Jump to content


Collateralmurder.com


Recommended Posts

Saw this story on the Yahoo front page a few hours ago, it's since been taken down: website

 

WARNING - the video in the link is extremely violent.

 

Edit: This video has to do with uncovered U.S. military footage from Iraq. The link itself does not take you directly into the footage, which is hosted on YouTube.

 

Also, please note I'm just posting the link for awareness and discussion.

Link to comment

If Reuters is going to embed reporters with Iraqi insurgents they are putting them in danger. Collateral damage will happen in any war. It's terrible . . . but not exactly unpredictable.

 

For some reason wikileaks doesn't explain what the Reuters employees are doing with a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and AK-47s . . . in an area where there were expressly no friendlies.

 

Hopefully Reuters is more prudent in the future.

Link to comment

I'm trying to think of a war that didn't have any collateral damage or kia's? :dunno

 

No kidding. I don't condone what happened here, but it's a part of war. It was far worse in the past before the days of media and journalism. Back then you could do what you want and no one would know.

Link to comment

If Reuters is going to embed reporters with Iraqi insurgents they are putting them in danger. Collateral damage will happen in any war. It's terrible . . . but not exactly unpredictable.

 

For some reason wikileaks doesn't explain what the Reuters employees are doing with a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and AK-47s . . . in an area where there were expressly no friendlies.

 

Hopefully Reuters is more prudent in the future.

 

Yeah, generally standing around guys that are armed, in a combat zone, can get you killed.

 

Stupidity hurts.

Link to comment

I haven't heard about this and I'm not about to click that link at work, but from the gist of what everyone else is saying, a Reuters reporter was killed, or witnessed killing, by US troops over in Iraq - is that it?

 

As most of the responders are saying, what would you expect? If I were a reporter covering a food fight and I stood in the middle of the fight, I'd expect to get hit by food.

Link to comment

I haven't heard about this and I'm not about to click that link at work, but from the gist of what everyone else is saying, a Reuters reporter was killed, or witnessed killing, by US troops over in Iraq - is that it?

 

As most of the responders are saying, what would you expect? If I were a reporter covering a food fight and I stood in the middle of the fight, I'd expect to get hit by food.

 

 

helicopter gun footage with audio. camera equipment mistaken for weapons, though they are in a group of people with AK-47's and a RPG. helo crew gets clearance to open fire, kill 12 total.

Link to comment

If Reuters is going to embed reporters with Iraqi insurgents they are putting them in danger. Collateral damage will happen in any war. It's terrible . . . but not exactly unpredictable.

 

For some reason wikileaks doesn't explain what the Reuters employees are doing with a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and AK-47s . . . in an area where there were expressly no friendlies.

 

Hopefully Reuters is more prudent in the future.

By "prudent" do you mean that Reuters should only show/report on the US or "winning" side of the war? Yes, death is a brutal risk for a war correspondent, and anyone else caught in the cross-fire, but to infer that someone can obtain objective war coverage by staying with the "friendlies" is downright silly. Besides, are there not "friendlies" for the Iraqis?

 

IMHO, this type of stuff needs to be reported more often so that people can witness the real effects and damages of war, instead of the flag waving, supposed "liberty" providing, smart bomb propaganda that is regurgitated over and over on the airwaves. The more this stuff is shown, the less likely people will be to support those who are willing and able to send others marching off to cause and suffer this type of damage.

Link to comment

If Reuters is going to embed reporters with Iraqi insurgents they are putting them in danger. Collateral damage will happen in any war. It's terrible . . . but not exactly unpredictable.

 

For some reason wikileaks doesn't explain what the Reuters employees are doing with a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and AK-47s . . . in an area where there were expressly no friendlies.

 

Hopefully Reuters is more prudent in the future.

By "prudent" do you mean that Reuters should only show/report on the US or "winning" side of the war? Yes, death is a brutal risk for a war correspondent, and anyone else caught in the cross-fire, but to infer that someone can obtain objective war coverage by staying with the "friendlies" is downright silly. Besides, are there not "friendlies" for the Iraqis?

