Honestly, that's just seeing what you want to see. That looks like a camera tripod to me.
Again, I ask you if they found a camera tripod at the site? And why would the military pilots have ever assumed that was a camera tripod? They saw what were clearly weapons. Why would they then assume that another long weapon-looking item was an innocent camera tripod? Your argument is utterly ludicrous. They had no indication from anyone that there were photographers in the area. So why would you expect them to assume that might be a camera tripod and hold fire with US soldiers just a 100 meters away taking fire from that general area?
Again, however, the salient points are 1) the okay for firing came before anyone in the video mentions an RPG--they say "weapons,"
No, the salient point is SO WHAT? They were ordered to fire because they saw weapons, not because they saw an RPG. Seeing an RPG only increased the urgency to fire. You can hear that increased urgency in the voices on the tape when they see what they think is an RPG. The weapons they saw were in an area from which US forces had been taking fire all day. It's as simple as that. Those weapons posed an immediate threat to US forces who were only 100 meters away, especially given the suspicious behavior of those carrying the weapons. It's as simple as that. The Rules Of Engagement say nothing about seeing an RPG before being permitted to engage. So why do you keep focusing on the RPG as if the ROE requires one see one before engaging? It's the same dishonesty that Assange tried to promote.
and 2) the rules of engagement, so far as I can find, you're welcome to submit others, require "hostile acts."
No, they do not. They require a "hostile act"
OR "hostile INTENT". Soldiers have the right to self defense, and in this case their lives were clearly threatened by armed people who should not have been there from an area where those soldiers had received enemy fire. The Rules Of Engagement require exactly what I posted to you ... a post you simply chose to ignore after demanding a statement from me of what the ROE were at the time so we could discuss them. And by those rules, the military units in this case clearly acted properly. Why do you persist in this, TraneWreck? Do you hate America even more than Assange appears to hate it? Do you hate it so much you'd destroy your own credibility on this forum?
At no point in that entire video is any American remotely threatened.
LIAR.
In the least, it was unclear what the people were holding (RPG vs. tripod)
First, insurgents carrying AKs is sufficient by itself to necessitate action. Whether one of the weapons was an RPG or a tripod has nothing to do with the order to fire. And why would any of the soldiers have thought they carried a tripod anyway? There were no reports that reporters were in the area? There was no effort by the cameramen to make the soldiers aware they were cameramen. Nor are reporters who choose to join groups of terrorists immune from the consequences of doing so. Furthermore, it is a known fact that Iraqi insurgents themselves carried camera equipment to film their own activities. The journalists did something stupid and unfortunately paid for it with their lives. Stupidity can be lethal on a battlefield.
That looks like a camera tripod to me.
Again, I ask you if they found a camera tripod at the site? And again, why would the military pilots have assumed that was a camera tripod in this case? They saw what were clearly weapons. Why would they assume this object was not? They had no indication from anyone that there were photographers in the area. So why would you expect them to just assume that might be a camera tripod and hold fire? Your logic is absolutely silly. You are embarrassing yourself now. Let go. Stop digging the hole.
Again, however, the salient points are 1) the okay for firing came before anyone in the video mentions an RPG--they say "weapons,"
Again, the salient point is SO WHAT? They were ordered to fire because they saw weapons (not RPGs), those weapons were in an area from which US forces had been taking fire all day, those weapons posed an immediate threat to US forces who were only 100 meters away, and because of the suspicious behavior of those carrying the weapons. And the ROE says nothing about requiring that one see an RPG before engaging. So why do you keep posting like it does?
and 2) the rules of engagement, so far as I can find, you're welcome to submit others, require "hostile acts."
No, they do not. They require a "hostile act"
OR "hostile INTENT". Soldiers have the right to self defense, and in this case their lives were clearly threatened by armed people in an area from where those soldiers had been receiving enemy fire. The Rules Of Engagement require exactly what I posted to you in an earlier post ... a post you simply chose to ignore after demanding a statement from me of what the ROE were at the time before you'd discuss this further. And by those rules, the military units in this case clearly acted properly. And you are clearly now trying to simply ignore me. Why do you hate America so much that you persist in this even at the cost of your credibility, TraneWreck?
At no point in that entire video is any American remotely threatened.
LIAR.
, and the result was the death of reporters, innocent citizens, and children.
None of whom were identified or seen before the engagement and none of whom should have been there, given the presense of insurgents.
TraneWreck, you earlier claimed they found the RPGs in the van. Now obviously, you simply made that claim up since you apparently aren't going to fulfill my request to show us your source for that claim. But suppose it were true like you *believe*? What would children be doing in a van with RPGs? Care to answer that? Hmmmmm?
Attempts to find an excuse for why in happened are ridiculous.
No, it's your spinning to defend Assange's lies, the irresponsible actions of Reuters journalists and your support of insurgents who posed a clear threat to American soldiers that day that has gotten ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous. You just don't know when to stop digging, do you?
Whether mistake or common procedure, the video shows the stupidity and pointlessness of that conflict.
Tell that to the insurgents who (if we were to believe you) were driving around with children in a van with RPGs. Is that how the insurgents managed to get through checkpoints? By acting like an innocent family and using small children (girls, no less) as cover? Hmmmmmm?
That van is clearly the same van that was seen driving by the attack location as the insurgents approached and gathered behind the building. And its showing up so soon after the attack, proves that van was clearly there to take away any wounded who might have resulted from an attack on the American forces by those insurgents. It's too bad the children were hurt, but that's what sometimes happens when you have to fight terrorists who will bring children to a battle as a shield. They are the ones you should be complaining about. But you aren't. So telling.
Flying around on a helicopter and mowing down anyone who looks suspicious
Which of course is not AT ALL what happened. But you go on digging the hole for your credibility, TraneWreck. You're making this thread one worth keeping.
