Wikileaks reports: "slaying of over a dozen people including two Reuters reporters"

[Mentor]

I posted this to my buzz, but was surprised to see no mention of it here yet. The video is very graphic and is not linked directly by my post, I've attempted to keep it as objective and fact based as possible, but it may not be entirely accurate, Its a deeply worrying state of affairs, which possibly more worryingly has been almost totally obscured by the Ipad and tiger woods in a lot of mainstream media. (sorry if title is misleading, i hadn't enough letters to explain fully)

----

A few hours back WikiLeaks leaked a video to the internet, which it claims is 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." to quote the accompanying website http://collateralmurder.com/ (the website also includes the leaked footage)

After hitting the web the footage almost immediately went viral, taking the 4 top spots on reddit and has just now started appearing on mainstream new sites such as the bbc.

Its also probably important to note, that rather than the shock value of the clip itself, reportedly wikileaks real aim was to highlight the cover up of this event which happened back in 2007, which at the time was reported as:
"According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed."
According to ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/wo...ast/13iraq.htm )

So far I'm not entirely sure what to make of it all, and will probably hold off forming any final judgements till the mainstream media's rather more formidable fact checkers have gone over the details and determined whether or not the clip is entirely accurate. (thus my attempt to keep this neutral and fact oriented as possible)

All i can say is that if it is, its deeply worrying. What are your thoughts?

My original post:
http://www.google.com/buzz/thybag/C6TC83kGc5X/

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/wo...ast/13iraq.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8603938.stm
http://collateralmurder.com/

[Hitman]

I saw it on the BBC so I went to WikiLeaks to watch. Terrible. I can understand the soliders concerns, because one guy looked like he had some sort of gun and the other looked like he had an RPG (but it was the camera or something). However, I don't think that can justify what they did. They weren't being attacked, but of course they can't sit there and wait to be attacked... if it was an RPG then they'd be in trouble. On the other side, like I said, it doesn't justify them killing. They should have flown to a safer distance and sent in ground support or something to deal with them and make sure they were/n't insurgents.

I really disliked the way they were talking, as if they were playing Call of Duty and those peoples lives didn't matter. Reminds me of a friendly fire incident that I once saw on YouTube.

[Kieran]

Is it me or are both websites down?

[Hitman]

Is it me or are both websites down?

WikiLeaks was slow, probably due to this.

[jrh2002]

Maybe the people should have built some bomb shelters and kept their heads down and not much sympathy for any journalists who risk their life to get a story look at those who were killed a while back because they were trying to rescue some stupid reporters who got themselves in to difficulties.

[Adamm]

I'll just copy and paste this here. It's from the other thread.

I'd like to say, after watching this video and studying things/reading up on things. Within the group of people that Saeed was in, one was carrying an RPG and another an AK 47. I'd just like to balance this out a bit. I'm not saying what the soliders did was justified because it wasn't - espeically when the van came. That was dispicable behaviour. There were no weapons on show and no threat to anyone when the van arrived. There were children in the van as well noted AFTER the pointless violence.

The first shootings were fine. They were justified. You don't carry RPG's and AK 47's around the streets with you in the middle of an Anglo-East war. You're asking for it. The way that the soliders speak to each other is fine as well. After all, they're in a war and they're not going to talk to their enemies as if they're best of pals. It's like going up to the school bully and telling him he's pretty or whatever. You're going to cuss.

What I can't defend in their speech, however, is the following:

"Maybe he has a weapon in his hand?" Assumptions should be backed up by visual aids.

"Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into battle" No. The van had nothing to do with the initial shootings and or gang of people and should never of been fired upon in the first place.

All in all, this is everyday stuff in the middle east blown WAY out of proportion by lazy journalists, especially Wikileaks.

I advise you all to research further into this case especially this: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/0...ateral-murder/.

Thanks, and let's try and get rid of lazy journalism because things like this happen.



Another note: I am not pro-war. I am anti-war. Especially this pointless war.

[alexxxxx]

i thought it was dreadful they shot at them trying to take the injured away.

[Nixt]

I would be the first to criticise the Americans if I thought there was anything to criticise. However I do not feel that their initial response to the perceived threat was at all wrong. It did indeed look as if they were carrying weapons, and when someone on the ground appears to be carrying an RPG and peers around the corner as if checking the coast is clear, one is going to assume they are preparing for attack. I think when you are in that situation a lot of people would do the same.

Nevertheless I do not feel their actions in regard to the van were at all justified. No one appeared to be carrying weapons, they were merely removing the bodies. I believe their actions in this instance were driven by the fact that they feared the individuals recovering the bodies may also recover the weapons and do damage elsewhere - therefore they would be justified in taking action. At the time they took action, however, they did not attempt to recover what was perceived as weaponry and therefore should not have taken action, in my opinion.

What you must understand that war is war, although the people on the ground do not appear to be preparing to fight anyone the soldiers did have a right to engage them pre-emptively so as to prevent those weapons being used against coalition forces in the future. It's a tough one when civilians die, and I don't think any soldier would get pleasure out of killing a civilian, but when you think you are doing your job you cannot blame them. It's unfortunate, but a reality of war.