The US prison system makes very little effort to rehabilitate; contrary to popular myth. Its well known for making prisoners more violent and more proficient criminals. Furthermore, it creates a clearing house of criminal contacts for criminal activity on the outside.
And it gets even worse. The US system is set up to punish criminals for the rest of their life helping to ensure that once you enter the criminal system you have very little chance of ever making it out. Worse, they illegally strip their Constitutional rights so as to ensure they have no say in changing the system for the better; even after they've paid their price.
As first world industrialized countries go, the US prison system is one of the absolutely worst on the planet. And the US prison systems is the largest growing US government service to date. The US prison system houses more people than some countries have in total population - and growing. The US prison system has a huge chunk of those are there for minor drug charges where they are trained to be become better, more violent criminals on the inside and continuously punished on the outside so as to ensure they are forced to re-enter the prison system at a later date. The US prison system has one of the highest reviticism rates of any first world, industrialized countries. Many argue the high reviticism rate is by design.
Notice the steep rise in incarcerations after declaring the war on drugs. Anyone in support of the war on drugs is willfully supporting murder, sex trades, slavery, and yes, even terrorism (much comes from the middle east - like Afghanistan), and turning some of the most worthless humans ever born into some of the most powerful humans on the planet - while taking it out on the US' (and other countries') civilian populations. By every measure and every statistic, the war on drugs has been lost almost as soon as it started. And every year, the US tax payer pays billions to fuel paramilitary training and growth of our police forces while create a professional, criminal, industry on the other side, while paying billions more to imprison the very "criminals" which the first billions created.
Actually, world wide there are reports which go back thousands of years. UFOs are even documented in art work from The Renaissance and by well known scholars. Even Christopher Columbus documents a UFO sighting in his journals as he sought the new world.
More likely why there is no documentation before 1952 is because of the same reason its true (with varying dates) all around the world. Before such a time, no one was charged with recording such sightings.
And for what its worth, crash sites are also reported long before Roswell. Others are reported all over the world, even including Germany, several decades before WWII.
It would be better to create a short list, if in fact one can be created, where a monopoly doesn't exist. By design, the government and especially cities, create utility monopolies. Things get even worse once you look at the world of wireless communication whereby the monopoly is up for the highest bidder thanks to the FCC.
Contrary to the propaganda pushed by governments and law enforcement, money is paramount to the protection of privacy. Cash is one of the few means available which allows for private and anonymous transactions. This is, of course, why law enforcement goes out of their way to suggest only criminals need cash.
In short, cash is a corner stone of a free society.
Looking up at the sky the normal references are absent and humans make astoundingly poor estimates of what they are seeing.
I just wanted to underscore the accuracy of what you're saying. Even pilots frequently have difficulty determining distance to clouds. And on the ground, its almost impossible to accurately estimate the height of clouds.
Anyone who believes they can accurately estimate the size, altitude and speed of an object in the air, having no frame of reference, is deluding themselves and all who would listen.
The steel cables are used for the aircraft recovery arresting system. Basically, aircraft have a hook which catches one of the cables as the aircraft hits full throttle in case it misses, as can be seen in the beginning of this video. If it catches, the cable then slows and stops the aircraft on the deck. If they miss, the must go around an try again; which is why they are at full throttle.
In my experience most people misidentify pedestrian phenomena and call it a UFO.
In my experience anything which can not be identified IS a UFO. Good thing that's the definition too. Ultimately, such willful ignorance undermines the acronyms credibility which makes people look even dumber.
Part of the problem here is that all too often people constantly misuse "UFO". Its constantly misused to indicate aliens are in control. Such willful misuse of a completely credible acronym, "UFO", only leads people to cringe when hearing it, despite the fact, when properly used, there is nothing the least bit cringe worthy.
The facts are, we have thousands of years of documented UFO sightings. The facts are, the vast majority are readily explained as pedestrian sightings. The facts are, many are completely unexplained or directly contradict their official explanation. And yet, none of that implies probe-crazy aliens.
Even if you're unwilling to consider aliens for many modern sightings, it implies there is a nation with flying vehicles the size of some small cities (or at least extremely massive by modern aviation standards) and unidentified source of flight. Again, even if you exclude the possibilities of aliens, the prospect of "flying cities" is still pretty damn exciting.
Heck, even the Kelly Johnson of the famed Skunk Works program, after seeing a tiny, tiny part of modern aviation programs, years after his retirement and shortly before his death, was completely awe struck citing something along the lines, "It can only be described as pure science fiction."
