American hero charged by US Army over exposing war crimes

[yorkie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10529110.stm

The disgraced US Army, which has carried out many shameful illegal attacks, including this one which was leaked, is out for revenge on the person who allegedly did the honourable thing in leaking the video, which we all have the right to see, Spc Bradley Manning. The US Army would deny us this right, and would like to hide the truth - awful breaches of the Geneva convention and cold blooded murder by murderers who rejoiced in their crimes - from us.

The dishonourable spokesperson Col Eric Bloom stated that the honourable Spc Bradley Manning could be jailed for "50 to 70 years" for doing what everyone but the US Army can see was morally right. Meanwhile the sicko murderers in the video, are free to carry out further attacks.

There will, of course, have been many more incidents like this. This is just one that was leaked. How many thousands have they murdered? We'll never know.

And they wonder why they are the most disliked nation on the planet?! :roll:

Their sick, unjust actions will only make them even more disliked, and make the world an even more dangerous place. That is bad news for all of us.

The US Army and those who support sick actions, those who wish to hide the truth from us, and those who side with such murderers, should hang their heads in shame.

One day the US will not be able to go round acting like this, but that day is a long way off, sadly.

It's happened many times before, for example in 1968, the US tried to hide something from us.

What did the US army do to these women and children? Did they
a) Help them
b) Murder them
c) Ignore them ?

40 years later and they are still committing war crimes, and they are still trying to hide the truth from us, and they are still harassing the heroes who rightly expose their crimes to us. You have to wonder when they are ever going to act within international laws?

 

[generalvegitable]

*******s

 

[thefab444]

Someone's been getting journalistic tips from the Daily Mail. No matter how bad the story (in this case, pretty bad), there's no excuse to write in such a patronising and sensationalist way. It's also slightly misleading to people who don't click the link to the BBC website, as it suggests that what you wrote was in fact written by the BBC which would be a "shameful and dishonourable" breach of their impartiality.

 

[yorkie]

That's nonsense and you know it! The only quote was that the hero could be jailed for "50 to 70 years", the rest is quite obviously not a quote!

If you disagree with a particular aspect of what I wrote, please say what. I thought you were against US war crimes?

 

[thefab444]

Generally when a link to a news article is posted, and then another article below it, I tend to assume that the content in the post has been cut and pasted from the website. Upon further inspection of the post content, this is obviously not the case, but some members may not realise this.

Usage of the words "sicko", "dishonourable", and this whole sentence in particular "The US Army and those who support sick actions, those who wish to hide the truth from us, and those who side with such murderers, should hang their heads in shame." are all very Daily Mail-esque and you know it! The usage of sensationalist reporting styles is straight out of the Daily Mail, a publication I know you campaign vociferously against elsewhere on the forum!

It's a shame because I always thought that you were able to present a balanced and straight forward argument without resorting to sensationalism, which of course was especially relevant when you had your libel phase a year or so ago.

 

[yorkie]

Generally when a link to a news article is posted, and then another article below it, I tend to assume that the content in the post has been cut and pasted from the website. Upon further inspection of the post content, this is obviously not the case, but some members may not realise this.

The quote button should be used if they are quoting.

Usage of the words "sicko", "dishonourable", and this whole sentence in particular "The US Army and those who support sick actions, those who wish to hide the truth from us, and those who side with such murderers, should hang their heads in shame." are all very Daily Mail-esque and you know it! The usage of sensationalist reporting styles is straight out of the Daily Mail, a publication I know you campaign vociferously against elsewhere on the forum!

Do you believe
1) That deliberately killing in this way is not "murder"?
2) That the way they took delight in the killings is not "sick"?
3) That it is "honourable" to kill people in this way?
4) That those responsible should hold their heads high?

It may be "sensational" as you call it, but I say the truth. And I think you actually agree with me really.

It's a shame because I always thought, Yorkie, that you were able to present a balanced and straight forward argument without resorting to sensationalism, which of course was especially relevant when you had your libel phase a year or so ago.

Ridiculous. The US Army is giving out plenty of propaganda. The alternative view must be heard. The "balance" is given by me providing the alternative view. The official US Army view is well documented. The BBC article doesn't mention that the US Army committed war crimes. The US Army view can be read on the BBC website, and my view can be read here.

At the end of the day, they have committed murder, and have got away with it, and the person who revealed their crimes is being persecuted. That is so morally wrong it's unbelievable.

