Photo evidence of US troops planting weapons on dead civilian children

[giant]

John Young has published photos and information on his cryptome site (warning, graphic photos) (http://cryptome.org/bkz/buhriz-kill01.htm) apparently showing US troops planting weapons on soccer-playing children they killed and captured.

Hersh's comments during a recent interview:
After I did Abu Ghraib, I got a bunch of digital pictures emailed me, and -- was a lot of work on it, and I decided, well, we can talk about it later. You never know why you do things. You have some general rules, but in this case, a bunch of kids were going along in three vehicles. One of them got blown up. The other two units -- soldiers ran out, saw some people running, opened up fire. It was a bunch of boys playing soccer. And in the digital videos you see everybody standing around, they pull the bodies together. This is last summer. They pull the bodies together. You see the body parts, the legs and boots of the Americans pulling bodies together. Young kids, I don't know how old, 13, 15, I guess. And then you see soldiers dropping R.P.G.'s, which are rocket-launched grenades around them. And then they're called in as an insurgent kill.

[Gene Clean]

:(

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Oh look. Photo evidence of US troops planting weapons on the corpses of a bunch of kids who've been playing football.

[giant]

I sent this around to a bunch of people I know and the most interesting responses came from long-time war veterans and it basically went like, "this is how the military always has been." As one person who has been involved in every major US conflict of the past 40 years pointed out:
I would guess that 80 - 90% of the insurgent casualties are actually civilians. This was certainly true in Vietnam, and I suspect this would also be true in Iraq and Afghanistan. Basically if someone is dead, the US military will make every effort to report that death as an enemy insurgent, even if they are women and children...In Vietnam everyone knew that the body counts were fraudulent, but they were still reported up the chain of command and to the media

[Aquatic]

Welcome to Vietnam. Again. What a coincidence Vietnam's PM is here.

[NaplesX]

You people are juvenile and sick.

The pictures show proof of nothing. Except some kids were killed. The Comments on the page acknowledge as much.

"Unfortunately, Mr. Hersh has no plans to go forward with the story at this time, citing the inconclusive nature of what happened, and the risk it could have to his sources."

"I cannot authenticate whether Mr. Hersh is correct and that the teens in question were innocent or not, but clearly, something significant is amiss. At the very least, it indicates how uncertain the situation is over there. Our soldiers literally do not know who the enemy is, and apparently are willing to manipulate the evidence in order to justify their actions."

"To me, the whole situation is indicative of the terrible uncertainty of the conflict, where everyone is a potential insurgent, and where that fear and uncertainty leads to a situation where U.S. soldiers try to manipulate the reality of the situation."

This is all guesswork, and we see where your sensibilities are.

[New]

You just don't get it do you?

[Harald]

"... clearly, something significant is amiss. At the very least, it indicates how uncertain the situation is over there. Our soldiers literally do not know who the enemy is, and apparently are willing to manipulate the evidence in order to justify their actions."

"To me, the whole situation is indicative of the terrible uncertainty of the conflict, where everyone is a potential insurgent, and where that fear and uncertainty leads to a situation where U.S. soldiers try to manipulate the reality of the situation."

[iPoster]

digital pictures

We all know how reliable those are in this day and age. Not to dispute the fact that similar incidents have happened in war since biblical times. Always remember the old maxim:

“Don’t believe half of what you see…
…and none of what you hear.”

[bergz]

Originally posted by iPoster

“Don’t believe half of what you see…
…and none of what you hear.”

I don't believe the last half of the photos. The ones with the grenades.

--B

[Moe_in_Texas]

Horse Feathers! Remember the photos of Americans (or was it Brits) raping Iraqi woman? Oh yeah those were screen captures from a porn movie. If we were half as bad as some of you say, they would all have been dead a long time ago.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You people are juvenile and sick.

Except some kids were killed.

Yeah, we are the juvenile bunch here, we...

[johnq]

I'm as anti-Bush, anti-neocon, anti-war as the next guy, but honestly, some still pictures mean absolutely nothing.