The world of tomorrow is here and despite being secret, once revealed, is likely to completely blow our socks off.
I was speaking in a broad sense because factually, it doesn't matter if the children were killed or not; as it pertains to the facts of the situation. Most people only care that children were involved and therefore anyone on the other end is immoral and therefore guilty.
The facts of the situation is, it doesn't matter that children were involved. Anyone who brings it up are attempting to manipulate emotion. The fact of the matter is, YOU brought up the children.
At this point, I'm officially tired of being one of the few people who actually understand the material and being attacked by the ignorant peanut gallery; who by in large, not only don't want to know the truth, but would rather attack anything any everything so long as it means they get to maintain their ignorance and the status quo.
Now if you want to offer up some of the other videos, I'll actually agree its not good. Its just this particular video, most people have absolutely no idea what the hell they are seeing, let alone talking about.
It is an assumption that is required under Geneva Conventions
Granted...but that goes out the door when you are seen with people with weapons and when your equipment is misidentified as weapons. At which point in time, you are legally classified as an illegal combatant. That's why the constant assumption that their status was always that of a civilian and wrongly attacked is is completely wrong and completely unjustified.
There is no such term as an "illegal combatant" or "unlawful combatant" in any of the international conventions governing the conduct of war (Geneva etc).
Not true. Its understood at least as far back as WWII and holds precedent in the world's court.
That's why spies and illegal combatants can be executed. That's why soldiers who wear the enemy uniform can be executed without trial. That's why, in order to receive the protections of the GC YOU MUST WEAR A UNIFORM. Period. That, in part, is why so many people are constantly so confused as to what's going on. If you carry weapons and no uniform in a battle zone, you do not receive the protections of the GC and are classified as an illegal combatant. Period. At which time, the only question becomes, are you a civilian or are you an illegal combatant. Here's a hint. If you are perceived as aiming a weapon and are known to be traveling with and socializing with others with weapons, chances are you will be deemed an enemy combatant. At which point in time, you receive none of the protections provided by the GC.
This is all why people in the area are constantly told to not carry weapons. This is why weapons are confiscated from homes. This is why people in the area are constantly told if you are seen carrying a weapon, you may well be considered hostile and categorized as an enemy combatant.
He's explaining why the soldiers do it - for fun. What's your answer? If it's not for fun, then why do t?
No!
He's explaining, why in *his opinion* soldiers do it - for fun. Meaning, in his opinion, its fun to kill people. As far as the rest of the world's opinion goes, its not fun. Period. They have such bravado so as to protect their mind from long term damage.
The soldiers have a choice of coming to terms with themselves as being murderers. Soldiers who do this go insane. Most soldiers don't want to consider killing others during wartime as murder. As such, they much find a new mindset. Without failure, this mindset creates the bravado you see in the video. Go look at other videos and you'll find the same bravado time and time again.
Those who ignorantly look at the video as incrimination. Those who are knowledgable see it as the bravado of people who come from a culture where life is valued and yet are asked to kill others on a daily basis. Again, its all about framing and knowledge. Those who are outraged are generally ignorant and therefore, unqualified to have an opinion one way or the other. And yet, those who are generally the most ignorant and least qualified to have an opinion are the most vocal and most outraged.
Your response is a classic example. You don't know. You were and are ignorant. Anyone who attempts to clarify your ignorance, must be attacked.
The facts of the matter are, the facts and knowledge from those who actually understand what they are seeing, look down on the masses. Which is EXACTLY why the military didn't want these videos released. Its also why in war movies they temper these events because otherwise the audience wouldn't understand what is it they are seeing. Just time and time again, in real video, you see exactly this. And time and time again, its excused in the real world because chances are, you damning yourself should you be in the same seat. You're damning what it is to be human.
They radioed to establish them as illegal combatants.
The rest of your post is strictly fictional and attempting to place words into my mouth.
The point being, people are outraged that children were killed and seem to imply they were specifically hunted down and killed. That's delusional to say the least; which IIRC, seems to be along the lines of your outrage. That's a completely fictional recreation of what happened. The fact is, children were in the vehicle and were killed. It means it was an unintended consequence of what happens when illegal combatants use the at their daily standard operating procedure and creates a horrible chain of events which follows. The facts, do, however, make it a legal killing and underscores the horrors and tragedies which happen in war.