 

IMHO, this type of stuff needs to be reported more often so that people can witness the real effects and damages of war, instead of the flag waving, supposed "liberty" providing, smart bomb propaganda that is regurgitated over and over on the airwaves. The more this stuff is shown, the less likely people will be to support those who are willing and able to send others marching off to cause and suffer this type of damage.

Wow. How did you come up with that? I'm at a loss as to how you could even begin to infer that from my post.

 

By more prudent I meant that Reuters shouldn't send reporters out with insurgency groups and then complain that those reporters were killed because they were standing near insurgents carrying AKs and RPGs.

 

Sometimes I wonder about you . . .

Link to comment

If Reuters is going to embed reporters with Iraqi insurgents they are putting them in danger. Collateral damage will happen in any war. It's terrible . . . but not exactly unpredictable.

 

For some reason wikileaks doesn't explain what the Reuters employees are doing with a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and AK-47s . . . in an area where there were expressly no friendlies.

 

Hopefully Reuters is more prudent in the future.

By "prudent" do you mean that Reuters should only show/report on the US or "winning" side of the war? Yes, death is a brutal risk for a war correspondent, and anyone else caught in the cross-fire, but to infer that someone can obtain objective war coverage by staying with the "friendlies" is downright silly. Besides, are there not "friendlies" for the Iraqis?

 

IMHO, this type of stuff needs to be reported more often so that people can witness the real effects and damages of war, instead of the flag waving, supposed "liberty" providing, smart bomb propaganda that is regurgitated over and over on the airwaves. The more this stuff is shown, the less likely people will be to support those who are willing and able to send others marching off to cause and suffer this type of damage.

Wow. How did you come up with that? I'm at a loss as to how you could even begin to infer that from my post.

 

By more prudent I meant that Reuters shouldn't send reporters out with insurgency groups and then complain that those reporters were killed because they were standing near insurgents carrying AKs and RPGs.

 

Sometimes I wonder about you . . .

So, I inferred correctly. How is saying that they shouldn't send reporters in with the supposed "insurgents" any different then what I wrote?

 

...and you wonder about me? Seriously?

Link to comment

If Reuters is going to embed reporters with Iraqi insurgents they are putting them in danger. Collateral damage will happen in any war. It's terrible . . . but not exactly unpredictable.

 

For some reason wikileaks doesn't explain what the Reuters employees are doing with a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and AK-47s . . . in an area where there were expressly no friendlies.

 

Hopefully Reuters is more prudent in the future.

By "prudent" do you mean that Reuters should only show/report on the US or "winning" side of the war? Yes, death is a brutal risk for a war correspondent, and anyone else caught in the cross-fire, but to infer that someone can obtain objective war coverage by staying with the "friendlies" is downright silly. Besides, are there not "friendlies" for the Iraqis?

 

IMHO, this type of stuff needs to be reported more often so that people can witness the real effects and damages of war, instead of the flag waving, supposed "liberty" providing, smart bomb propaganda that is regurgitated over and over on the airwaves. The more this stuff is shown, the less likely people will be to support those who are willing and able to send others marching off to cause and suffer this type of damage.

Wow. How did you come up with that? I'm at a loss as to how you could even begin to infer that from my post.

 

By more prudent I meant that Reuters shouldn't send reporters out with insurgency groups and then complain that those reporters were killed because they were standing near insurgents carrying AKs and RPGs.

 

Sometimes I wonder about you . . .

So, I inferred correctly. How is saying that they shouldn't send reporters in with the supposed "insurgents" any different then what I wrote?

 

...and you wonder about me? Seriously?

If you want to interview insurgents and cover their side of the war safely (if such a thing is possible) then do it privately when there are no weapons around. If you stand in a group of insurgents in an open courtyard when said insurgents are ARMED and even point RPGs at the opponents' helicopter . . . well you shouldn't be too surprised when you end up dead. Don't complain about how the opposing side is a bunch of meanies when they attack armed enemies during a shooting war. With me?

Link to comment

If Reuters is going to embed reporters with Iraqi insurgents they are putting them in danger. Collateral damage will happen in any war. It's terrible . . . but not exactly unpredictable.

 

For some reason wikileaks doesn't explain what the Reuters employees are doing with a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and AK-47s . . . in an area where there were expressly no friendlies.

 

Hopefully Reuters is more prudent in the future.

