For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Fish Wrap Forgets To Inform That Killed Photographer Was Hanging With Insurgents
Written By : William Teach

Have you heard about the video that was released that showed the killing of a Reuters photographer back in 2007 by American military helicopters? The Times makes sure that you don’t miss it: Video Shows American Killing of Photographer

The Web site WikiLeaks.org released a graphic video on Monday showing an American helicopter shooting and killing a Reuters photographer and driver in a July 2007 attack in Baghdad.

A senior American military official confirmed that the video was authentic.

Reuters had long pressed for the release of the video, which consists of 38 minutes of black-and-white aerial video and conversations between pilots in two Apache helicopters as they open fire on people on a street in Baghdad. The attack killed 12, among them the Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and the driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40.

At a news conference at the National Press Club, WikiLeaks said it had acquired the video from whistle-blowers in the military and viewed it after breaking the encryption code. WikiLeaks edited the video to 17 minutes.

Everything above, including the headline, is meant to insinuate that the two were killed for no reason. After all, the helicopter pilots simply opened up on people on a Baghdad street. And the pilots laughed about it. The Times does get around to telling readers that the Apaches had been called in because of small arms fire and RPG’s used against American troops, but then

But the video does not show hostile action. Instead, it begins with a group of people milling around on a street, among them, according to WikiLeaks, Mr. Noor-Eldeen and Mr. Chmagh. The pilots believe them to be insurgents, and mistake Mr. Noor-Eldeen’s camera for a weapon. They aim and fire at the group, then revel in their kills.

Au contraire, Fish Wrap! The Jawa Report and Hot Air, among others, do a fantastic job in tearing apart the video, showing that the “people on the street of Baghdad” had AK-47′s and at least one RPG, and a convoy of America troops were approaching. So, the Apache pilots asked for permission to fire, and did just that. It was a war zone, and, as Cassy Fiano points out, if media folks embed themselves with insurgents, aka scumbag Islamist extremists, if they get killed, they shouldn’t be surprised. The Jawa Report has much more along those lines, such as “This wouldn’t be the first time Reuters had sent off it’s “crack team” of locals to give the terrorists’ “point of view”.”

The Fish Wrap finally gets around to some actual meat in the last paragraph

The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees “made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.”

Ah. So, weapons and the Reuters dudes were hanging and having fun with terrorists. In a war zone.

I do find it interesting that this supposedly huge!!!!! story only made it to page A13 of the Tuesday print edition, while it is front page on the web. The Times knows that this story is really no big deal, but, they could get lots of hits on the web if people saw the story easily.

Unshockingly, the unhinged on the left are going unhinged about the original release from Wikileaks, which calls this “Collateral Murder.” In fact, that is what the website is called. The Weekly Standard points out that this was anything but, that doesn’t stop the kooks at the Democratic Underground, Boing Boing (which offers the Al Jazeera view), Little Green Goofballs, and the Rachael Maddow Show blog, among others, doing their typical hate America and support Islamist extremists schtick.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

0
  • http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

    Nixon watched the video, the reporters made serious judgement errors and paid the price for it. The blame has to rest with them, based on what Nixon saw.

  • StanInFtWorth

    So let me get this straight…

    Two reporters are hanging out in a war zone with a group of terrorists that are preparing to ambush a convoy of Americans. And they got themselves killed?

    …and this is America’s fault HOW?

  • http://the-old-dominion.blogspot.com sicsempertyrannis

    Your right, those two little unarmed girls deserved it. Why were they in a war zone anyway? It’s clear they were begging for a killin’

    Long live perpetual war

    God bless America

  • Drake

    This has nothing to do with “deserve“, but it has everything to to with “inevitable. Go suck on your sock, and please make sure it is on the right appendage.

  • StanInFtWorth

    Your right, those two little unarmed girls deserved it.
    Posted by sicsempertyrannis 2010-04-06 12:43:49

    No, the scum that hides amongst women and children deserved it. The others were the unfortunate victims of war.

