Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Neo-Cons Defend Massacre Of Iraqi Journalists, Children

Michelle ‘put Arab-Americans in concentration camps’ Malkin Hot Air website still claims cameras and tripods were rocket launchers despite U.S. military admitting otherwise

Paul Joseph Watson
April 6, 2010

Bloodthirsty neo-cons who would defend barbecuing Arab babies on the White House lawn if they were told it was part of the “war on terror” are disgracefully scrambling to defend a shocking video released by Wikileaks which shows U.S. Apache helicopters massacring Iraqi journalists and children in Baghdad while laughing about it.

“The newly released video of the Baghdad attacks was recorded on one of two Apache helicopters hunting for insurgents on 12 July 2007,” reports the Guardian. “Among the dead were a 22-year-old Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40. The Pentagon blocked an attempt by Reuters to obtain the video through a freedom of information request. Wikileaks director Julian Assange said his organisation had to break through encryption by the military to view it.”

The video shows the journalists openly walking down the middle of the street with tripods and video cameras while talking to other Iraqis and preparing to set up filming.

Claiming the men are carrying RPG rocket grenade launchers, the Apache pilots indiscriminately open fire on the group, before firing again at people who attempt to rescue the dying men. The rescuers’ van, which is seen to contain at least two children, is blown to pieces as the soldiers laugh and chuckle, “Hahaha. I hit ‘em,” and “Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards.”

“One of the men on the ground, believed to be Chmagh, is seen wounded and trying to crawl to safety. One of the helicopter crew is heard wishing for the man to reach for a gun, even though there is none visible nearby, so he has the pretext for opening fire: “All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.” A van draws up next to the wounded man and Iraqis climb out. They are unarmed and start to carry the victim to the vehicle in what would appear to be an attempt to get him to hospital. One of the helicopters opens fire with armour-piercing shells. “Look at that. Right through the windshield,” says one of the crew. Another responds with a laugh. Sitting behind the windscreen were two children who were wounded.”

Shortly after, a U.S. Humvee drives over one of the dead bodies. “I think they just drove over a body,” one of the pilots says, while chuckling.

The video arrives in the same week it was revealed that U.S. special forces dug bullets out of victims following a botched raid in Afghanistan and then lied to their superiors about the incident in an effort to cover-up the murder of innocent civilians – two pregnant women, a teenage girl, a police officer and his brother.

As the following clip highlights, this latest horror is merely the most recent in a long chain of videos cataloging the unreasonable and unprovoked abuse and brutality innocent Iraqis have been subjected to since the March 2003 invasion.

watch the massacre clip in full below

Some apologists, people like CFR stooge Brett H. McGurk, have blamed “fog of war” for the attack, while acknowledging the tragedy of the incident, but others have shamefully blamed the very people who were slaughtered for the entire incident.

Despite the fact that U.S. military admits that none of the men were carrying rocket launchers, Hot Air writer Ed Morrissey claims the Iraqis were gunned down because they were aiming RPG’s at U.S. troops. “It’s difficult to imagine any other purpose for an RPG launcher at that time and place. That’s exactly the kind of threat that US airborne forces were tasked to detect and destroy, which is why the gunships targeted and shot all of the members of the group,” Morrissey absurdly states, completely lying about the nature of the entire incident.

click to enlarge

As the Guardian report clarifies, “One of the helicopter crew is heard saying that one of the group is shooting. But the video shows there is no shooting or even pointing of weapons. The men are standing around, apparently unperturbed.”

The men are clearly walking openly and casually down the middle of the street, and are at ease with the fact that there are two Apache attack helicopters hovering over them. If they were preparing to attack the choppers or U.S. troops nearby, they would hardly be strolling around talking on mobile phones and chatting, they would be hunkered down amidst nearby buildings.

The men are clearly at ease and not in an attack posture – as is born out by the fact that they were journalists preparing to film interviews

Or as Wikileaks director Julian Assange puts it, “Why would anyone be so relaxed with two Apaches if someone was carrying an RPG and that person was an enemy of the United States?”