By "prudent" do you mean that Reuters should only show/report on the US or "winning" side of the war? Yes, death is a brutal risk for a war correspondent, and anyone else caught in the cross-fire, but to infer that someone can obtain objective war coverage by staying with the "friendlies" is downright silly. Besides, are there not "friendlies" for the Iraqis?

 

IMHO, this type of stuff needs to be reported more often so that people can witness the real effects and damages of war, instead of the flag waving, supposed "liberty" providing, smart bomb propaganda that is regurgitated over and over on the airwaves. The more this stuff is shown, the less likely people will be to support those who are willing and able to send others marching off to cause and suffer this type of damage.

Wow. How did you come up with that? I'm at a loss as to how you could even begin to infer that from my post.

 

By more prudent I meant that Reuters shouldn't send reporters out with insurgency groups and then complain that those reporters were killed because they were standing near insurgents carrying AKs and RPGs.

 

Sometimes I wonder about you . . .

So, I inferred correctly. How is saying that they shouldn't send reporters in with the supposed "insurgents" any different then what I wrote?

 

...and you wonder about me? Seriously?

If you want to interview insurgents and cover their side of the war safely (if such a thing is possible) then do it privately when there are no weapons around. If you stand in a group of insurgents in an open courtyard when said insurgents are ARMED and even point RPGs at the opponents' helicopter . . . well you shouldn't be too surprised when you end up dead. Don't complain about how the opposing side is a bunch of meanies when they attack armed enemies during a shooting war. With me?

No, I'm not with you. I watched the video several times and never once saw anyone point any AK's or RPG's at the helos. Maybe I missed it or maybe it was one of the kids in the van or the guys picking up the bodies? They seemed pretty hostile to me. :sarcasm Or better yet, did it ever occur to you that maybe the helo shouldn't have even been there to begin with? Oh my god, what a novel idea, let's resolve conflict without violence. Let's allow individual's to live their own lives and make their own choices.

 

Violence does not resolve violence, no matter how hard you may will it to. So, get off your holier then though, expressway to scare tactics, coercive monopoly pedestal and take a look at the effects of the things you advocate. Ask yourself, is that moral? Is that just? Is that beneficial? When you answer no to all three, maybe it's time to change your philosophy.

Link to comment

If Reuters is going to embed reporters with Iraqi insurgents they are putting them in danger. Collateral damage will happen in any war. It's terrible . . . but not exactly unpredictable.

 

For some reason wikileaks doesn't explain what the Reuters employees are doing with a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and AK-47s . . . in an area where there were expressly no friendlies.

 

Hopefully Reuters is more prudent in the future.

By "prudent" do you mean that Reuters should only show/report on the US or "winning" side of the war? Yes, death is a brutal risk for a war correspondent, and anyone else caught in the cross-fire, but to infer that someone can obtain objective war coverage by staying with the "friendlies" is downright silly. Besides, are there not "friendlies" for the Iraqis?

 

IMHO, this type of stuff needs to be reported more often so that people can witness the real effects and damages of war, instead of the flag waving, supposed "liberty" providing, smart bomb propaganda that is regurgitated over and over on the airwaves. The more this stuff is shown, the less likely people will be to support those who are willing and able to send others marching off to cause and suffer this type of damage.

Wow. How did you come up with that? I'm at a loss as to how you could even begin to infer that from my post.

 

By more prudent I meant that Reuters shouldn't send reporters out with insurgency groups and then complain that those reporters were killed because they were standing near insurgents carrying AKs and RPGs.

 

Sometimes I wonder about you . . .

So, I inferred correctly. How is saying that they shouldn't send reporters in with the supposed "insurgents" any different then what I wrote?

 

...and you wonder about me? Seriously?

If you want to interview insurgents and cover their side of the war safely (if such a thing is possible) then do it privately when there are no weapons around. If you stand in a group of insurgents in an open courtyard when said insurgents are ARMED and even point RPGs at the opponents' helicopter . . . well you shouldn't be too surprised when you end up dead. Don't complain about how the opposing side is a bunch of meanies when they attack armed enemies during a shooting war. With me?

