[KEEP IT CIVIL] Wikileaks release Video of the murder of Iraqi civilians

Dara Robinson

Initially, for those of you that don't know who or what Wikileaks is have a look at this (If you know who they are skip down to underneath the brake marked with ======)

Here is their website. Unfortunately, due to a funding issue, their website has been stripped back completely and is currently only one page we only a few of their leaks. Normally their entire database of 2 years worth of scoops (Said to be more than the Washington Post has had in 30 years) would be available to view.


==============================

So back to what the point of this is thread. In a very uncharacteristic way WikiLeaks, who normally throw up leaks as soon as they have them, have announced a press release into the future (which was today at 16:00 UTC) and invited the worlds press to come and view a video. Initially they did not release what it was about but they have sent out info bit by bit and now has been revealed as the murder of Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists.

The videos are on Youtube now and clearly show civilians and Journnalists being targetted but US Air Forces.

Shortened Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Full Unedited Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik


WARNING, VIDEO SHOWS PEOPLE BEING KILLED!! Do not watch if you do not want to see this.

recylingbin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3C_wLCZ18M

Read this a few days ago.. Gives a bit of a backdrop to the trouble they're getting over it.

http://www.alternet.org/news/146275/intelligence_agencies_allegedly_going_to_extremes_to_suppress_video_confirming_pentagon_massacre_cover-up_

Biggins

Deeply disappointing that accidental deaths should happen but there is one thing to remember:

When the modern forces kill innocents, they see it as a unforgivable sad mistake (irrespective of how their agencies handle it later)
When the Taliban kill innocents, they see it as an immediate murdering victory!

Its all about perspective!

* I am NOT justifying what the Americans might have done or did later.

Sheeps

Can't wait to play this level in Modern Warfare 3.

The Aussie

I might grab my coat before the whipping boy of the week "Islam" has to drop his pants for another AH spanking, whats the bet this one turns nasty...

Yakult

jaysus

My name is URL

Biggins wrote: »

Deeply disappointing that accidental deaths should happen but there is one thing to remember:

When the modern forces kill innocents, they see it as a unforgivable sad mistake (irrespective of how their agencies handle it later)
When the Taliban kill innocents, they see it as an immediate murdering victory!

Its all about perspective!

* I am NOT justifying what the Americans might have done or did later.

When the Taliban target innocents, the rest of the world sees it and treats it as terrorism. The US are carrying out the exact thing that they're supposed to be at war against, and in doing so they're perpetuating the whole thing. They need a common enemy, and they're driving people to become enemies

Biggins

Been keeping an eye on Wikileaks for months now hoping they would get back up and running.
Disappointing that so far they haven't but can understand why.

Make sure to keep watching.. There's more after 9mins in.


Disgusting!

Mark200

Biggins wrote: »

Deeply disappointing that accidental deaths should happen but there is one thing to remember:

When the modern forces kill innocents, they see it as a unforgivable sad mistake (irrespective of how their agencies handle it later)
When the Taliban kill innocents, they see it as an immediate murdering victory!

Its all about perspective!

* I am NOT justifying what the Americans might have done or did later.

I don't think the Taliban see it as targeting civilians - they see it as targeting those who are allowing America to do what they do.

Biggins

Mark200 wrote: »

I don't think the Taliban see it as targeting civilians - they see it as targeting those who are allowing America to do what they do.

They let off bombs at queues, street markets, etc - what have they got to do with allowing America to do what they do?

Sheeps

By the way, don't bother watching the shorter version. They completely leave out the bit where the troops are on the ground counting the number of weapons and rpg war heads there are all over the place.

sock puppet

Mark200 wrote: »

I don't think the Taliban see it as targeting civilians - they see it as targeting those who are allowing America to do what they do.

By doing what exactly? Having the audacity to live in Iraq?

Dara Robinson

The most disturbing thing for me is how little work was put into working out who their "targets" were and what they were doing. On the video they clearly state that there are no troops in the area so why so quick to hit them?

In a few of the shots you can clearly see the camera zoom in much more than they did and could have probably told them that there were cameras and not guns. As a Photographer (well trying to be anyways lol) myself I could clearly identify them as cameras and lenses but you cant expect the US army to know as much as I would but still a little more work would have insured no one was killed. And the most disturbing thing was the van... how they can justify attacking a van of what looked to me to be clearly civilians helping the wounded and again if they bothered to check who was in the van and zoom in more they should have seen 2 small people (ie the children) sitting clearly one in front of the other in the passenger seat looking out the window.

I don't get it, no intelligence or reason for them looking there other than someone noticed a van pulling up to a Mosque initially. So why the need to jump in and kill everyone in sight? No one on their side at risk as there was no one in the area... Depressing that they don't train their men better.

Its a city with 99% of people being normal civilians that they are there to "Liberate" apparently. Its not a ****ing war zone in a random open field, desert or mountain. I just feel sick tbh

Biggins

Expect the Youtuble clips to be taken down rapid I suspect.

bazmaiden

wow speechless!