The idea that the US can get away with anything must be challenged strongly. There is no need for me to provide the 'balanced' view as the US view is very well documented and we've all heard it many times.

They really dislike it when the truth is exposed.

 

[Geezertronic]

Late night Yorkie?

 

[mrcheek]

Ive never seen Yorkie get so worked up over something other than off-peak restriction times

 

[devon_metro]

I've said numerous times that Yorkie should apply for a job with the Mail!

 

[GB]

Well, when all is said and done, Yorkie is not a journalist or professional writer and is not posting in any kind of official or professional capicity. Therefore I would suggest he it entitled to post how he likes in what ever means he likes.

Having seen some of the video concerned (I couldn't watch it all as I found it pretty distrurbing) I tottally agree with his views.

 

[jimrbrobinson]

Is it my eyesight, or just the poor-quality of the video? I've watched the video a couple of times, and I couldn't say that I saw any of them holding anything resembling a weapon? They appeared to be empty-handed to me. Was one holding a lit cigarette (thereby clearly presenting a serious health hazard to those around him) I wonder? Certainly worthy of discussion, as our own armed forces heroes are fighting and dying in places they've been led to by America.

 

[the sniper]

And this thread was brought to you in association with Radical Islam, 'down with the infidels, y'all'...

Seriously, does it really come as a shock to people that innocent people die in war? I think you'll be hard pushed to find any major conflicts in which innocent women and children haven't been killed, even by 'the good guys'.

Some people seem to love to take a very simplistic view of war. Without having been in situations like these, in which critical life or death decisions are taken on a daily basis, how can any of us act as critical experts? If like Yorkie the guys in the aircraft had had months to study this incident, then they probably wouldn't have shot at them, but they didn't have that time and they probably regret their actions now, they'll have to live with the guilt for the rest of their lives. But oh well, that's their problem. Too bad Yorkie wasn't in that chopper, heh, as we can be absolutely 100% sure that those people wouldn't have been killed if he had, as I'm sure Yorkie has never made a mistake in his life. :roll:

 

[GB]

Sniper, did you actually see the video when it was released, a video that was at least 10 minutes long?

Of course innocent people die during conflicts, thats one of the realities, but these people were specifically targeted as were the people that came to their aid. At no point were the occupants in the helicopter in any danger as they were not being engaged by the people on the ground at the time.

It seems that the RoG were to shoot first and ignore questions later.

 

[bnm]

Shocking. Not the story - watched the video some months ago. But the over-the-top, sensationalist response from Yorkie.

War is horrible. Innocent people die. Civilians are often targeted. The UK can be just as bad - one example being the terror bombing of Dresden.

As for the US being the most disliked nation on the planet - that's a very subjective statement with no basis in fact.

If you want to provide balance to the US Army's 'propaganda', then you'll do your point of view more favours if you don't resort to intemperate language.

I do agree, however, with the main point of yorkie's post - prosecuting the whistleblower ain't right. But there is a long history of whistleblowers facing censure in all walks of life. One hopes that the current, less hawkish, US Government will put pressure on the US Army to not go ahead with the prosecution. Maybe an optimistic hope.....

PS: GB....the originally leaked video runs to nearly 40 minutes.

 

[yorkie]

Sniper, did you actually see the video when it was released, a video that was at least 10 minutes long?

He can't have done, quite frankly.

He may just be disagreeing with me for the sake of it, he's not happy because he thinks I was the person who got WSMR told off by RSP/ATOC over their refusal to accept valid Route Birmingham tickets, after he came here stating they weren't valid

But seriously, some of the responses to this topic show how desensitised we are, to what are really quite horrific, violent acts.

 

[the sniper]

Sniper, did you actually see the video when it was released, a video that was at least 10 minutes long?

I've got to admit, I've only seen the 'highlights' which lasted a few minutes, that was at the time of the video being leaked.

Of course innocent people die during conflicts, thats one of the realities, but these people were specifically targeted as were the people that came to their aid. At no point were the occupants in the helicopter in any danger as they were not being engaged by the people on the ground at the time.

This is true, my only problem is though, I can't be fully judgemental against the helicopter crew as I don't know what situations they've previously encountered, I don't have their experience or experiences. I don't know if they'd been engaged in similar situations before that have turned nasty. And as I haven't seen the full video, I don't know whether US ground troops were entering the area, thus the area needed to be cleared of any armed threats.