Everything I said is correct. The problem you and most everyone else here is that you're making the assumption they are civilians. Flatly, that's an extremely poor assumption. Also, people are under the assumption they are protected as "civilian status". when in reality, they generally fall under, "illegal combatant" status. This is what happens when you don't wear uniforms. Technically, illegal combatants can be executed without arrest or trial.
So when you say, "targeting civilians", you really mean, "targeting illegal combatants" who are moving together and socializing. Again, that's the problem with not wearing uniforms. People don't like to hear it, but those were completely legal kills. Absolutely tragic on top of tragedy, but legal nonetheless.
In any case, by the time the van came to the scene, there were no men with weapons in it. There were bodies on the ground, and there were weapons quite separate from those bodies.
Which is standard operating procedure of the terrorists and observed on a daily basis. Terrorists attack. Terrorists die. Vehicle (frequently vans) sweep in and recover the wounded and weapons. The dead are purposely left behind. They then report civilian casualties for purposes of propaganda. This is the number one reason why the non-military numbers of civilians deaths are known to be way over inflated. Likewise, for propaganda reasons, the military tends to under report. The truth is somewhere in the middle and we'll likely never know the actual counts.
A) Weapons were not illegal in Iraq. 'Having a weapon' was absolutely NOT the sole criteria under the ROE. Look it up.
And if you are seen with a weapon in a combat zone, you are legally classified as an illegal combatant. This means you can be legally executed on the stop.
B) A minivan is not a weapon. Nor is an ambulance. Not even when it belongs to the enemy.
Ignoring the fact this comment has absolutely nothing to do with anything...
C) Which uniform should the little kids have been wearing on their way to school (or what-have-you)? Have we forgotten that this wasn't a warzone but a city street?
Trollish and ignorant comment. At which point do they know children are in the vehicle? Oh really...after it had already been shot to hell? So without question, your comment is illogical and stupid. Furthermore, in that part of the world, its extremely common to be shooting by the time you're six. Furthermore, children are commonly seen shooting at soldiers in that part of the world.
I distinctly remember a DoD press conference whereby they showed additional video to the press, stating the Wikileaks video was misleading. If I erred, I only erred on the release window of the second video - which is what was largely covered, repeated, and reported on.
Look at the comments. Most people didn't even know there were two videos or that one had been discredited or that both videos are misrepresented by wikileaks.
Explain why the hell they lit up a van with a kid in it for rescuing wounded people? No threat, no guns, no aggressive activity.
Standard operating procedure observed every day.
Just a couple of citizens trying to save lives in the place they live that was turned into a war zone.
They had daily experience indicating otherwise and absolutely no reason to expect it was any different from any other situation they've previously observed.
If Omaha was turned into a war zone and soccer mom and soccer dad pulled over to help a couple of guys groaning and bleeding all over the place and China just went and lit-up the van we would call it a war crime.
Way over simplification. The root of all this is that this is what happens when you cowardly refuse to wear uniforms. Innocent people absolutely will be killed whereby you then leverage this, truthfully or not, to ones advantage.
Wikileaks always had the complete video, since day 0.
No one said otherwise. They had the complete video. They edited it, released it, and lied about it. That's the facts. The rest of your post makes even less sense and even has completely false information.
Wikileaks has redacted names the best they could
Not true in the least. The redacted the SECOND release. The first release was completely unedited - which they boast about at the time. The redacted their second release ONLY because international media waged their collective fingers at them.
No, again, being in proximity to a valid target does not make another person
Complete wrong. Period.
If you don't wear a uniform and move in a group with others who have weapons, you are, for every legal measure, a legal target to engage. Period.
If there are three men, and one is a civilian, which one is he? Okay, different situation. There are now three men and they are moving together. One has a gun. How many are civilians. Legally, the answer is zero. Period.
This is what happens when you refuse to wear a uniform. Interestingly enough, they know this and use it for propaganda on a daily basis. That's why they go out of their way to collect weapons from their fallen - so as to then claim civilians have been killed.
The military death counts are known to be under reported. The death counts widely reported by some civilian organizations are likely, known to be massively over reported.
Watch some videos of Death Valley in Afghanistan. Enemy opens fire on fire base. Marines (IIRC) return fire and kill those engaging the fire base. Takes time and the Marines finally arrive. Weapons are gone and the locals are now angry because peaceful people have been killed. The only bodies are those of the people who opened fire first and engaged the Marine fire base. Propaganda reports civilians have been killed.
