US Military Opens Fire On Innocent Journalists

And if any of you pity people think in the history of this country that unessesary force isn't a part of war your foolish and maybe you should find another country cause you have no idea what it takes to defend Americans.

every materialistic, greedy, murdurouse, resource raping, racial slurring
red blooded American.

God Bless the U.S.A

 

They suspect insurgents on the ground, they suspect some are holding weapons, including an RPG (which can take out a helicopter). They may have felt that they were indeed in danger, or that a possible attack was to take place on them or in the near future.

But the video, rather than getting THAT side of the story as well, and doing basic REPORTING, and letting the VIEWER decide based on all information gathered, instead OPINES: the very fact that the website showing the vid is "collateralmurder.com" shows that this is not true basic reportage but instead opinion and, possibly, agenda based "journalism". That's my issue with it.

Is there a story here? Hell yes. Is there a possibility that this was murder or a war crime? Yes. But to judge it as such without knowing the full extent of what happened, what the other side was going through (fine, they went to interview family members, but why not track down the individual soldiers as well?), and why the decisions that were made were made is to judge without knowing all the information, and to "report" a story that isn't thoroughly fleshed out and researched is, IMHO, what is wrong with journalism today - particularly on the internet. It's almost as though every blog, journal, etc. is more interested in a big game of "first!" like site visitors who leave comments as well as giving us their opinions than actually giving us the information we need to formulate our own.

Quite true. But was it indiscriminate if they believed themselves, or coalition forces, to be under threat? I don't think it was "clearly" shown in the video that they fired indiscriminately. From what was shown in the vid, it seems they had believed they had targets, the identified the targets to the best of their knowledge, and they engaged what they perceived to be the "enemy" and a "threat". Whether what they believed to be true was thoroughly assessed, however, is in question here. And yet the "reporters" of this story from that site didn't perform due diligence in finding out that side of the story, and getting ALL of the relevant information to the hands of the public.

This is sensationalists journalism.

I want to know the truth. What I don't want is someone else's perception of truth shoved down my throat. That's what that site is doing, and the video's site URL being "collateralmurder" (I mean...c'mon) points that out.

.

I'm not asking to come up with "reasons". We don't have to do that.

The soldiers do. But they weren't able to because the folks who released the video had already formulated an opinion, an agenda, and they weren't going to let something like journalistic integrity get in the way of that sort of thing. Reporting isn't about being "first!", it's about getting ALL of the information that you can. That wasn't done in this case, and that's part of my issue with it. The biggest one is that this is CLEARLY opinionated and or agenda based.

 

Dude I think you need to calm down. Half your posts don't even make sense anymore.

 

First of all I am not uncalm

secondly I was defending my position against others who clearly misunderstood.

And lastly how do my posts not make sense?

 

Oh I get it.

You mean they don't make sense to you.

That I can certainly understand

 

Not entirely accurate. There are embedded journalists.

What the armed forces has done is state that those not embedded take their safety into their own hands. Even Reuters has gone out of their way to state the dangers of war zone reporting.

And the last time the government "controlled" the media during a war was really WWII and (possibly) Korea.

 

Your asking me who YOU should listen to?

Well maybe that's why you don't get it.....

You should form your own opinion from factual basis of both parties, not what someone tells you be it media, government or otherwise.

Trust no one but your mother, and even then be careful.

 

This:

Where the hell did that come from?

The grammar was terrible. I had no idea what you were trying to say for a bit. No one ever denied that force was needed in war. But there is a reason why it's called UNNECESSARY FORCE. It's because it's UNNECESSARY. Not needed. Overkill.

History of America? What are you taking about? That the history of this country was based on retards blowing up innocents?

Then the last part: "every materialistic, greedy, murdurouse, resource raping, racial slurring red blooded American."

I'm not sure what you were trying to say with that. It doesn't even make sense with the first part. It's like you have tourettes.

 

It's called iorny. I reply to the first bit later I'm going back to work

 

Oh yeah and you remember that this country started out with unessessary force.


Remember that race called the native American?

 

Oh so it's okay if it happens as long as it's been done before

 

Wow, that's so sad. But like I said shit happens, it's an accident. Show the soldiers be punished? No. Because they are doing the best they can, and it's a hard job.

SHIT HAPPENS PEOPLE.

Ok, I'll stop saying that.

 

wut.

 

[removed]

 

lolwut

 

[removed]

 

lol good one. You already said shit happens, that post did nothing to add to the discussion.

 

[removed]

 

You poor naive uneducated fool, you couldn't be more wrong. Would you mind giving facts to back that up? Didn't think so...



Friendly fire isn't!