Now, I've presumed that the chopper crew really did believe that the people they killed really did pose a threat, as I can't see why they'd just kill them for the hell of it. Maybe I'm wrong though.

And just to state, I do agree with Yorkie's main point that the whistleblower shouldn't face a prison sentence, as all he did was highlight how **** war is.

EDIT: Just seen Yorkie's reply:

He may just be disagreeing with me for the sake of it, he's not happy because he thinks I was the person who got WSMR told off by RSP/ATOC over their refusal to accept valid Route Birmingham tickets, after he came here stating they weren't valid

I've never been of any WSMR services and I don't think I've ever asked for any ticket validity advice on here, so either you're thinking of somebody else or I've missed the sarcasm. :P

 

[Geezertronic]

I thought you were against US war crimes?

But seriously, some of the responses to this topic show how desensitised we are, to what are really quite horrific, violent acts.

Unfortunately Yorkie, you appear to be confusing yourself. People are not disagreeing with the contents of your post but what they are actually doing is disagreeing with your delivery of the contents of your post. There is a vast ... vast difference between the two and you cannot say that people are "desensitised" to the contents when it is not the contents they are commenting on.

 

[thefab444]

Well said.

I think we all agree that prosecuting the whistleblower is not "honourable", but you've got to remember, as bnm said, that it's not a particularly uncommon event - remember the "dishonest," British government trying to prosecute Clive Ponting for revealing certain details of the "sicko and disgraceful" sinking of the General Belgrano?

This whole thread seems to be a childish outburst, and is contrary to his usual posting style (except when mentioning anything to do with ATOC).

 

[455driver]

Okay Yorkie could have made his original post a bit clearer but I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiments.
I have watched the full 10 minute video and the short version and it is clear to me that the thing on his shoulder is a camera; but with the eyesight of these thugs it starts off as an AK47 then it becomes an RPG!
FFS this is blatant murder in the first degree, the actions and conversation (on the chopper) back this up.

As for "innocent people getting hurt/ killed" well yes we all realise that but it normally happens because they were in the wrong place and get caught up in the crossfire, NOT going about your daily routine and being used for target practice by some American ba####ds on a power/ ego trip.
When they fired on the van that was trying to help the wounded after clearly seeing the children in it made my blood boil.
Mistakes happen but they did NOT identify the target as hostile and no hostile move had been made towards the helicopter. If what they did is deemed reasonable for what they saw then god help anybody who is just walking down the street if these trigger happy thugs turn up.

 

[yorkie]

Unfortunately Yorkie, you appear to be confusing yourself. People are not disagreeing with the contents of your post but what they are actually doing is disagreeing with your delivery of the contents of your post. There is a vast ... vast difference between the two and you cannot say that people are "desensitised" to the contents when it is not the contents they are commenting on.

What words do you feel are not appropriate then?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think we all agree that prosecuting the whistleblower is not "honourable", but you've got to remember, as bnm said, that it's not a particularly uncommon event - remember the "dishonest," British government trying to prosecute Clive Ponting for revealing certain details of the "sicko and disgraceful" sinking of the General Belgrano?

No, I don't, but having looked it up, it does indeed appear that the Government was dishonest. As for whether those events were sick and disgraceful, if it had not been a warship and had been a civilian ship, and if the people doing the sinking had been enjoying killing them, then I'd certainly agree it was "sicko and disgraceful", however neither appears to be the case from what I have been able to find. So the comparison isn't valid.

This whole thread seems to be a childish outburst, and is contrary to his usual posting style (except when mentioning anything to do with ATOC).

You may be desensitised to such acts, but that's your problem, not mine.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Okay Yorkie could have made his original post a bit clearer but I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiments.
I have watched the full 10 minute video and the short version and it is clear to me that the thing on his shoulder is a camera; but with the eyesight of these thugs it starts off as an AK47 then it becomes an RPG!
FFS this is blatant murder in the first degree, the actions and conversation (on the chopper) back this up.

Well said!

As for "innocent people getting hurt/ killed" well yes we all realise that but it normally happens because they were in the wrong place and get caught up in the crossfire, NOT going about your daily routine and being used for target practice by some American ba####ds on a power/ ego trip.
When they fired on the van that was trying to help the wounded after clearly seeing the children in it made my blood boil.

Phew! I'm not the only one then!

Mistakes happen but they did NOT identify the target as hostile and no hostile move had been made towards the helicopter. If what they did is deemed reasonable for what they saw then god help anybody who is just walking down the street if these trigger happy thugs turn up.