The terrorists there are very propaganda savvy and use it for all its worth.
Now then, that's not to say innocent civilians are not killed. That unfortunately does happen. But the reality is, all too often, reported civilian deaths, actually died with a weapon in their hand.
I (not the GP) watched the version I pulled from WikiLeaks.
Please keep in mind, Wikileaks has released that same video twice. The first time they released it, it was a heavily edited video which they painted in very poor light, which was further negatively viewed because most people honestly have no idea the reality of the environment or what the facts on the ground are. After some media (most were content to be used as propaganda tools) started pushing back because the military told them the video had been edited, they finally released the complete video. So chances are, what you are now seeing is the complete video. But having the complete video doesn't change the fact that Wikileaks used the world press as its own propaganda machine and willfully mislead and lied about the original video release.
To this day, most people still don't understand why they are seeing and allow them emotions to carry them to a final conclusion.
How fucking stupid are you? I provided a fucking link, to a documentary, in which mass media reports on the very issue to which you're demanding a citation? Basically you're now saying the world is not enough? Holy shit!
You're fucking handed EVERYTHING and its not enough?
My response was flipped because there was a massive assault of stupidity, ignorance, and trolls; including massive, massive, troll moderation. I apologize if you are in fact, sincere in your interest to learn the facts. Link to post, providing surround context, with link to YouTube video.
Extremely odd logic. In fact, using your logic, a massive chunk of the world's law enforcement completely grinds to a halt - and rightfully so. So simply using the world as a reasonable standard means you're completely wrong, and with it, the rest of your platform.
Now then, please put my comments back into proper context. Thus far, EVERY REPLY has completely taken my comment out of context and then added additional crap in an effort to detract from the original context. Please remain within proper context.
I stated the information wasn't redacted. A fact confirmed by all major media outlets and even Julian Assange. You state I'm a tool for stating fact. What is wrong with you?
Slashdot Mirror
But haven't the huge drops in crime rates been correlated with the increases in prison populations?
No. Its due to statistical reporting manipulations.
The US prison system makes very little effort to rehabilitate; contrary to popular myth. Its well known for making prisoners more violent and more proficient criminals. Furthermore, it creates a clearing house of criminal contacts for criminal activity on the outside.
And it gets even worse. The US system is set up to punish criminals for the rest of their life helping to ensure that once you enter the criminal system you have very little chance of ever making it out. Worse, they illegally strip their Constitutional rights so as to ensure they have no say in changing the system for the better; even after they've paid their price.
As first world industrialized countries go, the US prison system is one of the absolutely worst on the planet. And the US prison systems is the largest growing US government service to date. The US prison system houses more people than some countries have in total population - and growing. The US prison system has a huge chunk of those are there for minor drug charges where they are trained to be become better, more violent criminals on the inside and continuously punished on the outside so as to ensure they are forced to re-enter the prison system at a later date. The US prison system has one of the highest reviticism rates of any first world, industrialized countries. Many argue the high reviticism rate is by design.
Notice the steep rise in incarcerations after declaring the war on drugs. Anyone in support of the war on drugs is willfully supporting murder, sex trades, slavery, and yes, even terrorism (much comes from the middle east - like Afghanistan), and turning some of the most worthless humans ever born into some of the most powerful humans on the planet - while taking it out on the US' (and other countries') civilian populations. By every measure and every statistic, the war on drugs has been lost almost as soon as it started. And every year, the US tax payer pays billions to fuel paramilitary training and growth of our police forces while create a professional, criminal, industry on the other side, while paying billions more to imprison the very "criminals" which the first billions created.
This is true for the electric grid too.
It's our corporate policy to obey all of the laws of thermodynamics. Violators of said laws will be terminated.
Shouldn't violators receive a Nobel prize in physics rather than be killed? Or are you hinting at some grand conspiracy?
So why no reports from before 1952?
Actually, world wide there are reports which go back thousands of years. UFOs are even documented in art work from The Renaissance and by well known scholars. Even Christopher Columbus documents a UFO sighting in his journals as he sought the new world.
More likely why there is no documentation before 1952 is because of the same reason its true (with varying dates) all around the world. Before such a time, no one was charged with recording such sightings.
And for what its worth, crash sites are also reported long before Roswell. Others are reported all over the world, even including Germany, several decades before WWII.