    I suppose you’d rather the helecopters did nothing and allowed the American convey to be attacked and those Americans killed. Would that have made you feel better, Sic.

    You continue to be “useless… useless.”

  • rightwingnutcase

    The American convoy did not show up until eight minutes after the attack, so they were not in the immediate area during the engagement. I find it quite disturbing that the helicopter went after the van that came to pick up the wounded. The men trying to load the victim obviously had no weapons and were basically executed for trying to help someone. This is one of the reasons we have had so much trouble trying to win over the citizens of Iraq. You may disagree, but I saw nothing during the whole episode that would have signaled me to pull the trigger if I were in the pilots place. The helicopter had the situation sighted and it would have been very easy to contact the ground troops and advise as to what was happening. If any shooting broke out after the troops arrived, the copter was there to do what it has to do.

  • Smithwick

    I’m curious; what is the appropriate response here? Do nothing and allow americans to die, or fire and sacrifice an american who chose to hang out with murderous jihadis?

    I suppose we could use our super secret missles that only kill bad guys and leave the good folks in their midst completely unharmed. But once we do the left will get all pissy that we weren’t using those all along and expose our plan to kill brown people needlessly.

  • StanInFtWorth

    You may disagree, but I saw nothing during the whole episode that would have signaled me to pull the trigger if I were in the pilots place.

    I do disagree. You were NOT there, so you do not know. The video gave one perspective. Much more than that went into the pilots decision to request fire.

    If any shooting broke out after the troops arrived, the copter was there to do what it has to do.
    Posted by rightwingnutcase 2010-04-06 14:22:02

    Our troops and the terrorists in such close proximity would have resulted in American casualties. The decision was made to neutralize the threat BEFORE the Americans got there.

  • blkdragon

    “I find it quite disturbing that the helicopter went after the van that came to pick up the wounded… I saw nothing during the whole episode that would have signaled me to pull the trigger”

    Posted by rightwingnutcase
    2010-04-06 14:22:02

    It’s a WAR moron, not a law enforcement exercise. If you want to win a war you play dirty and mean, not play nice and fair. You kill every last one of the enemy you can before they surrender or are wounded and out of action, then you round up those who surrendered and the wounded and stick them in a holding cell until the end of hostilities.

    A group of ARMED men preparing an ambush are legitimate targets.

    There was no way the pilots could have reasonably know the two idiots standing around with cameras were real reporters and not enemy combatants themselves.

    As for the “aid workers”… While it is a war crime to attack official medical officials flying the Red Cross / Red Crescent and rendering aid to the wounded the speed with which the van responded and the fact that it did not have any identifying marks means those men were enemy combatants also. That makes them legitimate targets.

  • StanInFtWorth

    That makes them legitimate targets.
    Posted by blkdragon 2010-04-06 14:57:41

    And that does not even take into account the numerous incidences where the terrorists have transported weapons in ambulances.

  • AF_Vet

    “Posted by StanInFtWorth
    2010-04-06 12:57:34″

    Absolutely right, Stan. As sicsemper obviously does not know: when combatants (legal or otherwise) hide amongst innocents, THEY are responsible for whatever happens to their human shields.

    The Law of Armed Conflict…it’s what’s for dinner!

  • William Teach

    The men trying to load the victim obviously had no weapons and were basically executed for trying to help someone.

    And the vehicle was unmarked, and hanging in a zone that had just been targeted by American forces. Most sane people who are not with the insurgents would have said “the h*ll with that.” If one enters a zone where fighting is happening, they can expect bad things to happen, especially when they are helping the enemy.

Advertisement
Featured Video

If I Was Your President (Boyfriend Spoof)

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time
50 Things Every 18-Year-Old Should Know
Politically Correct Fairy Tales
Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married
Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies
The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web
Advertisement
User Info