0 votes

Wikileaks: Collateral Murder - Classified US Military Video Shows Indiscriminate Slaying of Dozens, Incl. Two Reuters Employees

WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

http://collateralmurder.com/

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

Thanks go to RonPaulWillNeverDie and paul4won for the helping hand.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yep.

The visual is disgusting enough, but that creep holding the camera sounds like he's...well read comments there. "CounterRevolutionary" described pretty well what it sounds like. I'll be a lady and refrain.

Almost sounds

demonic. In a couple years these types will probably get their 'enjoyment' from tazering/kicking the *^&% out of Americans for not having a National ID...

"demonic"

Yeah, Jefferson described it that way in his post. I'm gonna have to flip a coin I guess to decide between that and how "CounterRevolutionary" described it on the video link, because, sadly, they both are good descriptions.

That's

probably where I got it... I went back and looked and I remember reading that post earlier but was following the thread and forgot to go back and watch the video. I'm glad you reposted it for others to see.

um

Watch freedom to fascism and learn that corporate taxes fund the war.

um...that is like the argument about foreign aid...

"We don't support the military of xyz country...we give them money for food (so they can have more money for the military."

I can't read this full thread, but why is Chickenhawk being

tarred and feathered?

He's a soldier and he is viewing things from a soldiers perspective; and his views are going to be different.

Once you are "in country" you must take the attitude that every square inch of land you occupy you are the dominant force -- meaning anyone strolling along with RPG's or AK's is going to be dropped.

I wont argue the merrits of this war in this post because Chickenhawk does not have policy-making-power. He's a soldier (assumed).

My opinion is DPers should not harrangue soldiers over the "evils" of Fed Banking Policy and Neoconservative / Progressive Foreign Relations Policy; let's not leave out Big Pharma, Big Oil, and the Military Industrial Complex (et al) lobbying influence.

A soldier cannot "effect" decisions at that level -- he must "act" that's his role.

I agree with all of you that this war is Un-Constitutional and Un-Ethical; but let's not get all Vietnam on our soldiers, they are largely un-educated kids -- who have been trained to move forward and execute orders.

If you want to point the finger then point it at the U.S populace that are not acting as conscious-agents of liberty (mostly in terms of consumption).

1) Keeping Assets in Banks
2) Keeping Assets on Wall Street
3) Buying Corporatist (non-local) Products
4) Buying Monsanto Foods
5) Voting and Lobbying
6) Buying Pharma Drugs
7) Buying Oil and Gas

These are the main reasons we have war.

One of my extended family

One of my extended family members joined the army a few years back. I asked if he had been required to swear an oath to the Constitution, to which he answered affirmatively.

Has he ever read the Constitution? No, at least not recently. He said "that's what they teach kids in school."

Ok, so I quizzed him... and he was absolutely clueless. Completely and totally had no knowledge about the Constitution other than a few general concepts.

The same exact scenario happened with another extended family member who is a police officer. Barely any knowledge about our Constitution, yet he swore an oath to it.

These are the kinds of people we are dealing with. Those who would swear oaths and have no idea what they are swearing to.

OctoBox, I realize you train police... would you be out of line if you began giving away pocket constitutions in the course of your job?

...

John2k: All of the people I trained voted for Ron Paul

---Well all the ones I trained from 2007 forward and a few that I trained in the past.

Ron Paul received more than twice the support from Cops and Military in 2008; more than twice all other republicans combined!!!

We need these people, even in a free-society.

It's just not natural that they'd make a long career out of it -- that's because they are unionized and they can't replace the pay.

If they are injured they get half pay for the rest of their lives -- Imagine working for 15 years (going out on a back or heart or psych injury) and retiring with $30 to $45K per year. Accountants do not retire that well.

The problem is that they are paid by gov't

They start out idealistic; then realize that everyone they help hates them (given the right set of circumstances). This leads to ONLY hanging around with people in the force; in most cases having very few friends outside of it.

The divorce rate is 67%

The suicide rate is the highest for any profession and the statistics don't include "retired" cops.

Also, "on the job" cops do not hang out with "retired" cops -- the social circle ends at retirement so they stay on longer than they should.

The problem is epidemic; especially with returning soldiers willing to work for a 1/3 of the pay, yet tenure keeps the older ones on. So, what happens is that you lose the "golden cops" (still idealistic), young and strong, but only on the force for 5-7 years.

They are "canned"

So you are left with the most burnt out to train the most "desensitized" video game playing or returning Iraqi vets -- who are suffering from lack of re-world experience and serious PTSD.

We are sitting on a powder keg -- essentially.