Going onto my Facebook so more people can see.

Mark200

Biggins wrote: »

They let off bombs at queues, street markets, etc - what have they got to do with allowing America to do what they do?

Usually they let bombs off at police and army recruiting stations, polling stations during elections, and (as seen today) at embassies.

Sea Sharp

That reminds me of the equally chilling intro to the following video:

Biggins

Mark200 wrote: »

Usually they let bombs off at police and army recruiting stations, polling stations during elections, and (as seen today) at embassies.

True but it don't pass them a second thought to kill in the other aforementioned areas all too often either - all far too often.

Sheeps

Dara Robinson wrote: »

The most disturbing thing for me is how little work was put into working out who their "targets" were and what they were doing. On the video they clearly state that there are no troops in the area so why so quick to hit them?

In a few of the shots you can clearly see the camera zoom in much more than they did and could have probably told them that there were cameras and not guns. As a Photographer (well trying to be anyways lol) myself I could clearly identify them as cameras and lenses but you cant expect the US army to know as much as I would but still a little more work would have insured no one was killed. And the most disturbing thing was the van... how they can justify attacking a van of what looked to me to be clearly civilians helping the wounded and again if they bothered to check who was in the van and zoom in more they should have seen 2 small people (ie the children) sitting clearly one in front of the other in the passenger seat looking out the window.

I don't get it, no intelligence or reason for them looking there other than someone noticed a van pulling up to a Mosque initially. So why the need to jump in and kill everyone in sight? No one on their side at risk as there was no one in the area... Depressing that they don't train their men better.

Its a city with 99% of people being normal civilians that they are there to "Liberate" apparently. Its not a ****ing war zone in a random open field, desert or mountain. I just feel sick tbh

Eh, you are aware that a number of people in the group had weapons ranging from AK 47's to RPGS right?

The only thing there that looked like an illegal killing were the guys in the van trying to help the wounded guy.

Sheeps

Sheeps wrote: »

The only thing there that looked like an illegal killing were the guys in the van trying to help the wounded guy.

That along with the attitude of the soldiers is what's shocking imo. They're gagging to shoot.

Plus the way it was presented at the time didn't reflect the truth.

Dara Robinson

Biggins wrote: »

Been keeping an eye on Wikileaks for months now hoping they would get back up and running.
Disappointing that so far they haven't but can understand why.

They have had funding issues. They are currently trying to raise more money and are over half way there.
Although even with that they have still been releasing regular leaks and maintaining their site and Twitter (which is very active actually)

I have downloaded the videos in case they are removed but I assume by the time they do Mirror sites will have it up and the WikiLeaks will be linking direct to them if and when that happens.

I just checked out of curiosity but the only TV news agency at 6pm covering it was Al Jazeera News. Odd thing is that I could not find any other one covering this on TV or web (well just did a quick scan of the main players)

And also FBing this in the hope more ppl will watch it

Thanks GaNjaHaN, seen it years ago but still the more that see these things the better

@ Sheeps
I only saw 1 gun, what looked like an AK47.
The point though was that there was no need for such quick action, between the time when they identify "weapons" and the time they actually start firing ... it must have been 30 secs, maybe 45 secs. I mean come on ffs. No one on their side was in danger and there was no immediate need for a proactive attack. Should their policy not have been, guys we are in a city where most people are innocent civilians and a large proportion of them are now in a lawless city carrying weapons for self defence, check your sites please.... no????????? and if not WHY THE **** NOT!!!
The whole thing is just sickening tbh. And how many of these videos are we not going to see? How many are out there that are worse?

Sheeps

Deleted User wrote: »

That along with the attitude of the soldiers is what's shocking imo. They're gagging to shoot.

Plus the way it was presented at the time didn't reflect the truth.

I too find soldiers wanting to kill their enemy shocking.

Biggins

Dara Robinson wrote: »

...I just checked out of curiosity but the only TV news agency at 6pm covering it was Al Jazeera News. Odd thing is that I could not find any other one covering this on TV or web (well just did a quick scan of the main players)

And also FBing this in the hope more ppl will watch it

Side info:
Mr Brown (Labour) recently evoked a war ruling that restricts the reporting of such incidents.
Its supposed (under the ruling) that such reporting might :rolleyes: effect the elections and that nothing should be allowed to sway the populace and their votes!
While this ruling alone WILL NOT change the way the public will vote by now, it does help to slow down the reporting of such incidents through British media.
Only when the rest of the world press report such items can then the British reporters refer to them apparently.

On the ground journalists have also been restricted from entering war zones now and taking interviews of anyone involved.

partyatmygaff

They really didn't take any caution in identifying their target. They didn't look armed in any way or form. It's fairly obvious that the helicopter gunner panicked and thought they were armed just at the sight of the sling.

Bonito

Main video. 10.12 in to it. Coming up on screen is the word "coincidence" after the gunner is told his allies have no personnel in that area and they're cleared to engage.

