Collateral Murder

4Chan had it up an hour ago...

And we should be surprised when reporters on thier own free will place themselves in 'harms way'. War reporting and the reporters therein are not bulletproof, and military operations don't take into account Joe Reporter is interviewing 'enemy' personnel in the target area. Ernie Pyle died by 'colateral murder' by the Japanese, Walter Cronkite was wounded while on a bombing raid over Germany, Andy Rooney was under fire a few times, Dan Rether in Vietnam was underfire a few times, it is part of the job description, and being a reporter does not give you 'instant' bulletproof status.

^^^That.

However, based on the attitudes of some toward this subject, when I become an evil genius bent on world domination for my own personal amusement, I think it will probably be handy to keep some reporters around at all times (perhaps my own press corps) so as to render myself "off-limits" as a target.

Site is borked.

Absolutely love the neutrality of the video <--- note sarcasm.

It's obvious that the pilots felt threatened. Furthermore, the actions of the individuals who were fired upon were not "casual" as is suggested by Wikileaks or the video. An individual is clearly attempting to view something (helicopters, bradley fighting vehicle, whatever was down the street) from cover. If they were truly casual, they'd be walking in the open, not hunkered down behind a wall. Furthermore, when a threat is detected, you eliminate it, plain and simple. If they're running away, it doesn't matter. You don't stop firing on forces that are disengaging, you gun them down so that they can't engage you again later.

Does it suck for the two reporters involved? Yes. Does it suck that some civies were killed? Yes, but the fact of the matter is that at least 1 person with them was armed and deemed a threat. If you're going to go walking around a war zone with someone who is armed and can be deemed a threat, you're going to get killed just like they did.

There's no cover-up. The gov't was originally going to release the video and then didn't because they were investigating the incident internally. They've admitted that the reporters were killed, and that some civies were killed and wounded, and guess what, that happens in war. This whole thing is being blown out of proportion by people who aren't happy that we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they want to make us look bad to shame us into pulling out. I personally think wikileaks is an accessory to treason and wouldn't give two seconds of thought to them being arrested and tried by the Gov't. Freedom of speech is one thing, but they've continually allowed top secret information to be leaked to the enemies of our nation.

I don't think they admitted to it, nor were they going to release the video, that's kind of the whole point. I could be wrong, but I certainly dont recall seeing anything to that effect before they were exposed by others.

Admitting something because its already exposed isn't the same.

Maybe there are other factors to be considered. National Security concerns, foriegn laws that have to be addressed. The word 'coverup' is as always being used to frequehtly, and later found to be untrue.

Lets say one of the 'reporters' was an operative of our or a foriegn intelligence service, not unheard of, but an issue that has to be addressed before release of any 'news'. The world is too complex for simple unresearched agenda based 'coverup' claims.

And what is the 'status' of a reporter imbedded with a foriegn military power at war with the US or allied forces. The reporter who covered the insurgents that shot a US Serviceman in that 'sniper video' could the US reporter who shot that footage from the aspect of the insurgent be considered under treason laws. It is the responsibility under law if your are a SU citizen to cause no harm, or expose personnel involved in military operations in a combat zone.

Edited by oldsoldier - 05 April 2010 at 5:07pm

tallen702 wrote: Does it suck for the two reporters involved? Yes. Does it suck that some civies were killed? Yes, but the fact of the matter is that at least 1 person with them was armed and deemed a threat. If you're going to go walking around a war zone with someone who is armed and can be deemed a threat, you're going to get killed just like they did.

Shazzam.

I don't think it's that easy to think the cameras are weapons (which they did), but I'm pretty sure one of the guys at 3:40 is carrying an RPG. It could have been a tripod, but the characteristic shape of the grenade flashes before you which makes it pretty clear. A reporter should have kept significant distance away from anyone with a weapon.

As far as him being in cover, I don't see merit in your statement. In a place where a guy on a cellphone could be shot, I would take no chances around people with guns. From far, I'm sure there are plenty of cues that make a photographer resemble an RPG carrying enemy. That quick shot was probably the safest thing he could have done (disregarding his idiocy in hanging out with armed people).

The thing that disturbs me the most is how the shooter expresses no regret in the fact that he nearly killed two kids. He's got a point, but you'd think he would feel bad. And maybe that's why that justification was said.

Tolgak wrote: The thing that disturbs me the most is how the shooter expresses no regret in the fact that he nearly killed two kids. He's got a point, but you'd think he would feel bad. And maybe that's why that justification was said.

Gallows humor / remarks. Not uncommon, not unexpected, and I don't fault anyone with it in that type of work especially considering the remarks were only meant to be heard by his partner.

Let's take cover behind a building and aim our 2 foot long camera with a sling down a street with apaches flying over our heads. Let us do this with armed people about 30 feet behind us.

That is a good idea.