Sqrl said:
First: Those contract soldiers report their location to the military as they move about the theatre (in fact I think journalist are required to report as well when they aren't embedded - so this might be where a mistake was made), which is why early in the video they are confirming that they have no friendlies in the area and are told by the ground troops that they have nobody to the east of them (iirc it was east, might have been another direction). Additionally those contract soldiers do not use AK47s. Second: It is not entirely clear they mistook the camera specifically for a gun. The fact that there are other guns there means we don't know if they were focusing on the camera and thinking it to be a gun or if they were looking at what others were holding. As for why they would walk around in the open with guns? From what I've seen they do it quite regularly, so while I can't answer why they do it, as best I know they do in fact do it. Just the fact that it didn't seem at all odd to the military personel is enough for me to give them the benefit of the doubt on that point. Third, the bolded part. As I've already gone over there are plenty of justifications they could have for attacking the second time. I agree those justifications are much more suspect than they are for the first attack but the fact is there are still justifications and they did get a second command clearance to fire. It may seem that in hindisght it was unecessary, but that is hindsight and frankly I think it's disgusting to judge them with information we have the luxury of knowing after the fact, information about who they were, who was with them, and what they were donig etc...You know information that they simply didn't have at the time. For instance, we know they were helping a journalist and not a terrorist, they had no idea. We know there were children in the van, they had no idea. Which by the way, I find your assertion that "the two children could easily be seen in the mini-van" is absolute nonsense. You didn't see it until the video pointed it out to you, and the people who made the video only saw it because they were explicitly looking for it and because of the reports they read on the incident after the fact that told them the children were retrieved from the front seat of the van. Fourth, the soldiers weren't at all trigger happy to kill civilians. They were trigger happy to kill armed men who were in the area where US troops had just been fired upon. Upstanding citizens don't wander the streets with AKs - their assumption that they were insurgents is hardly far-fetched. All they know is that the van arrived quickly and started helping a man that was at the very least associating with armed insurgents. This assessment had to be made in a short timespan and it had to be made correctly or the men and women relying on this individual could have died. It may be the case that he was wrong here (on the first attack i don't think he was, but the second probably he was), but second guessing the decision with the luxury of additional information that he simply didn't have in order to demonize the man is pretty awful in its own right, particularly given that we have the luxury of additional time and additional facts with which to get it right.
|
You are seriously brainwashed. First, there was only 1 guy that had a gun, no else. And in a crowd full of unarmed people, they decided to just kill them all instead of that one guy.
What the US forces did was against the rules of engagement. They did not use minimal force necessary. They killed unarmed men. They killed wounded and downed men. They killed good people that tried to rescue an injured person. They did not even have the decency to take the children they've seriously wounded to the hospital, and just laughed at the kids. Fuck anyone that even remotely protects these assholes.
Everything they've done was AGAINST the rules of engagement. Why do you think the US govermenment tried to stop Wikileaks.org from releasing this video?