Sheeps

partyatmygaff wrote: »

They really didn't take any caution in identifying their target. They didn't look armed in any way or form. It's fairly obvious that the helicopter gunner panicked and thought they were armed just at the sight of the sling.

Or else it could have been the dude actually holding the RPG that gave it away.

Biggins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

They really didn't take any caution in identifying their target. They didn't look armed in any way or form. It's fairly obvious that the helicopter gunner panicked and thought they were armed just at the sight of the sling.

Two minutes in on the long version, they sure looked armed to me. AK47's over their shoulders and then there was the guy carrying the RPG rocket launcher.
Then 30 seconds later they were sticking their heads around the left side of a building with the same weapons, looking like they were readying to fire.

Sheeps

Sheeps wrote: »

I too find soldiers wanting to kill their enemy shocking.

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/402/1270481808403.png

Yea, what a threat.. what an enemy.

Sheeps

Sheeps wrote: »

Or else it could have been the dude actually holding the RPG that gave it away.

That's a camera isn't it?

Bonito

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a camera isn't it?

That'd be Namir Noor? Journalist. Family history of journalism as a career. Considered one of the best photographers during the war. Could have been a camera on a tripod?

Sheeps

No, it's an RPG, as confirmed by one of the soldiers when they arrive on the scene.

Dara Robinson

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a camera isn't it?

Going to watch it again now but if I remember right the "RPG" is actually a camera with a 3 or 400 lens on it

Have to throw it out there that Sheeps is my new least favourite person on boards.ie

FlutterinBantam

Mark200 wrote: »

Usually they let bombs off at police and army recruiting stations, polling stations during elections, and (as seen today) at embassies.

So, that's legitimate in your opinion Mark?

MaybeLogic

Any chance of somebody pasting the video here, please?

The Aussie

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to throw it out there that Sheeps is my new least favourite person on boards.ie

Im trying my best here, a bit of recognition please.

FlutterinBantam

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to throw it out there that Sheeps is my new least favourite person on boards.ie

I doubt he will be too upset.

Not everyone totally accepts your spurious propaganda.

TheZohanS

Sheeps wrote: »

Can't wait to play this level in Modern Warfare 3.

DON'T

Sheeps

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to throw it out there that Sheeps is my new least favourite person on boards.ie

Cool, keep us posted on your various other lists of preferences.

Bonito

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Shortened Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Full Unedited Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik

WARNING, VIDEO SHOWS PEOPLE BEING KILLED!! Do not watch if you do not want to see this.

.

Sheeps

The whole idea behind not embedding the links was so that people who don't want to see it, don't actually see it so they don't get fired when they view the thread in work.

Bonito

Sheeps wrote: »

The whole idea behind not embedding the links was so that people who don't want to see it, don't actually see it so they don't get fired when they view the thread in work.

It's not as if the videos play automatically. :rolleyes:

MaybeLogic

Sheeps wrote: »

The whole idea behind not embedding the links was so that people who don't want to see it, don't actually see it so they don't get fired when they view the thread in work.

I need it embedded because I'm not signed up to Youtube.

Edit; Fuck it. Still can't get it in.

Dara Robinson

Thanks Sheep, yea Bonito if you could remove them it would be better please. Most ppl when they see a vid click on it then after that read the info before and after it

Oh and sheep....

Actually at (long video) 02:04 until 02:25 that there is 1 guy with an AK47 and another with what looks like an RPG.

However if to just prove my point at 03:13 you can clearly see the 2 camera men, and can clearly see that they are carrying cameras and not weapons
But the bit with the van is what hit me the most tbh

Also, an update from Wikileaks Tweet
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL05399965

MaybeLogic

MaybeLogic wrote: »

I need it embedded because I'm not signed up to Youtube.

Edit; Fuck it. Still can't get it in.

I think you can sign in with a Google account now aswell.

Dara Robinson

yes, if you have a google account you can sign into yahoo through that now

Bonito

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Thanks Sheep, yea Bonito if you could remove them it would be better please. Most ppl when they see a vid click on it then after that read the info before and after it

Oh and sheep....

Actually at (long video) 02:04 until 02:25 that there is 1 guy with an AK47 and another with what looks like an RPG.

However if to just prove my point at 03:13 you can clearly see the 2 camera men, and can clearly see that they are carrying cameras and not weapons
But the bit with the van is what hit me the most tbh

Also, an update from Wikileaks Tweet
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL05399965

I'm not removing my post. I left the warning in the post that it may disturb some viewers. Boardsies have the same option of one click to view the video whether it be the embeded video or the link that is possted that sends them to the youtube site. If a mod chooses to take it down fair enough but as I said, they don't play automatically, there's nothing disturbing in the screen shot and if they want to watch the video they have to make a click anyway.

Bonito

MaybeLogic wrote: »

I need it embedded because I'm not signed up to Youtube.

Edit; Fuck it. Still can't get it in.

I didn't embed them properly try again.