Agreed. This cannot be dismissed as a simple 'mistake' and I believe the people who do so have not seen the video (at least I hope that's the reason).

 

[ukrob]

Yorkie, what is wrong?

You are responding as if there are being severe personal attacks on you. All people are doing is commenting on your posting style (and confrontational replies), and you throw back at them that they are 'desensitised', automatically (and wrongly) assuming that people are disagreeing with the sentiments of your post (which, personally, I'm not).

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but if you are going to be a moderator, at least act professionally and don't throw your toys out of the pram, and learn to take some criticism instead of behaving in a confrontational manner.

 

[Geezertronic]

What words do you feel are not appropriate then?

I'll quote from my previous post to answer that question:

I thought you were against US war crimes?

But seriously, some of the responses to this topic show how desensitised we are, to what are really quite horrific, violent acts.

Putting words into peoples mouths...

 

[455driver]

Yorkie, what is wrong?

You are responding as if there are being severe personal attacks on you. All people are doing is commenting on your posting style (and confrontational replies)

Maybe the people posting are being over critical of Yorkie and his posting style!

and you throw back at them that they are 'desensitised', automatically (and wrongly) assuming that people are disagreeing with the sentiments of your post (which, personally, I'm not).

Have they watched the video, if not how can they comment!

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but if you are going to be a moderator, at least act professionally and don't throw your toys out of the pram, and learn to take some criticism instead of behaving in a confrontational manner.

Replying in the same style to posts made towards him isn't exactly "throwing his toys", if people don't like the original post made by Yorkie may I recommend finding and watching the original 10 minute video. I am knocking on a bit and have seen some horrific sights but I had to have 2 goes at watching it because it made me feel sick (literally) the first time.
When they have seen it then say Yorkie over-reacted, but until you have seen the full video you really are not in a position to comment.
Lines such as "serves them right for bringing their kids into a war zone" as they open fire on a van AFTER identifying kids in it trying to recover the injured to hospital.
Absolutely disgusting!

 

[yorkie]

The only thing I can really add to 455driver's comments is that I have not put words into peoples mouths when I said "But seriously, some of the responses to this topic show how desensitised we are, to what are really quite horrific, violent acts", I do not see how that can be claimed into putting words into peoples mouths, or over-reacting, or throwing toys out, or being confrontational. That statement is, quite clearly, none of those things. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that statement.


If someone saw such an act happen to people they knew, they would be extremely angry and upset (far more than any of us here could be), so in a way we are all desensitised.

From Wikipedia

Desensitization is a psychological process that has often been involved in explaining viewers' emotional reactions to media violence. Research on emotional reactions to violent messages has been concerned with the possibility that continued exposure to violence in the mass media will result in desensitization, that is, that exposure to media violence will undermine feelings of concern, empathy, or sympathy that viewers might have toward victims of actual violence

I've never been of any WSMR services and I don't think I've ever asked for any ticket validity advice on here, so either you're thinking of somebody else or I've missed the sarcasm. :P

My apologies - I was indeed confusing you with someone else! (although I am surprised you've never been on WSMR!)

 

[455driver]

Just a thought, how many people berating Yorkie have seen the full 10 minute video?

 

[ukrob]

Just a thought, how many people berating Yorkie have seen the full 10 minute video?

I have. I agree with Yorkies sentiments, like I already said.

Seeing the video or not has no influence on my opinion on his posting style on this thread - which is out of character, hence me asking "what is wrong?"

I do not need to justify or defend an opinion (and, of course, nor does anyone else).

 

[455driver]

The video will provoke a strong response in anybody that has seen it, that is my point.
The reason Yorkie has responded in the way he has is because of this, justifiably I may add.

 

[the sniper]

My apologies - I was indeed confusing you with someone else! (although I am surprised you've never been on WSMR!)

No problem, and tbh, I'm surprised I haven't been on a WSMR service yet too!

 

[bnm]

What's this constant reference to the "full 10 minute video"? It's nearly 40 minutes long.

Folks on here appear to be criticising others for not watching the "full 10 minute video". What's that all about?

I'll post the link again to the unedited near 40 minute video.

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

 

[thefab444]

I have. I agree with Yorkies sentiments, like I already said.

Seeing the video or not has no influence on my opinion on his posting style on this thread - which is out of character, hence me asking "what is wrong?"

Yes, we seem to be rather talking at cross purposes in this thread.