In part you are correct...

but it is a voluntary choice to join. That is something you harp on too. Sign a contract to volunteer?...why? That's what they hold against the soldier, and that's what is also hidden behind. We are all complicit, and all responsible to find our way out.

Assert Your Authority

OctoBox,

Did you watch the video?

Jimminy: I did -- yes. I don't agree with the war (in general)

I'm not arguing the OP Thread or the Video -- I'm wondering why there's so much anger toward a soldier viewing this as a "righteous" engagement.

In the video the Apache crews "checked in" they got permission, and they executed.

Their attitude was "insensitive" -- but they were shooting people, and when you shoot people on a regular basis (this was obviously not their first time -- given their relaxed demeanor) you develop a detachment from "normalcy." From a civilian perspective.

You should hear my friend who worked in the Coroner's office talk about organ donors and how he has to cut up the body; it's horrible and his humor is morbid.

War is horrible -- It is "our" fault there is war; not the soldiers.

We buy Oil -- We buy Pharma Drugs -- We keep assets in Banks -- and we keep assets on Wall Street. Oh we pay taxes, we send our kids to public school, and buy corporatist products.

I would argue these are the main reasons there are U.S Foreign War.

I'm just saying let's not beat up the DP Soldier who is commenting on a blog; we should welcome his dialogue so we can "learn and understand" -- then "heal and convert"

Instead we drove him off -- bitter.

"I'm just saying let's not

"I'm just saying let's not beat up the DP Soldier who is commenting on a blog; we should welcome his dialogue so we can "learn and understand" -- then "heal and convert""

That's very true and makes a lot of sense.

"War is horrible -- It is "our" fault there is war; not the soldiers."

Just some food for thought here. A quote from Albert Einstein: "The Pioneers of a war less world will be the Men and Women who refuse military service"

...

John2k: Einstein was a pretty smart guy

but I think he was making a point on the necessity of "non-violence" -- young boys need warrior training and if they only ever stayed on our border, never engaged in "pre-emptive" war, and search/rescue then they'd have the "warrior feeling" and remain healthy and safe (mentally).

I see this and law enforcement being a 7 year service; after ward they'd train others or start their own business.

Not about the soldiers

This is about some specific individuals that dishonored me and everyone else in our country. We are mustly good people and good people will not allow the behavior we just saw on the video. These individuals must get prosecuted for what they did.

Crunchy: They will not be prosecuted (this is all media-fodder)

There are other photos already emerging showing that there were troops in the area; there's a Humvee up the road a few blocks from where the men with AK's and RPG were walking.

They also got permission, repeatedly. Other than their off-colored humor, it was text book.

Of course I'm against "foreign wars" -- but this is a waste of time on DP.

Also, I see a lot of "democracy now" links -- Are you guys aware of their political agenda; it's certainly not liberty.

That seems "callous" but in the time those 8 men died; 500 people have died in the states from the regular flu and 30,000 children have died from malnutrition.

We should talk about this as much as Ron Paul does (just a suggestion); he's focused on the "causitive" reason and not the symptoms, as a good doctor should.

RP handles Congress / Media and we should handle "Consumption" -- which is 3/3rds of the "evil they" revenue stream.

I wasn't talking about the war in general.

And maybe you should read his comments if you want to understand why he was not so well received.

There are other soldiers in this thread who gave perspectives that were not necessarily in agreement with the majority here, but they did not act like he did.

For example, while I don't think RP is above scrutiny, I don't think dude needed to come here calling RP a kook. http://www.dailypaul.com/node/130811#comment-1401375

Ironically, he went bellyaching about someone calling HIM names shortly after. http://www.dailypaul.com/node/130811#comment-1401397

Btw, what on earth would make you think anything about that engagement was "righteous"?

Also, for all the complaining you do about people not treating the misdeeds of military personnel or law enforcement officers individually, you seem to be taking a peculiar stance by not seeing the soldiers in that video as responsible for their actions. I'm confused.

Even in his blog post on his

Even in his blog post on his site he complains about being called names but then he proceeds to do exactly the same. I suppose he must think that he is somehow better for doing so, though.

...

Jimininy: I never said I thought it was righteous (re-read)

Also, I never took a "stance" in regard to the video; what I'm doing is trying to stop the "drive 'em out" if they disagree with us mentality that pops up from time to time here in DP.

Now if he broke a posting rule, he should be warned and then excommunicated (whatever the policy).

Before you come at me kiddo *wink* make sure you are quoting me correctly, smile.

I stand on my philosophy as a rule, but I'm not perfect; however, in this thread I made it clear where I was coming from.

Not quoting, more like taking from context...

...that you weren't exactly in disagreement about it being a "righteous" engagement if you watched the video and had to wonder why there was anger about what he was saying.

