensuring balance? It has to be self-adminstered, or the good these things do become rendered suspect by association. That's an IMO, however, so kind of 'for what it's worth', and not intended as a sweeping statement.

 

[amethist]

I watched the video, they were either not looking properly, my first reaction. Or just did not care really, they just saw someone there and opened fire because they could. No respect for anyone at all, not even those who trying to help the injured man.

Even I could see it was not an AK47 he was carrying at first. Does not matter if they could make the excuse of not being able to see clearly, if you cant tell don't shoot until they are sure. They were obviously far enough away from them, as they did not react to them being in the air above.

They were not under threat of attack from what I could see.

 

[anthony]

But please be cognizant in the extreme of the power you folks have, by virtue of releasing anything you please, in now swinging the balance too far the other way and revealing things which could also cause vast harm to some precarious peace in places of the world where we need them badly.

He has stated that he hasn't released those documents that they believe would cause major issues...

Will they eventually come to light? Maybe... but wikileaks believe now is obviously not the right time for some documents they believe would cause major political breakdown between countries. Maybe they are just holding onto the really juicy bits as their "get out of jail" free card!

 

[anni]

Hee- possibly. Gosh- easy for me to sit here and be an arm chair quarterback. That's one of those people who watch football, and think they know everythingggg just from watching the game on televison so they keep yelling at the TV, telling the players what to do. Like they KNOW, from the vantage point of their living room.

I think what bothers me also is the retaliation thing which transpired then. I mean, this guy wasn't Nelson Mandala, fighting for the freedom of an entire race of people. The group then came across as more scary and threatening than reasonable people merely making an vastly important point, and to me, lost a lot of it's effectivness thereby. I think radicalism always is unsettling-people have to be led to shifts in thinking rationally, as in VIEWING that awful clip, being given solid facts and understanding the injustices out there. Hauling off and taking the actions which transpired to 'free their leader' sort of fell right into the hands of those who did wish to perhaps discredit whatever cause they might be wishing to present to the world stage, I think. It's all 'we' saw, this retaliatory thing, which sounded an awful like like that of extremists across the board.Certainly, extremeism has it's place, but the point behind it has to be established first. you know? Like the thousands of our African Americans who were hauled of to jail for sitting in the 'white' sections of diners and buses all those years ago, well, the public already knew racism was crap, mostly- they needed the kick in the ass to spark that final revolution there. I don't think the value behind Wikileaks has been established in the public eye enough. Those opposed to it's genuine value have managed to associate it with the secret documents and world peace, not abuses of military force and some other genuinely wonderful 'watchdog' effects it could have. Given time. I'm still on the fence, personally, with the intent behind the documents things. The force behind that retaliation really was rather scary, I think-and bespeaks a mind set where others are sort of forced to acquience to their demands, 'or else'. It makes me a little wary of believing pure intent, that's all. They say they wish us to be provided with genuine free speech, but employ tactics such as these which circumvent others from doing much of anything- unless we listen to what they have to say. Seems rather a choke hold on freedom there, also. I guess I really, really do not like any 'do this or else' method of negotiation, because it's not.

Hee- sorry so long.