It would be better to create a short list, if in fact one can be created, where a monopoly doesn't exist. By design, the government and especially cities, create utility monopolies. Things get even worse once you look at the world of wireless communication whereby the monopoly is up for the highest bidder thanks to the FCC.
Contrary to the propaganda pushed by governments and law enforcement, money is paramount to the protection of privacy. Cash is one of the few means available which allows for private and anonymous transactions. This is, of course, why law enforcement goes out of their way to suggest only criminals need cash.
In short, cash is a corner stone of a free society.
Looking up at the sky the normal references are absent and humans make astoundingly poor estimates of what they are seeing.
I just wanted to underscore the accuracy of what you're saying. Even pilots frequently have difficulty determining distance to clouds. And on the ground, its almost impossible to accurately estimate the height of clouds.
Anyone who believes they can accurately estimate the size, altitude and speed of an object in the air, having no frame of reference, is deluding themselves and all who would listen.
The steel cables are used for the aircraft recovery arresting system. Basically, aircraft have a hook which catches one of the cables as the aircraft hits full throttle in case it misses, as can be seen in the beginning of this video. If it catches, the cable then slows and stops the aircraft on the deck. If they miss, the must go around an try again; which is why they are at full throttle.
In my experience most people misidentify pedestrian phenomena and call it a UFO.
In my experience anything which can not be identified IS a UFO. Good thing that's the definition too. Ultimately, such willful ignorance undermines the acronyms credibility which makes people look even dumber.
Part of the problem here is that all too often people constantly misuse "UFO". Its constantly misused to indicate aliens are in control. Such willful misuse of a completely credible acronym, "UFO", only leads people to cringe when hearing it, despite the fact, when properly used, there is nothing the least bit cringe worthy.
The facts are, we have thousands of years of documented UFO sightings. The facts are, the vast majority are readily explained as pedestrian sightings. The facts are, many are completely unexplained or directly contradict their official explanation. And yet, none of that implies probe-crazy aliens.
Even if you're unwilling to consider aliens for many modern sightings, it implies there is a nation with flying vehicles the size of some small cities (or at least extremely massive by modern aviation standards) and unidentified source of flight. Again, even if you exclude the possibilities of aliens, the prospect of "flying cities" is still pretty damn exciting.
Heck, even the Kelly Johnson of the famed Skunk Works program, after seeing a tiny, tiny part of modern aviation programs, years after his retirement and shortly before his death, was completely awe struck citing something along the lines, "It can only be described as pure science fiction."
The world of tomorrow is here and despite being secret, once revealed, is likely to completely blow our socks off.
I was speaking in a broad sense because factually, it doesn't matter if the children were killed or not; as it pertains to the facts of the situation. Most people only care that children were involved and therefore anyone on the other end is immoral and therefore guilty.
The facts of the situation is, it doesn't matter that children were involved. Anyone who brings it up are attempting to manipulate emotion. The fact of the matter is, YOU brought up the children.
At this point, I'm officially tired of being one of the few people who actually understand the material and being attacked by the ignorant peanut gallery; who by in large, not only don't want to know the truth, but would rather attack anything any everything so long as it means they get to maintain their ignorance and the status quo.
Now if you want to offer up some of the other videos, I'll actually agree its not good. Its just this particular video, most people have absolutely no idea what the hell they are seeing, let alone talking about.
It is an assumption that is required under Geneva Conventions
Granted...but that goes out the door when you are seen with people with weapons and when your equipment is misidentified as weapons. At which point in time, you are legally classified as an illegal combatant. That's why the constant assumption that their status was always that of a civilian and wrongly attacked is is completely wrong and completely unjustified.
There is no such term as an "illegal combatant" or "unlawful combatant" in any of the international conventions governing the conduct of war (Geneva etc).
Not true. Its understood at least as far back as WWII and holds precedent in the world's court.
That's why spies and illegal combatants can be executed. That's why soldiers who wear the enemy uniform can be executed without trial. That's why, in order to receive the protections of the GC YOU MUST WEAR A UNIFORM. Period. That, in part, is why so many people are constantly so confused as to what's going on. If you carry weapons and no uniform in a battle zone, you do not receive the protections of the GC and are classified as an illegal combatant. Period. At which time, the only question becomes, are you a civilian or are you an illegal combatant. Here's a hint. If you are perceived as aiming a weapon and are known to be traveling with and socializing with others with weapons, chances are you will be deemed an enemy combatant. At which point in time, you receive none of the protections provided by the GC.