Unsatisfied with just running defense for people who massacre innocents and kids while laughing about it, Morrissey then has the temerity to justify the subsequent slaughter of the brave individuals who tried to help the dying victims.

“Another accusation is that US forces fired on and killed rescue workers attempting to carry one of the journalists out of the area. However, the video clearly shows that the vehicle in question bore no markings of a rescue vehicle at all, and the men who ran out of the van to grab the wounded man wore no uniforms identifying themselves as such. Under any rules of engagement, and especially in a terrorist hot zone like Baghdad in 2007, that vehicle would properly be seen as support for the terrorists that had just been engaged and a legitimate target for US forces.

While they didn’t grab weapons before getting shot, the truth is that the gunships didn’t give them the chance to try, either — which is exactly what they’re trained to do. They don’t need to wait until someone gets hold of the RPG launcher and fires it at the gunship or at the reinforcements that had already begun to approach the scene,” he writes.

Again, Morrissey’s entire twisted logic is based around the premise that the men were carrying RPG rocket launchers, which is confirmed and admitted not to be the case by Major Shawn Turner, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. Claiming the Apache pilots mistook the cameras for RPG rockets is one thing, but Morrissey continues to claim that the cameras were RPG’s in order to justify the slaughter, despite the fact that it’s fully confirmed that the men were not carrying RPG’s – they were journalists with tripods and long lens cameras.

“A military investigation concluded that the ‘RPG’ was really a long-range photography lens and the camera looked like an AK-47,” reports Sky News.

Morrissey’s characterization of the victims as the “terrorists that had just been engaged” is also completely at odds with the fact that the men were civilians, journalists and children.

Illustrating the level of denial and delusion that neo-cons wrap themselves in when acting as apologists for war crimes, one Hot Air reader even goes so far as to claim that the entire video is fake, despite the fact that the U.S. military admits it is genuine and has spent years trying to block its release.

“This has all the hallmarks of some bullshit Hollywood production. The soldiers sound scripted, the Bradley Fighting vehicles look inauthentic,” a poster named Cr4sh Dummy ludicrously claims.

“My conclusions is that (t)his is simply and unequivocally a viral video for some bullshit antiwar movie based on this event,” the commenter blathers.

Again, the U.S. military itself admits that the video is genuine, but that’s not enough for the tragically retarded “fans” of Michelle Malkin. This reminds us of when Malkin hysterically claimed that a video showing U.S. soldiers throwing a puppy off a clip was a hoax and that the dog was a stuffed toy.

“Watch the clip closely. The puppy doesn’t move. It’s clear to me that it’s either dead or a stuffed toy. The sound effects of a dog yapping seem to have been dubbed in,” wrote Malkin.

The soldier who threw the puppy off the cliff, Lance Cpl. David Motari, was later kicked out of the Corps, and a second Marine involved was disciplined. Malkin never retracted her ridiculous claim that the dog was a stuffed toy.

In another Malkin-linked blog piece, the writer recycles the lie that “the video shows armed insurgents engaging or about to engage US troops,” when it shows the exact opposite, as every analyst who has watched it agrees, and the author all but praises the murdering Apache pilots while attacking Wikileaks for releasing the video as, “Beyond stupid, they’re evil.”

Apparently, ripping innocent men who have families and children limb from limb for no good reason is perfectly acceptable, but releasing a film of the incident is “evil”. What pit of hell did these monsters climb out of?

Directing his vitriol at the brave van drivers who attempted to save their dying loved ones, the blogger snaps, “You are stupid. Innocent, but stupid. You’re asking to be killed.”

The rest of the article attempts to convince the reader that cameras and tripods were in fact RPG’s, when as we have exhaustively stressed was admitted not to be the case by the U.S. military itself. The victims were Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver who also worked for Reuters news agency – they were not RPG carrying terrorists.

“Military spokesman Turner said that during the engagement, the helicopter mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher,” reports the Mail.

