3 ms·

The article doesn't elaborate on what "war crimes" are alleged because the video actually just shows a highly unfortunate mistake.

fit2rule 6y ago
>highly unfortunate mistake A bit like what happened to the WTC in 2001. I mean, what were they doing, navigating those buildings into the path of a couple of innocent planes, eh?
- hhfy5332 6y ago
  The US military shot a photographer and his assistant who were embedded with group of insurgents without identifying themselves as press either by their attire or by calling the US military hotline designated for just that purpose, one of whom was pointing what could be mistaken for a weapon at US Humvees, from behind cover. It's an understandable, though regrettable, mistake when you look past Assange's "collateral murder" editorializing.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    Your opinion that the murder of innocent civilians and an attack on their children is a 'regrettable, mistake' is utterly abhorrent to anyone who has watched that video and can clearly see, for themselves, that these people were absolutely NO threat to US forces in the area - who shouldn't have been there in the first damn place. Lied into a criminal war against Iraq, the American people are now complicit in the war crimes committed in their names. What is understandable, though indeed very regrettable, is the American public's general desire to not be held accountable for these crimes against humanity...
    - torstenvl 6y ago
      > Your opinion that the murder... This is circular. Your argument that this is "murder" cannot proceed from an assumption of the same. > Your opinion... is utterly abhorrent to anyone who has watched that video... I don't think personal attacks are productive. Additionally, there are wide arrays of views on this video. Your argument in support of your view appears to be based on an assumption that it is widely held and then an appeal to popularity, so it is doubly fallacious. Try making your point without assuming that everyone already agrees with you. > can clearly see, for themselves, that these people were absolutely NO threat to US forces in the area This isn't apparent from the footage; in fact the audio clearly indicates otherwise. They believed they had arms including an RPG. In any case, that isn't the legal test. Even unclassified ROE materials are clear that national self-defense is not the only lawful basis for the use of force in jus in bello.
      - fit2rule 6y ago
        The order to murder these people was given long before the camera lens was observable by those who murdered them. "They could have had a rocket launcher" is an agitprop straw man intentionally proffered in order to minimise the magnitude of the crime committed. I wonder why it is so important for you, personally, to minimise this criminal act?
  - anotheracct_ 6y ago
    Shut up bootlicker
ahelwer 6y ago
Let's consider the factors which decided the death sentence of these journalists and their companions (and so many others in the middle east): 1) They were military-age males Say you have the ability to rain death miles above at whim. Do you think "military-age male" is a robust separator of who lives and who dies? Would you fit in this category? There but for the grace of god go you. The video doesn't show a mistake at all. It shows a very deliberate action, carried out with great success. That these people were "innocent" in that some westerners cared whether they lived or died is the only reason you're here now defending their murder.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hhfy5332 6y ago
  You forgot 2) they were in an group of armed men on a battlefield and were pointing the long barrel of a telephoto lens at American Humvees from behind cover.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    There was nothing to indicate these men were insurgents beyond them being armed. The order to fire was already given before Namir pointed his camera at the humvees. One charitably supposes you wouldn't be quite so cavalier with ending the lives of those around you for similar reasons, so why are you defending it here?
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  (I'm presuming you're talking about the widely circulated video of an Apache crew firing upon the Reuters? crew. Disregard my comment if you are not.) Yes it has nothing to do with a patrol taking fire from that area and confusion over a camera one of the journalists was carrying on his shoulder. I agree it absolutely shouldn't have happened but to gloss over these facts if you have watched the video is revisionist in my opinion. Also you failed to mention the real war crime which was firing at first responders some of who were children.

fit2rule 6y ago

>highly unfortunate mistake A bit like what happened to the WTC in 2001. I mean, what were they doing, navigating those buildings into the path of a couple of innocent planes, eh?

hhfy5332 6y ago
The US military shot a photographer and his assistant who were embedded with group of insurgents without identifying themselves as press either by their attire or by calling the US military hotline designated for just that purpose, one of whom was pointing what could be mistaken for a weapon at US Humvees, from behind cover. It's an understandable, though regrettable, mistake when you look past Assange's "collateral murder" editorializing.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  Your opinion that the murder of innocent civilians and an attack on their children is a 'regrettable, mistake' is utterly abhorrent to anyone who has watched that video and can clearly see, for themselves, that these people were absolutely NO threat to US forces in the area - who shouldn't have been there in the first damn place. Lied into a criminal war against Iraq, the American people are now complicit in the war crimes committed in their names. What is understandable, though indeed very regrettable, is the American public's general desire to not be held accountable for these crimes against humanity...
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    > Your opinion that the murder... This is circular. Your argument that this is "murder" cannot proceed from an assumption of the same. > Your opinion... is utterly abhorrent to anyone who has watched that video... I don't think personal attacks are productive. Additionally, there are wide arrays of views on this video. Your argument in support of your view appears to be based on an assumption that it is widely held and then an appeal to popularity, so it is doubly fallacious. Try making your point without assuming that everyone already agrees with you. > can clearly see, for themselves, that these people were absolutely NO threat to US forces in the area This isn't apparent from the footage; in fact the audio clearly indicates otherwise. They believed they had arms including an RPG. In any case, that isn't the legal test. Even unclassified ROE materials are clear that national self-defense is not the only lawful basis for the use of force in jus in bello.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      The order to murder these people was given long before the camera lens was observable by those who murdered them. "They could have had a rocket launcher" is an agitprop straw man intentionally proffered in order to minimise the magnitude of the crime committed. I wonder why it is so important for you, personally, to minimise this criminal act?
- anotheracct_ 6y ago
  Shut up bootlicker

ahelwer 6y ago

Let's consider the factors which decided the death sentence of these journalists and their companions (and so many others in the middle east): 1) They were military-age males Say you have the ability to rain death miles above at whim. Do you think "military-age male" is a robust separator of who lives and who dies? Would you fit in this category? There but for the grace of god go you. The video doesn't show a mistake at all. It shows a very deliberate action, carried out with great success. That these people were "innocent" in that some westerners cared whether they lived or died is the only reason you're here now defending their murder.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hhfy5332 6y ago
You forgot 2) they were in an group of armed men on a battlefield and were pointing the long barrel of a telephoto lens at American Humvees from behind cover.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  There was nothing to indicate these men were insurgents beyond them being armed. The order to fire was already given before Namir pointed his camera at the humvees. One charitably supposes you wouldn't be quite so cavalier with ending the lives of those around you for similar reasons, so why are you defending it here?
Johnjonjoan 6y ago
(I'm presuming you're talking about the widely circulated video of an Apache crew firing upon the Reuters? crew. Disregard my comment if you are not.) Yes it has nothing to do with a patrol taking fire from that area and confusion over a camera one of the journalists was carrying on his shoulder. I agree it absolutely shouldn't have happened but to gloss over these facts if you have watched the video is revisionist in my opinion. Also you failed to mention the real war crime which was firing at first responders some of who were children.