What's even crazier than these richeouse Internet opinons. the only reason that we can type this crap is cause people give there lives American lives to keep the invading forces at bay. So you can be in your litte secure area and say "mean Americans", America has provided you and your parents, grand pareants, great grand parents with freedom...for years so you can feel sorry for the journalist and express it to all of us in this forum (not you Lombardo...generalizing) Let all have a moment of silence for the journalist who was willingly in a hostile area fratenizing with opposing forces of our freedom The children who were in the van that had no contol of the situation or wether they were there or not ending up in critical condition in very tragic though.
Here's something that has been alluded to, but no one has clearly stated: The video on Wikileaks...well...it's not exactly basic reportage. It's opinion. I'll state that again: OPINION. It's shaping opinion, and that's the very purpose. Consider the idea that what turns out to be a camera is "clearly" a camera. Clear to whom? Clear to those that know it to be a camera after the fact, which the marines in this case did not know as they were hovering in their helicopters several stories above ground in what was still a war zone. Ask yourself: if this video were shown without you knowing beforehand that these were journalists, and that they were carrying camera equipment, would you think this to be anything other than insurgents being fired upon? What you know beforehand, or rather what is told to you beforehand shapes your view on the situation. Now, I'm not justifying this at all. Merely stating that this is shaped opinionated journalism, and so "grain of salt" and all that. May be entirely accurate, but still shaped, molded. Look at the example of the two children taken to the Iraqi police to be taken to the local hospital. The video states this could make medical care worse, etc., etc., but WHY was that decision made. Were the two children at death's door? Was there a political component to the decision based on not putting more US and coalition lives in danger? What was the CONTEXT of the decision? The video does not ask these things, which any good bit of reporting would do, but instead OPINES. As for the language...well, while horrid, these aren't boy scouts. These are soldiers. Testosterone plays into this, as does the human need to "puff up one's chest" when facing high stress situations. Salty and even cold language is a tool in this case. Perhaps that's what happened here as far as the language is concerned. Or maybe not. Maybe they were just pricks. But to judge without ALL of the facts, including what the thinking process was by those in the air and on the ground is to SHAPE news rather than REPORT on it.
Spiff, By far one of the most intelligent things to have ever been said on the TA forums... Being a Marine myself, I can say things can get very confusing very quickly over there and mistakes are made.. My only issue with this whole fiasco is the amount of work put into blocking the release of this video by the Pentagon... If it was truly a mistake then we need to own up to it, and not try and cover it up, it only makes us look worse now regardless of how and why it happened...
Regardless of whether they thought it was a camera or an RPG (and I can definitely buy the confusion in the heat of the action), the video shows a clear breakdown in the rules of engagement (and in the case of the second barrage that targeted wounded individuals and those who were helping them, a potential war crime). US Forces are supposed to open fire on suspected militants only when they believe there's a direct threat to their safety or those of civilians. (This according to military experts who have been covering the story.) Standard procedure when dealing with suspected militants is to capture them and hold them for interrogation -- firing indiscriminately (as is clearly shown in the video) is not only inhumane, it's also counterproductive to the military effort. Sure, we can come up with reasons why the specific soldiers involved are less culpable that the video suggests. Heck, we can even shrug our shoulders and say "shit happens," or "that's war." But that's to deny that in many way we Americans created the circumstances that allowed for this tragedy to happen. It also ignores the obvious fact that this video is but the tip of the iceberg; as has been documented by many brave journalists (who are apparently guilty of "fraternizing with the enemy," according to triple-apple) the same kind of incident still takes place with depressing frequency in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let me get this straight, x3Apple dude is trying to say we shouldn't be offended by the video because there's a very slight chance the people being brutally murdered may once have filmed someone else dying. Fair enough. Going by that rule, we can't for definite say 9/11 was a bad thing because no one here can prove to me that every single person in those buildings wasn't secretly sneaking out of their house late at night to kidnap babies and make them into pies. Anyone else wanna continue the topic of nonsensical reasoning?
US troops seem too be pretty trigger happy. There are idiots in every army, but due to the amount of US soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan, the number of idiots is increased. I remember when an American helicopter pilot opened fire on British soldiers, how on earth did they mistake British soldiers for taliban? I mean, it's not exactly hard to distinguish between a helmet and a turban.
It's called variable change and in the case of warfare and media you should account for it. Next time you quote me make sure you read my post correctly. Because a lot of spin could have been put on that. We wern't there so I can consider many possibilities especially coming out of that area. Don't dumb down my posts just to fit your way of thinking. Leave my logic alone if you don't agree with it
I read a few on triplesquares posts and, it seems like you're justifying this with ifs and buts and shitty advice usually attributed to common sense. You're saying that it was okay for these dumbasses to fire upon these journalists because the MAY have video taped a mass slaughter. You also said that the terrorists who plant roadside bombs don't care if they hurt Iraqis or Americans, so these soldiers should've been allowed to shoot these people. There's a reason they're called terrorists. You're basically defended these troop's actions against everything.
I didn't say it was ok or justify a damn thing. All I'm saying is none of us were there so none of us should pass judgment by what media of all sources tells us. Plain and simple.