There were never any RPG’s, yet neo-cons are still trying to make the case that the slaughter was justified because the men were carrying RPG’s. The scale of this deception knows no bounds.

The vulgarity in seeing Malkin and her ilk defend these murderers is underlined by the fact that the soldiers immensely enjoyed killing these innocent men, laughing and chuckling all the way, and as Assange points out, “The behaviour of the pilots is like a computer game. When Saeed is crawling, clearly unable to do anything, their response is: come on buddy, we want to kill you, just pick up a weapon … It appears to be a desire to get a higher score, or a higher number of kills.”

Amidst the myriad of obfuscation and denial, neo-con apologists have no come-back for this blatant barbarism. Blowing up vans containing little kids with enjoyment cannot be explained away by Malkin’s bloodthirsty readers, but judging by the comments in response to the article, many of them would indeed support barbecuing Arab babies on the White House lawn to ’send a message that we are getting tough with the terrorists’ – to these thugs, the means justifies the ends.

Neo-Cons will go to any lengths to defend and downplay wanton acts of cruelty and barbarism. To them, “supporting the troops” means defending people who slaughter kids and murder little puppies. These people are truly devoid of any human emotion. That’s why they have to invent convoluted theories and outright lies in a desperate effort to explain away something that fits every definition of a war crime.


Anonymous said...

im truly sadened by this video and those who try to explain in within the confines of the 'fog of war'.

This was simply a case of 'Space Invaders' Murder, no more no less. Those Pilots and the people supporinting them are a disgrace to the uniform, but sadly this will me mearly one of thousands of cases covered up.

Drone attacks, killing insurgents ( yeah right everyone is an insurgent in the eyes of the Americans.........someone let me know when the Boogeyman gets taken out will ya)

Theonomist said...

Still Thursday on NPR (National Propaganda Radio) - while announcing that there would not be a further investigation since the Army had already conducted 2 investigations of the event - the announcer was claiming that the photographer was meeting with "suspected terrorists armed with assault rifles and RPG's"
??? Even the army admits that there were no RPG's, only a camera and tripod that were "mistakenly identified" by the Apache crew. I guess the children were also "mistakenly identified."

Anonymous said...

Still, the least we can do is give 'em free healthcare, right, Larry?

They are doing "it" for "us", remember?

Well, at least that's what you say.....

Larry said...

Hey anonymous [aka TLNL]--are you really NOT that smart, or are you just being idiotic for the purpose of carrying out your agenda and you feel the ONLY way to make your point is to make incredibly STUPID comments like that?

The actions of the military personnel who killed these innocent people no longer fall under the "innocent agents" law because they went OUTSIDE the rules of war and committed WAR CRIMES. Do they deserve health care? As long as they are military personnel they do. Deserving health care and committing war crimes really do not have anything to do with each other [as I have explained MANY times] because they do not receive health care on the basis of whether they commit war crimes or not----but if they are simply military personnel. These military soldiers should be prosecuted and be put in prison---THEN after they are no longer military personnel, they will NOT receive health care from the military.

By the way, why do you keep referring to military health care as FREE???? Its NOT FREE, they WORK for it! How many fucking times do I need to say this? The ironic thing is, if the soldiers [who shot these innocent people] are convicted and sent to prison---THEN they will get free health care! Amazing how our flawed system works huh? Prisoners who receive FREE health care is JUST AS WRONG as ordinary American citizens receiving health care for doing nothing.

Why do you keep saying that Obamacare is FREE anyway? It's NOT.

the_last_name_left said...

L: The actions of the military personnel who killed these innocent people no longer fall under the "innocent agents" law because they went OUTSIDE the rules of war and committed WAR CRIMES.

But you argue the entire war was criminal - presumably that it was the greatest war-crime, a crime against peace.

Soldiers have a DUTY to not follow illegal orders. How can there be legal orders to prosecute the greatest war-crime?

Even the build-up of forces as a threat in preparation for the assault contravened the UN foundation treaty which is incorporated into US law as the highest law in the land.