1. Some kids with weapons (hardly rare there) get their asses shot the hell up.
2. U.S. troops close in:
- Check for wounded/make sure no one is alive or faking to be dead
- Secure/Remove all loose weapons that are laying around
- Check for I.D./any potentially important documents or papers

Take the pictures, reverse the order and you get some kids laying around dead with no weapons, then pictures of U.S. soldiers "planting" weapons, then kids laying dead with weapons.

Now if this were video, I'd be all over it.

And I am positive our troops are capable of awful, illegal things, as is any army, however I'm not blind to the sins of all the various sides. I just don't think stills can prove much.

Feel free to point out pertinent details to convince me otherwise.

Is it me or is at least one boy not dead but wounded and being triaged?

[giant]

Originally posted by johnq
Take the pictures, reverse the order and you get some kids laying around dead with no weapons, then pictures of U.S. soldiers "planting" weapons, then kids laying dead with weapons.
Take another look. The launcher and rockets are the same in every photo but were moved at least 4 times for the photos. As also pointed out in the description, there is no other evidence in the photos whatsoever that the children were armed or that they were insurgents and actually don't have head scarves or any other typical insurgent distinguishing characteristics.

In addition, I know some of you feel you need to come up with some BS explanation because you think you have some connection to the troops, but FU. I have family over there right now. Ever veteran and aid worker I sent this to had a response similar to the one I quoted above.

[johnq]

Originally posted by giant
Take another look. The launcher and rockets are the same in every photo but were moved at least 4 times for the photos. As also pointed out in the description, there is no other evidence in the photos whatsoever that the children were armed or that they were insurgents and actually don't have head scarves or any other typical insurgent distinguishing characteristics.

Well, scarves aren't mandatory. Anyway, yeah I picked up on the lack of variety for the weapons. Plus if any of them had been laid into with suppression fire there's no way those rockets would be unscathed. At least one should have blown up leaving much more damage.

But regardless. let's see some more details on the alleged/presumed U.S. soldiers. Otherwise it is just as likely to be insurgents in stolen uniforms, planting weapons on kids they killed.

(Fuckloads of U.S. uniforms have been stolen over the years).

We need Abu Ghraib-style "bragging" pics before I'll feel convinced. Bad stuff happens and pics can tell lies. Video is a bit better but not really.

But do I doubt the potential? Nah. The Bush/Neocon/Rumsfeld fiasco has proved anything is possible and likely.

[mrtwistor]

There isn't any blood on the weapons - if they were using them there would likely be at least some. Also, the shadows on the trees in photo 10 are higher than those in photo 1, which indicates the position of the sun was lower, and therefore photo 10 was taken later in the day. Photo 10 has a yellowish cast to it in comparision to photo 1, again indicitave of being taken closer to sunset.

[Moe_in_Texas]

If they were doing what you say, wouldn't they have shot the photographer?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
If they were doing what you say, wouldn't they have shot the photographer? Why not kill the whole village? Why stop with some soccer punks?

These are evil, repressive US soldiers were talking about. Just like the Nazis, remember.

[groverat]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
If they were doing what you say, wouldn't they have shot the photographer?

No.

That's absurd logic.

[Moe_in_Texas]

Originally posted by groverat
No.

That's absurd logic.


No, it’s solid logic. If you are doing the absurd and don't want to get caught, you leave no witnesses. You don’t let some clown walk away with physical evidence.

[groverat]

How do the Abu Ghraib pictures exist? Why were there pictures of people smiling at the camera, doing thumbs-up poses with dead bodies packed in ice on the network news?
How does any picture of anything like this ever exist?

Soldiers in that situation might not necessarily even be thinking about anything outside of what's going on immediately around them.

It's absurd logic.

[Moe_in_Texas]

Originally posted by groverat
How do the Abu Ghraib pictures exist? Why were there pictures of people smiling at the camera, doing thumbs-up poses with dead bodies packed in ice on the network news?
How does any picture of anything like this ever exist?