This is all why people in the area are constantly told to not carry weapons. This is why weapons are confiscated from homes. This is why people in the area are constantly told if you are seen carrying a weapon, you may well be considered hostile and categorized as an enemy combatant.
He's explaining why the soldiers do it - for fun. What's your answer? If it's not for fun, then why do t?
No!
He's explaining, why in *his opinion* soldiers do it - for fun. Meaning, in his opinion, its fun to kill people. As far as the rest of the world's opinion goes, its not fun. Period. They have such bravado so as to protect their mind from long term damage.
The soldiers have a choice of coming to terms with themselves as being murderers. Soldiers who do this go insane. Most soldiers don't want to consider killing others during wartime as murder. As such, they much find a new mindset. Without failure, this mindset creates the bravado you see in the video. Go look at other videos and you'll find the same bravado time and time again.
Those who ignorantly look at the video as incrimination. Those who are knowledgable see it as the bravado of people who come from a culture where life is valued and yet are asked to kill others on a daily basis. Again, its all about framing and knowledge. Those who are outraged are generally ignorant and therefore, unqualified to have an opinion one way or the other. And yet, those who are generally the most ignorant and least qualified to have an opinion are the most vocal and most outraged.
Your response is a classic example. You don't know. You were and are ignorant. Anyone who attempts to clarify your ignorance, must be attacked.
The facts of the matter are, the facts and knowledge from those who actually understand what they are seeing, look down on the masses. Which is EXACTLY why the military didn't want these videos released. Its also why in war movies they temper these events because otherwise the audience wouldn't understand what is it they are seeing. Just time and time again, in real video, you see exactly this. And time and time again, its excused in the real world because chances are, you damning yourself should you be in the same seat. You're damning what it is to be human.
They radioed to establish them as illegal combatants.
The rest of your post is strictly fictional and attempting to place words into my mouth.
The point being, people are outraged that children were killed and seem to imply they were specifically hunted down and killed. That's delusional to say the least; which IIRC, seems to be along the lines of your outrage. That's a completely fictional recreation of what happened. The fact is, children were in the vehicle and were killed. It means it was an unintended consequence of what happens when illegal combatants use the at their daily standard operating procedure and creates a horrible chain of events which follows. The facts, do, however, make it a legal killing and underscores the horrors and tragedies which happen in war.
This is incorrect.
Everything I said is correct. The problem you and most everyone else here is that you're making the assumption they are civilians. Flatly, that's an extremely poor assumption. Also, people are under the assumption they are protected as "civilian status". when in reality, they generally fall under, "illegal combatant" status. This is what happens when you don't wear uniforms. Technically, illegal combatants can be executed without arrest or trial.
So when you say, "targeting civilians", you really mean, "targeting illegal combatants" who are moving together and socializing. Again, that's the problem with not wearing uniforms. People don't like to hear it, but those were completely legal kills. Absolutely tragic on top of tragedy, but legal nonetheless.
In any case, by the time the van came to the scene, there were no men with weapons in it. There were bodies on the ground, and there were weapons quite separate from those bodies.
Which is standard operating procedure of the terrorists and observed on a daily basis. Terrorists attack. Terrorists die. Vehicle (frequently vans) sweep in and recover the wounded and weapons. The dead are purposely left behind. They then report civilian casualties for purposes of propaganda. This is the number one reason why the non-military numbers of civilians deaths are known to be way over inflated. Likewise, for propaganda reasons, the military tends to under report. The truth is somewhere in the middle and we'll likely never know the actual counts.
All three points are stupid.
A) Weapons were not illegal in Iraq. 'Having a weapon' was absolutely NOT the sole criteria under the ROE. Look it up.
And if you are seen with a weapon in a combat zone, you are legally classified as an illegal combatant. This means you can be legally executed on the stop.
B) A minivan is not a weapon. Nor is an ambulance. Not even when it belongs to the enemy.
Ignoring the fact this comment has absolutely nothing to do with anything...
C) Which uniform should the little kids have been wearing on their way to school (or what-have-you)? Have we forgotten that this wasn't a warzone but a city street?
Trollish and ignorant comment. At which point do they know children are in the vehicle? Oh really...after it had already been shot to hell? So without question, your comment is illogical and stupid. Furthermore, in that part of the world, its extremely common to be shooting by the time you're six. Furthermore, children are commonly seen shooting at soldiers in that part of the world.