No, I'm not with you. I watched the video several times and never once saw anyone point any AK's or RPG's at the helos. Maybe I missed it or maybe it was one of the kids in the van or the guys picking up the bodies? They seemed pretty hostile to me. :sarcasm Or better yet, did it ever occur to you that maybe the helo shouldn't have even been there to begin with? Oh my god, what a novel idea, let's resolve conflict without violence. Let's allow individual's to live their own lives and make their own choices.

 

Violence does not resolve violence, no matter how hard you may will it to. So, get off your holier then though, expressway to scare tactics, coercive monopoly pedestal and take a look at the effects of the things you advocate. Ask yourself, is that moral? Is that just? Is that beneficial? When you answer no to all three, maybe it's time to change your philosophy.

Same sh#t, different day, eh SOCAL? We weren't discussing the reasoning behind the war . . . or even the justness of the war. I guess if you can't win an argument you can always shift the discussion. Enough with the scare tactics card. Your whole deck is scare tactics . . . just read your last paragraph. I think your biggest problem is that you are unable to differentiate between philosophy and reality.

Link to comment

If Reuters is going to embed reporters with Iraqi insurgents they are putting them in danger. Collateral damage will happen in any war. It's terrible . . . but not exactly unpredictable.

 

For some reason wikileaks doesn't explain what the Reuters employees are doing with a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and AK-47s . . . in an area where there were expressly no friendlies.

 

Hopefully Reuters is more prudent in the future.

By "prudent" do you mean that Reuters should only show/report on the US or "winning" side of the war? Yes, death is a brutal risk for a war correspondent, and anyone else caught in the cross-fire, but to infer that someone can obtain objective war coverage by staying with the "friendlies" is downright silly. Besides, are there not "friendlies" for the Iraqis?

 

IMHO, this type of stuff needs to be reported more often so that people can witness the real effects and damages of war, instead of the flag waving, supposed "liberty" providing, smart bomb propaganda that is regurgitated over and over on the airwaves. The more this stuff is shown, the less likely people will be to support those who are willing and able to send others marching off to cause and suffer this type of damage.

Wow. How did you come up with that? I'm at a loss as to how you could even begin to infer that from my post.

 

By more prudent I meant that Reuters shouldn't send reporters out with insurgency groups and then complain that those reporters were killed because they were standing near insurgents carrying AKs and RPGs.

 

Sometimes I wonder about you . . .

So, I inferred correctly. How is saying that they shouldn't send reporters in with the supposed "insurgents" any different then what I wrote?

 

...and you wonder about me? Seriously?

If you want to interview insurgents and cover their side of the war safely (if such a thing is possible) then do it privately when there are no weapons around. If you stand in a group of insurgents in an open courtyard when said insurgents are ARMED and even point RPGs at the opponents' helicopter . . . well you shouldn't be too surprised when you end up dead. Don't complain about how the opposing side is a bunch of meanies when they attack armed enemies during a shooting war. With me?

No, I'm not with you. I watched the video several times and never once saw anyone point any AK's or RPG's at the helos. Maybe I missed it or maybe it was one of the kids in the van or the guys picking up the bodies? They seemed pretty hostile to me. :sarcasm Or better yet, did it ever occur to you that maybe the helo shouldn't have even been there to begin with? Oh my god, what a novel idea, let's resolve conflict without violence. Let's allow individual's to live their own lives and make their own choices.

 

Violence does not resolve violence, no matter how hard you may will it to. So, get off your holier then though, expressway to scare tactics, coercive monopoly pedestal and take a look at the effects of the things you advocate. Ask yourself, is that moral? Is that just? Is that beneficial? When you answer no to all three, maybe it's time to change your philosophy.

Same sh#t, different day, eh SOCAL? We weren't discussing the reasoning behind the war . . . or even the justness of the war. I guess if you can't win an argument you can always shift the discussion. Enough with the scare tactics card. Your whole deck is scare tactics . . . just read your last paragraph. I think your biggest problem is that you are unable to differentiate between philosophy and reality.

No, the problem is that your philosophy cannot work in reality. It has been attempted a million times and has failed every single time. You somehow believe that employing a coercive monopoly, even a limtied one, to control individuals, will somehow make you both safe and prosperous, however that is and always will be impossible.

 

Besides, how is it that you consider morality, justice and beneficial actions to be scare tactics? You lost me there.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...