Soldiers in that situation might not necessarily even be thinking about anything outside of what's going on immediately around them.

It's absurd logic.

If they were as evil and calculated as some here want to think, they would not have let it happen.

[giant]

I can't believe you need someone to point this out to you: the photographer is obviously with the troops, almost certainly (99% chance) a soldier himself, and the rpg and rockets are being put next to the kids for the pictures.

POST EDITED BY GROVERAT! http://www.beckhamsite.com/forums/images/smiles/emot-v.gif

[groverat]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
If they were as evil and calculated as some here want to think, they would not have let it happen.

Can you explain your logic against the public broadcast of pictures of US soldiers posing for cameras with dead bodies? Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?

[Moe_in_Texas]

Originally posted by groverat
Can you explain your logic against the public broadcast of pictures of US soldiers posing for cameras with dead bodies? Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?

There's a big difference between the prison pictures and those of US soldiers setting up a fake insurgent attack.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
If they were doing what you say, wouldn't they have shot the photographer?
As groverat said, the above is absurd logic. I look like I'll have to spell that out in more detail.

1) Being willing to deceitfully cover up accidentally killings and being willing to deliberately kill in order to maintain that cover-up are two quite different levels of immorality.

2) The children killed were "them". The person taking the pictures appears to be "one of us". So there's a matter of "loyalty", twisted though it would be in a case like this, that would stop many from going as far as deliberate killing of the photographer.

3) Since having pictures of the dead children with the planted weapons would have been desired ("Look! See the weapons they had!?") the soldiers might have wanted the pictures taken, and just didn't realize that the phony set-up was also recorded and/or not edited out later.

[Moe_in_Texas]

Did you really think I was suggesting they should have shot the photographer? I was taking a shot at the ridiculous allegation being made based on some whack images that showed up on the Internet. What is absurd here is having a protracted argument about internet litter.

Go back to the net. I'm sure you will find some more images, stories and rumors to further support you view of blood thirsty, oil guzzling, Halliburton fueled Americans burning and raping and murdering their way across the globe.

Good night now

[shetline]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Did you really think I was suggesting they should have shot the photographer?
Wow. Not only was I never suggesting that, I'm rather amazed at the kind of mind that processes information in such a way as to come up with such an idea.

You appeared to me to be suggesting that planting weapons as a cover-up, but then not shooting the photographer, was somehow amazingly incongruous. You seemed to be suggesting that this incongruity cast doubt on the whole story. (Therefore faked pictures? Misrepresented story? Who knows?)

My only point is that being willing to perform the cover-up, yet not being willing to kill the photographer, is NOT so amazingly incongruous. The doubt-creating incongruity you wish to summon does not exist.

[NaplesX]

How can you guys sit here and rejoice at the discovery of some pictures which, in your view, prove the US military is capable of unspeakable acts -- Hassan and Aquatic seemed almost giddy to point it out -- then tell others they are being ridiculous?

According to the posters here, we are to, if we are to be viewed as smart or intelligent, believe that US troops in question here are either;

a. not smart enough to differentiate between an insurgent with a gun and a young boy playing soccer, or...

b. Cold blooded killers, looking for an easy mark.

If "a" is true than that would explain why they would take pictures of themselves planting evidence and then pass it along to the media. But the fact that they were forward thinking enough to bring iraqi type weaponry along. That goes directly in the face of:
Originally posted by groverat
Soldiers in that situation might not necessarily even be thinking about anything outside of what's going on immediately around them.
If you are claiming "b" is the explanation, then my question still stands. Why would cold blooded killers keep anyone alive or even attempt to help, as a couple pictures seems to reveal?

I will stand behind my logic on this.

[groverat]

I don't know who is "rejoicing" here.

And who said "cold-blooded killers"? No one. Yet another straw man.

[NaplesX]

http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=183600

want real proof of brutality? No inconclusive pictures here.