I distinctly remember a DoD press conference whereby they showed additional video to the press, stating the Wikileaks video was misleading. If I erred, I only erred on the release window of the second video - which is what was largely covered, repeated, and reported on.
Look at the comments. Most people didn't even know there were two videos or that one had been discredited or that both videos are misrepresented by wikileaks.
I already did.
Explain why the hell they lit up a van with a kid in it for rescuing wounded people?
No threat, no guns, no aggressive activity.
Standard operating procedure observed every day.
Just a couple of citizens trying to save lives in the place they live that was turned into a war zone.
They had daily experience indicating otherwise and absolutely no reason to expect it was any different from any other situation they've previously observed.
If Omaha was turned into a war zone and soccer mom and soccer dad pulled over to help a couple of guys groaning and bleeding all over the place and China just went and lit-up the van we would call it a war crime.
Way over simplification. The root of all this is that this is what happens when you cowardly refuse to wear uniforms. Innocent people absolutely will be killed whereby you then leverage this, truthfully or not, to ones advantage.
Wikileaks always had the complete video, since day 0.
No one said otherwise. They had the complete video. They edited it, released it, and lied about it. That's the facts. The rest of your post makes even less sense and even has completely false information.
Wikileaks has redacted names the best they could
Not true in the least. The redacted the SECOND release. The first release was completely unedited - which they boast about at the time. The redacted their second release ONLY because international media waged their collective fingers at them.
No, again, being in proximity to a valid target does not make another person
Complete wrong. Period.
If you don't wear a uniform and move in a group with others who have weapons, you are, for every legal measure, a legal target to engage. Period.
If there are three men, and one is a civilian, which one is he? Okay, different situation. There are now three men and they are moving together. One has a gun. How many are civilians. Legally, the answer is zero. Period.
This is what happens when you refuse to wear a uniform. Interestingly enough, they know this and use it for propaganda on a daily basis. That's why they go out of their way to collect weapons from their fallen - so as to then claim civilians have been killed.
The military death counts are known to be under reported. The death counts widely reported by some civilian organizations are likely, known to be massively over reported.
Watch some videos of Death Valley in Afghanistan. Enemy opens fire on fire base. Marines (IIRC) return fire and kill those engaging the fire base. Takes time and the Marines finally arrive. Weapons are gone and the locals are now angry because peaceful people have been killed. The only bodies are those of the people who opened fire first and engaged the Marine fire base. Propaganda reports civilians have been killed.
The terrorists there are very propaganda savvy and use it for all its worth.
Now then, that's not to say innocent civilians are not killed. That unfortunately does happen. But the reality is, all too often, reported civilian deaths, actually died with a weapon in their hand.
I (not the GP) watched the version I pulled from WikiLeaks.
Please keep in mind, Wikileaks has released that same video twice. The first time they released it, it was a heavily edited video which they painted in very poor light, which was further negatively viewed because most people honestly have no idea the reality of the environment or what the facts on the ground are. After some media (most were content to be used as propaganda tools) started pushing back because the military told them the video had been edited, they finally released the complete video. So chances are, what you are now seeing is the complete video. But having the complete video doesn't change the fact that Wikileaks used the world press as its own propaganda machine and willfully mislead and lied about the original video release.
To this day, most people still don't understand why they are seeing and allow them emotions to carry them to a final conclusion.
How fucking stupid are you? I provided a fucking link, to a documentary, in which mass media reports on the very issue to which you're demanding a citation? Basically you're now saying the world is not enough? Holy shit!
You're fucking handed EVERYTHING and its not enough?
My response was flipped because there was a massive assault of stupidity, ignorance, and trolls; including massive, massive, troll moderation. I apologize if you are in fact, sincere in your interest to learn the facts. Link to post, providing surround context, with link to YouTube video.
Extremely odd logic. In fact, using your logic, a massive chunk of the world's law enforcement completely grinds to a halt - and rightfully so. So simply using the world as a reasonable standard means you're completely wrong, and with it, the rest of your platform.
Now then, please put my comments back into proper context. Thus far, EVERY REPLY has completely taken my comment out of context and then added additional crap in an effort to detract from the original context. Please remain within proper context.
"Killing people is fun." - Julian Assange.
I stated the information wasn't redacted. A fact confirmed by all major media outlets and even Julian Assange. You state I'm a tool for stating fact. What is wrong with you?