Every individual solider is bound to this - constitutionally. That's obvious?

No healthcare is "free", Larry - it all has to be paid for in some manner.

"Free" means "at the point of delivery". Even under a perfect socialism the healthcare system has be maintained, provisioned and staffed - somehow.

Now, accepting limited resources are necessary for healthcare to exist in whatever is clear you would rather the resources went into private insurance companies rather than towards hospitals, nurses, doctors, etc.

LEt's look at the results:

USA has the best healthcare in the world - but it is only available to the elites.

Infant mortality and various other measures of public health are probably the worlds' best - in Beverley Hills.

Because healthcare is divided up on the basis of ability to pay, and the Beverley Hills crowd can pay, of course.

Elsewhere in America the story is very different. So much so, that even Cuba can achieve higher life expectancy! Even in the face of the American embargo.

Even the British system (which you and your fellow-travellers so deride) achieves better results.

Ultimately your position is immoral - one where you deny the privileged owe anything to anyone - let alone the poorest and most deprived. (Apart from the army, of course - on whom you reflexively lavish gifts and honours - even when used to commit a crime against peace.)

Seemingly it doesn't do to just receive benefits from society by mere dint of existence and citizenship - one has to commit war-crimes first. What a qualification!

And let's you imagine some of those army boys took the army route because they needed a way to get healthcare, income, pensions, a JOB? You know, all those things otherwise missing from their society - because of people like you and your views, Larry?

Larry said...

"But you argue the entire war was criminal - presumably that it was the greatest war-crime, a crime against peace.

Soldiers have a DUTY to not follow illegal orders. How can there be legal orders to prosecute the greatest war-crime?"

PLEASE tell me you CANT be this dumb. Im begging you, please tell me you are just doing this to "get my goat" and that you really are not this stupid.

For the very LAST time----military personnel can NEVER be charged for acting illegally for fighting in the war itself, because the war was voted on by Congress and was started by policy makers------NOT the soldiers! Do you GET that???? Or do you need it explained in several more languages???

However, once IN the war, soldiers have to abide by the RULES of war. It is the responsibility of the SOLDIERS to carry out the RULES of war and the SOLDIERS are held accountable for not following rules of war----that is an INDIVIDUAL responsibility---meaning, that cannot be put upon the policy makers because that is an individual responsibility---whereas being in the war itself was not the result of an individual act, but the collective vote of Congress and Bush Co. for starting the war.

If you dont understand that, then I might have to bring out the flash cards. I think a 10-year-old would understand what I just said. Why cant you?

Larry said...

"No healthcare is "free", Larry - it all has to be paid for in some manner."

YOU'RE the one who keeps using the word "FREE"-----asshole!!

the_last_name_left said...

L: the war was voted on by Congress and was started by policy makers------NOT the soldiers! Do you GET that???? Or do you need it explained in several more languages???

did this reasoning apply to Nazis who were "just following orders"?

If troops have a duty to disobey illegal can they be entirely innocent when they have followed orders to commit the greatest warcrime, a crime against peace?

The nub of it is this: how can orders to implement warcrimes be legal?

You tell me?

Larry said...

Oh Jesus Christ, you are the most idiotic fucking person on Earth. You just keep REPEATING the same questions over and over that I ANSWER!

Once AGAIN, you post and EXCERPT from my post in which the omitted part ANSWERED your question!

"military personnel can NEVER be charged for acting illegally for fighting in the war itself, because the war was voted on by Congress and was started by policy makers------NOT the soldiers! Do you GET that???? Or do you need it explained in several more languages???"

You OMITTED the first part of that which says they can NEVER be charged for acting illegally for fighting in the war ITSELF!


the_last_name_left said...

Larry says:

"military personnel can NEVER be charged for acting illegally for fighting in the war itself, because the war was voted on by Congress and was started by policy makers------NOT the soldiers!"

However, Nuremberg Principle IV says

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

the_last_name_left said...

not going to address this are you LArry?