EDIT WARNING GRAPHIC - sorry forgot

http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=181500

http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=169500

http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=159500

http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=152600

http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=135500

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
I don't know who is "rejoicing" here.

And who said "cold-blooded killers"? No one. Yet another straw man. You're all basically saying "See the military is evil, here's proof"

None of you took even a second to ponder any other possibility.

What would you call that. exactly?

[New]

err.. I think you should delete those links...

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by New
err.. I think you should delete those links... Why? If we are to point out brutality, we should point it out on both sides.

[shetline]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I will stand behind my logic on this.
How well you can stand is another question.

"Not smart enough to differentiate"?

In case you haven't heard, war is hell. You don't have to be stupid to shoot the wrong people. I recall a point early on in the Iraq war when something like one third of all of the casualties were accidents and "friendly fire" incidents. When people are called upon to make split-second decisions under great stress and fear, they often make the wrong decisions.

You might be thinking then, "Yes, I know war is hell, so let's give the soldiers a break!".

The problem with that attitude is that the truth of "war is hell" becomes a distant and less painful abstraction. The problem with that attitude is that the public gets a sanitized, cartoonish white-hats-vs.-black-hats view of what's going on. In the name of "supporting our troops", the public is shielded from the kind of information that might help them decide that the best support we could offer would be to get the soldiers the hell out of the mess they're in as soon as possible.

As far as I'm concerned, the main point of this story isn't "What bad, bad people those soldiers are!". I'm not going to dismiss completely the idea that these are bad soldiers, but neither will I leap to the judgment that they are. I can certainly understand the kind of thinking that might go, "my getting into a shitload of trouble isn't going to bring these poor kids back to life", which could lead to such a cover up, a cover up done by people who are still far from brutish enough to deliberately gun down a photographer to cover their own asses.

The main point of this story, as far as I'm concerned, is to get people questioning the overall picture we get from the American media of how the war is going. To question how many of the reported "insurgents" really are insurgents. To question if we're doing more harm than good.

[groverat]

You're all basically saying "See the military is evil, here's proof"
None of you took even a second to ponder any other possibility.
What would you call that. exactly?

I would call that pointing something out.

I never called anyone evil. I never called anyone cold-blooded. I never rejoiced about anything. Who here rejoiced? Who? Yet again you are making wild accusations with absolutely no evidence at all because you have no logic to back your arguments, only pathetic attempts at character assassination. You should try being an honest person, it would do you some good.

And you're still playing the "But Johnny did it first/worse!" game.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
I would call that pointing something out.

I never called anyone evil. I never called anyone cold-blooded. I never rejoiced about anything. Who here rejoiced? Who? Yet again you are making wild accusations with absolutely no evidence at all because you have no logic to back your arguments, only pathetic attempts at character assassination. You should try being an honest person, it would do you some good.

And you're still playing the "But Johnny did it first/worse!" game. Oh really?

The premise of this story (if you wanna call it that) and Abu Graib, the Fake Koran Flushing are all the same thing. They are attempt to delegitimize the war. A task you are happy to do. I need no more proof that just about every posting by you I've read.

If indeed you didn't rejoice, what is the big deal? Why protest so much about it? The problem is you went right along with the Vietnam reference and the underlying sarcasm put forth by other members that posted. You had a chance to speak up and disagree, but no, no such foresight on your part.

Johnq, moe, and iposter made it clear he was not in your boat.

I love it when you play ignorant. It so becomes you.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by NaplesX
http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=183600

want real proof of brutality? No inconclusive pictures here.

EDIT WARNING GRAPHIC - sorry forgot

http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=181500

http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=169500

http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=159500

http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=152600

http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=135500

What do prove your links ? What is the connection between this thread and this one.
I don't see the link, between soldiers who want to hide an accident (shooting kids) and bloody criminals.
The next time, the police caught you on the road for whatever mistake, tell them it's not important, because there is far worse infractions commited on the road (like a drunk guy who splash a young kid).

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by shetline
How well you can stand is another question.

"Not smart enough to differentiate"?