Apologies if my interpretation that you agreed with it being a righteous engagement was incorrect. But as far as the "stance", I was talking about your not seeing the soldiers in that video as responsible for their actions. You were making excuses for them.

As for us beating up on Chickenhawk and driving him off, he came in here swinging and then mouthed off calling RP a kook, a nutcase, and a conspiracy nut. Gosh OctoBox, you were awfully quick to put the blame on us and defend him when you hadn't even gone through the thread. :(

Oh, and I don't think you can call me kiddo if I'm older than you. :P

JC: How old are you? ;-)

Don't answer that.

I think you were still wearing your battle armor when I put up my post.

#1 When you first questioned me "Octobox did you watch the video" -- I said yes, but I was not addressing the OP Thread or the Video.

#2 I never said the video represented a "righteous engagement" -- I said "I'm wondering why there's so much anger toward a soldier viewing this as a "righteous" engagement."

See it's clear, smile.

DP is not about exacting opinions -- I think if he was allowed to express himself and was engaged thoughtfully, he would not of had a frustrated outburst.

I talked to him in e-mail and found him to be very intelligent; though a bit too trusting in gov't.

A year ago I spent two months chasing off the "one cop is guilty therefore all cops were guilty" emotionalists, and I don't want to see that same rationale (not saying that it is) popping up over our young men at war.

The sleeping consumer populace is why we have wars. The "evil they" have a revenue stream and we are nearly 3/3rds of it (as consumers).

All that being said -- I try to avoid "War Porn" -- it's similar to 911-Porn; eyecandy and the emotional rush of watching death is frequented by the overtly violent and passifists a like.

Ask 911-Truthers how many times they've watched the bodies falling; I mean it's all "research" right? That's what every young boy who first discovers internet porn is doing right (reeeesearch), riiiight *wink*

Let's not be "that" site.

We know war is wrong (we are all in agreeance with that) so why the War Porn -- to be informed? We all already know. Look how fast this thread rose in the ranks; if there was no footage it would of capped at around 50 posts (max).

JC

The footage just makes it real. Out of sight, out of mind. It broke my heart when I saw the kids being taken out and instead to rush them to one of our tax paid facilities, they sent them to an iraqui hospital. Almost like these kids were sub-human, a piece of meat and garbage.

He came in here looking to be

He came in here looking to be "bitter" and looking for trouble with a 50-pound chip on his shoulder.

There's no excuse for what was done in that video, period.
Nope, we shouldn't be there at all.

And the "I was just following orders", or "I was just doing my job" went down the drain at Nuremburg.
These people are to be held accountable for their actions. Every one of them, right up the chain of command to Bush and Cheney who lied us into this evil debacle.

They aren't protecting us, nor doing anything noble.
They are making everything worse, day by day, with everything they are doing.

Saddam may have called the US "the great Satan", but they are proving him right.

wolfe's picture

I agree with pretty much everything you write...

But this time is the exception...

That "soldier" is quite possibly the only one who can effect policy by choosing not to sign on the dotted line to become a state sponsored murderer. Without soldiers, the government could not wage war. It is about time that everyone, from the politicians to the soldiers start taking responsibility for their actions. And that also means us as "good tax payers".

I addressed the silliness of having a standing army for defense in a previous comment so won't re-iterate here unless you/someone asks.

I do agree with your 5 points however. So even when I disagree with you, I agree with you... :)

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Wolfe: I'm not really addressing the video here

I'm talking about DPers beating up a DP Soldier.

We need to let them talk and talk and vent.
---Then we can heal them and convert them

Ron Paul was a soldier
---He patched soldiers up

So, was Adam Kokesh

Both of them signed the "bottom line" and by putting "effort" into it they "supported" the war.

Besides we will need "warriors and soldiers" in a free-society; no need to throw the baby out with the bath water, right?

We agree that the war is un-ethical -- so was Paul's Vietnam.

Consumers have more to do with why wars happen and can more quickly (when made conscious) effect change, then can soldiers.

he

he called Dr. Paul a kook because of how some people here responded to him. he clearly was never on our side. he's just another neocon scum.

Okay Gavin -- I spoke to him in e-mail and he seems to

believe in the war; contrary to the lies the Admin told to get us there; however, I still think we need to be careful about booting people out over such a slight offense.

I just don't want to be part of absolutism.

I could be wrong

But i consider males[not men]who volunteer for an unjust war as hired murderers.yes you didnt know it was or is unjust But the rest of the world does.

BAZZA MAC

Chickenhawk

is one ignorant sick fuck. The Apache team should have whacked him and then themselves rather than innocent people.

beephree