Collateral damage video leaked in Iraqi

[WhenKittensATK]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2010...rder-video.html

 

This has been floating around for quite some time. I thought someone was going to post it, but no one did.

 

The footage:

(Warning: Real War content)

 

Makes you wonder, what else the military is covering up.

 

EDIT: It is said that there was only one actual weapon.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Krazyxazn

[sdy284]

i don't see this going anywhere good... but it can stay open for now

 

That being said I always find it humorous when people who have zero battlefield experience dissecting video's like this without knowing any previous events leading up to this. It goes both ways.

[WhenKittensATK]

without knowing any previous events leading up to this. It goes both ways.

 

From what I gathered posted by news sites.

 

The infantry down there were engaged in some fights (6 hour operation since 6 AM) and called in for aerial support. It was said, that area of the neighborhood had been directing machine gun fire and RPG at U.S. soldiers.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7071202357.html

 

Some responses posted by NY Times: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/...ikileaks-video/

[CAINuKe]

Asking for no collateral damage in war is like expecting to not get wet when you run in the rain.

 

From what I gathered posted by news sites.

 

The infantry down there were engaged in some fights (6 hour operation since 6 AM) and called in for aerial support. It was said, that area of the neighborhood had been directing machine gun fire and RPG at U.S. soldiers.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7071202357.html

 

Some responses posted by NY Times: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/...ikileaks-video/

 

To me it looks like your trolling.

Edited April 10, 2010 by CAINuKe

[WhenKittensATK]

It's not whether it happens or not, its how it happened.

 

The crew was anxious to shoot something obviously. The group on the ground did not show any signs of hostilities. Yea they had guns, so do many of the tribal groups. They didn't wave their guns in the air or point them at civilians or the helicopter.

[CAINuKe]

It's not whether it happens or not, its how it happened.

 

The crew was anxious to shoot something obviously. The group on the ground did not show any signs of hostilities. Yea they had guns, so do many of the tribal groups. They didn't wave their guns in the air or point them at civilians or the helicopter.

 

Back it up with other facts instead of a video

and some Anti-War propaganda.

Edited April 10, 2010 by CAINuKe

[WhenKittensATK]

That video is physical evidence. What else do you need? You can ignore the comments added by "Wikileaks" and just watch and listen.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Krazyxazn

[CAINuKe]

That video is physical evidence. What else do you need? You can ignore the comments added by "Wikileaks" and just watch and listen.

 

A video doesnt mean anything.

 

Point being.

Edited April 10, 2010 by CAINuKe

[sdy284]

From what I gathered posted by news sites.

 

The infantry down there were engaged in some fights (6 hour operation since 6 AM) and called in for aerial support. It was said, that area of the neighborhood had been directing machine gun fire and RPG at U.S. soldiers.

 

 

so the infantry calls in air support because they're taking fire... air support arrives & finds enemies with RPG's, but since they're not acting like yosemite sam & shooting in the air, they must be "good terrorists" and we'll let them go on their way, maybe they're on the way to the pawn shop to pawn those RPG's in for some basket weaving materials

[Kamikaze_Badger]

Once a solid background story is released, then I'll start forming an opinion. But, watching till 4:15ish, what the . did that journalist expect if he was poking his head around a corner with something hanging out?

[WhenKittensATK]

I'm assuming under rules of engagement you can only fire when there is threat. It's pretty common to see people carrying weapons in that part of the world. Just because they have a weapon doesn't justify shooting them without cause.

[sdy284]

The infantry down there were engaged in some fights (6 hour operation since 6 AM) and called in for aerial support. It was said, that area of the neighborhood had been directing machine gun fire and RPG at U.S. soldiers.

 

does that qualify as a threat?