In case you haven't heard, war is hell. You don't have to be stupid to shoot the wrong people. I recall a point early on in the Iraq war when something like one third of all of the casualties were accidents and "friendly fire" incidents. When people are called upon to make split-second decisions under great stress and fear, they often make the wrong decisions.

You might be thinking then, "Yes, I know war is hell, so let's give the soldiers a break!".

The problem with that attitude is that the truth of "war is hell" becomes a distant and less painful abstraction. The problem with that attitude is that the public gets a sanitized, cartoonish white-hats-vs.-black-hats view of what's going on. In the name of "supporting our troops", the public is shielded from the kind of information that might help them decide that the best support we could offer would be to get the soldiers the hell out of the mess they're in as soon as possible.

As far as I'm concerned, the main point of this story isn't "What bad, bad people those soldiers are!". I'm not going to dismiss completely the idea that these are bad soldiers, but neither will I leap to the judgment that they are. I can certainly understand the kind of thinking that might go, "my getting into a shitload of trouble isn't going to bring these poor kids back to life", which could lead to such a cover up, a cover up done by people who are still far from brutish enough to deliberately gun down a photographer to cover their own asses.

The main point of this story, as far as I'm concerned, is to get people questioning the overall picture we get from the American media of how the war is going. To question how many of the reported "insurgents" really are insurgents. To question if we're doing more harm than good. That would be a fine explanation if the premise of the thread was different. Nice backpedal though.

Like grove, you went right along with the underlying sarcasm and anti-military bent.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
What do prove your links ? What is the connection between this thread and this one.
I don't see the link, between soldiers who want to hide an accident (shooting kids) and bloody criminals.
The next time, the police caught you on the road for whatever mistake, tell them it's not important, because there is far worse infractions commited on the road (like a drunk guy who splash a young kid). The pictures prove NOTHING!

They could just as easily be pictures of the aftermath of an Islamist extremist killing spree.

None of us here know the truth about these pictures, yet some here are claiming it's a cover-up for some accidental shooting. Essentially saying "See even the US is capable of evil".

Giant is basically saying "This is nothing new, this is how the military operates. Look at me. I have a military friend who says so." Just goes to show the kind of people giant knows, IMO. I've talked to countless vets from many wars. They were honorable men willing to admit mistakes.

100% pure pathetic.

[shetline]

Originally posted by NaplesX
That would be a fine explanation if the premise of the thread was different. Nice backpedal though.
Backpedaling from exactly what, pray tell?

Go back over what I've posted in this thread. Prior to the one post of mine you commented upon, I had only posted twice, the first time to counter Moe's ridiculous contention, "If they were doing what you say, wouldn't they have shot the photographer?", and the second time to counter Moe's even more ridiculous suggestion that I was implying that he thought that the soldiers should have killed the photographer.
Like grove, you went right along with the underlying sarcasm and anti-military bent.
Show me where this has happened anywhere but within your vivid imagination. Disabusing you of the way you falsely decide to read between the lines is not the same as "backpedaling".

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by NaplesX
The pictures prove NOTHING!

They could just as easily be pictures of the aftermath of an Islamist extremist killing spree.

None of us here know the truth about these pictures, yet some here are claiming it's a cover-up for some accidental shooting. Essentially saying "See even the US is capable of evil".

Giant is basically saying "This is nothing new, this is how the military operates. Look at me. I have a military friend who says so." Just goes to show the kind of people giant knows, IMO. I've talked to countless vets from many wars. They were honorable men willing to admit mistakes.

100% pure pathetic.

That's right, there is no proof. Only a police investigation will be able to answer this question.

BTW any countrie is capable of evil in a lesser extent. For example France killed by accident a Greenpeace photograph by bombing one of their boat, 15 years ago. For a citizen like me, this is fucking unbelievable, that my countrie made a terrorist attack. But that was the sad truth.

I don't know for this particular story, but it's technically possible, because there is a lot of violence in Iraq, and the job of soldiers must be a mess.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by shetline
Backpedaling from exactly what, pray tell?

