MSNBC Panel discusses Wikileaks.org’s “Collateral Murder” Video – Part 1 View part 2 here: www.youtube.com visit: firedoglake.com
MSNBC Panel discusses Wikileaks.org’s “Collateral Murder” Video – Part 1
Posted in: Uncategorized
-
Recent Comments
- on Was the Republican Party created to abolish slavery? Is there any evidence supporting this?
- on The Liberal Paradox: Anti-Police Rhetoric and the Push for More Laws
- on How to Make Maple Sugar and Maple Syrup, What’s The Difference and What Supplies are Needed?
- on Can you run over protestors if they are attacking you or your car? Video Explanation
- on Can you run over protestors if they are attacking you or your car? Video Explanation
- on How Many Years Is 1 Trillion Seconds
- on How Many Years Is 1 Trillion Seconds
- on Can you run over protestors if they are attacking you or your car? Video Explanation
- on Morgan Freeman: “I did not assault women”
- on How to Make Maple Sugar and Maple Syrup, What’s The Difference and What Supplies are Needed?
- on How to Make Maple Sugar and Maple Syrup, What’s The Difference and What Supplies are Needed?
- on Where do rhesus negative people come from?
- on 911 Evidence of Explosives at WTC; Cut Columns
- on How Many Years Is 1 Trillion Seconds
- on Morgan Freeman: “I did not assault women”
- on Police Officer Grant Jones Texas is a PUSSY and Coward
- on Dirty Cops by ONE
- on Was the Republican Party created to abolish slavery? Is there any evidence supporting this?
- on Police Officers Are Worthless Pieces of Shit Why Would You Call Them For Help?
- on Police Officers Are Worthless Pieces of Shit Why Would You Call Them For Help?
Recent Posts
- What would happen if you put a leech on a mosquito bite?
- Why Are Gas Prices Soaring Under Biden’s Administration?
- Mexico is Trying To Extort Billions from the United States. Here’s What I Would Do.
- The Liberal Paradox: Anti-Police Rhetoric and the Push for More Laws
- Can you run over protestors if they are attacking you or your car? Video Explanation
- The Top 10 Times Facepunch Studios Got Sued
- The Art of Simplifying Your Bug Out Bag: Essentials vs. Clutter
- Prioritizing and Protecting America’s Power Grid VS Hemorrhaging Money for Ukraine
- How to Make Maple Sugar and Maple Syrup, What’s The Difference and What Supplies are Needed?
- What is the Difference Between Raw Honey and Organic Honey and How The Native Americans Used Honey.
- Books the Mdewakanton people are mentioned in. Native American History
- Perhaps larger no guns allowed signs are needed for banks?
- Good Hands Towing in Macomb Michigan
- How do you feel about California releasing name, race, address, phone of every conceal carry holder?
- Why does WordPress CEO say GoDaddy is a parasitic threat?
- The Truth About Juneteenth and the Democrats Strategy.
- Does Joe Biden EVER tell the truth? Compilation of lies throughout his career. VIDEO
- What are the yellow flags with three red stripes I keep seeing at political rallies?
- Why are conservatives worried about the future?
- Is this the worst time in history to be a Caucasian male?
Tags
Ever hear of the
National Native Holiday?
I think I’m saving lives for just not being an American?
Thumbs up if you’re proud of not being an American!
@Timasion Well first off, they weren’t carrying weapons. Secondly, you’re right about not having to be in imminent danger to use deadly force, but by no stretch of the imagination could anyone say these troops were anywhere near imminent danger. The force they used was excessive, and the mentality of the troops is sickening.
shut the fuck fuck up all thhier trying to do is brain wash people the video was pure and simple like abu ghraib
@Timasion they werent the enemy, they were carrying cameras
@Crayolakid1 That’s the claim. You can’t tell from the video. The helicopter pilots say they saw AK-47s and RPGs.
@praetorezekiel That’s the claim. You can’t tell from the video.
Also, the “imminent danger” standard does not apply to a combat zone. Soldiers can kill the enemy when they see the enemy. They don’t have to wait until the enemy starts shooting at them to fire back.
The “mentality” of the soldiers in the video are perfectly in line with combat troops. Their job is to kill the enemy. Period. Their actions conformed to the Geneva Convention.
@Timasion
According to the Geneva Convention, Is it allowed to kill the obviously unarmed people who are trying to provide help for the wounded?
@Timasion but if it wasnt then they just killed alot of innocent civillians. Whats to say this doesnt happen often if thats all they need to shoot you from the sky. I just think there should be more rules if we are using this type of weaponry for this war.
@searchancestral They were “obviously” unarmed? You know that there were no weapons in the vehicle? Boy, you must have X-ray vision.
@Crayolakid1 The military aren’t police. Their job is to kill the enemy and they are allowed to take necessary measures.
@Timasion When we do stuff like this we are creating more enemies. Then we will be doing this for decades.
@Timasion Again, following your logic, we can deduce that the whole of the civilian Iraqi (Afghanistani) population is ‘irregular’ and, therefore, the enemy. Would you agree? Far better that ten innocent men are killed rather than one guilty man escapes free, is that not so?
America “The Most hated Country in the World, even the British public now hateUSA, todays papers read the Polls are 90% against Americans lack of Rules of Engagement mess ups. RIP our British Brothers that Died to the same sort of Untrained Crap that is called the American Army/USAF. Waste of Space seriously. Quality not Quantity, thats why your in a mess.
america… the biggest terrorist organisation in the world and someday all you dumb fucking hicks will be wiped out
@kurt44mg42 Again, I must point out the rules of warfare. If you are in an active combat zone, are carrying weapons and are not wearing any identifiable marks, you are an irregular troop. You take the risk that you will be identified as hostile and military action will be taken.
Not all of Iraq is considered an active combat zone. So, your initial assertion is incorrect.
Also, this is not a civil situation. Thus, there is no “innocent or guilty” considerations. Just enemy or friendly.
@Crayolakid1 Stuff like what? Obeying the rules of warfare aren’t sufficient? By your logic, we should never take any hostile action because it may inflame someone else to take revenge.
I got an idea. Why don’t we just leave the area. Hold on. Why don’t we pull all our troops back to the US? Wait, maybe we should just disband the military.
After all, if we never take any hostile action, everyone will love us, right?
@Timasion Im all for bringing the troops back but disbanding is making leaps that I didnt imply. I’m saying that we shouldnt write off events like these saying, “woops you shouldnt have been there”. Im not worried about angering the terrorist but the civilians because things like this might start to make them sympathize with the terrorist making our job harder.
@Timasion
Don’t be ridiculous. Ok, look at it like this, fuckhead. Sometimes there will be civilian casualties in war and by law and by just straight up fucking decency, you try to minimize these incidents at all costs, there is no reason for innocent people to be killed by apache helicopters in cold blood and with speed. They hastily accused the men of having weapons, they seemed like they were chomping at the fucking bit to get some bullets off. This was 100% negligence in regards to human(c)
life. It was a war crime, and with Mr. Assanges work, there are many many instances of these war crimes coming to the light. Those two poor kids first had to see dead people everywhere, then they got to see everyone that they were with gunned down by a 30mm cannon and killed while they tried to help one of the men that could have survived, and they themselves were wounded by said 30mm cannon in the process. Soldier says, “shouldn’t bring your kids into a battle.” Those kid’s lives will Never be
the same. It isn’t about taking hostile action or not taking hostile action, only a fucking moron would argue that. There is a way to go about taking hostile action, there is a time and place for hostile action. You can’t just go around and kill everyone that looks like they are holding something (in this case, that looked NOTHING like an assault rife). What if this happened on our soil by an overtly brutal occupational military force. People like you make being american shameful.
@Crayolakid1 I know. I’m using exaggeration to point out how incorrect the attitude is. You and other like you are confusing police with the military. The military is not obligated to “make sure” that someone is hostile. If they have to stop to make sure, they will end up dead.
War is a dirty business and people get killed. If someone puts themselves in harms way, that is their choice.
@Gabrie1GT2 Doesn’t dropping to insults mean I won?
Either way, based on the video, I cannot understand how you came to your conclusion. All the pilots were calm and composed. They asked permission to shoot before they shot. They clearly reported what they saw.
If they just wanted to “get some bullets off,” why did they ask permission to fire each time?
I know you want to condemn the military, but this is clearly within the rules of warfare.
@Timasion What constitutes them putting themselves in harms way. Im pretty sure if they knew they would be killed for having recording equipment they wouldn’t have carried it around. Can the enemy be justified for killing our journalist if they are carrying similar equipment around Afghanistan?
@Crayolakid1 I would think going into an active combat zone would be putting themselves in harms way.
If a journalist takes no measures to ensure that he’s identified as a journalist, he increases his chances of being shot. If he hangs out with OPFOR, he increases his chances of being shot.
Also, you presume that everyone follows the rules of warfare. We know that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not follow the rules of warfare.
@Timasion Im not assuming anyone follows the rules of warfare, my point is that why is it ok for us to use that logic to kill innocents and not for them. Maybe we could of identified them as journalist if we used ground troops instead of trigger happy men thinking they see weapons from a birds eye view.