Go back over what I've posted in this thread. Prior to the one post of mine you commented upon, I had only posted twice, the first time to counter Moe's ridiculous contention, "If they were doing what you say, wouldn't they have shot the photographer?", and the second time to counter Moe's even more ridiculous suggestion that I was implying that he thought that the soldiers should have killed the photographer.

Show me where this has happened anywhere but within your vivid imagination. Disabusing you of the way you falsely decide to read between the lines is not the same as "backpedaling". And I agree with you on that one small sub-point about the photographer. However you dutifully picked up on grove's argument and ran with it. So one would not be assuming a lot to think you agree with it.

[groverat]

They are attempt to delegitimize the war.

The war was never legitimate to begin with, so to try and "delegitimize" it is impossible from the outset. But let's put that aside and deal with this vacuous claim on its face. These stories are not merely attempts to "delegitimize" the war, and framing it in that way is extremely duplicitous and transparently so.

The torture and rape at Abu Ghraib happened, so the events being reported needs to justification. No news story needs justification, so there is no "premise" other than the relaying of facts and events.

If indeed you didn't rejoice, what is the big deal?

What on earth could this possibly mean?
I am not happy that young men are forced into this situation. I am not happy that they were lied to by their pathetic waste of human life we call "President Bush" and shipped to a warzone. I am not happy that they don't know who the "enemy" is (if anyone does) and that they have to do things like this for whatever reason they have to do it. There is no happiness involved, there's no rejoicing. Anger? Yes. Digust? Sure. Frustration? Absolutely. But there is no rejoicing.

It's a big deal to me that innocent people are being murdered by US soldiers. It's a big deal to me. I want it to not happen anymore.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
And who said "cold-blooded killers"? No one. Yet another straw man.

So, your accusation of a straw-man was a diversion.

Originally posted by groverat
It's a big deal to me that innocent people are being murdered by US soldiers

:lol:

.. and the truth shall set you free.

[shetline]

Originally posted by NaplesX
And I agree with you on that one small sub-point about the photographer. However you dutifully picked up on grove's argument and ran with it. So one would not be assuming a lot to think you agree with it.
To think that that giant's story is credible is the same as being "anti-military" and having a "sarcastic bent"?

Conversely, shall I take it that being "pro military" means never thinking ill of what our military might have done, or what they might be doing, unless perhaps faced with absolutely incontrovertible evidence, evidence presented perhaps in a painfully reluctant and apologetic way?

No individual soldiers, of course, should ever be punished, nor any specific incident decided upon with great certainty, without solid good-enough-for-trial evidence. That doesn't mean, however, that naive "Rah! Rah! Support your troops!" cheerleading is good for our country either. It's our patriotic duty to be suspicious of the exercise of military power. History teaches us that there's almost always a great deal of ugliness that gets covered up when military forces -- ours, theirs, anyone's -- are deployed.

[groverat]

So, your accusation of a straw-man was a diversion.

No, because I never said anyone was a "cold-blooded killer". That's something you made up.

And yes, there's a huge difference between being a "cold-blooded killer" and someone who is thousands of miles away from home, pumped up with lies and jingoism, handed a gun and told to shoot first and ask questions later. There's a massive difference.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by shetline
To think that that giant's story is credible is the same as being "anti-military" and having a "sarcastic bent"?

Conversely, shall I take it that being "pro military" means never thinking ill of what our military might have done, or what they might be doing, unless perhaps faced with absolutely incontrovertible evidence, evidence presented perhaps in a painfully reluctant and apologetic way?

No individual soldiers, of course, should ever be punished, nor any specific incident decided upon with great certainty, without solid good-enough-for-trial evidence. That doesn't mean, however, that naive "Rah! Rah! Support your troops!" cheerleading is good for our country either. It's our patriotic duty to be suspicious of the exercise of military power. History teaches us that there's almost always a great deal of ugliness that gets covered up when military forces -- ours, theirs, anyone's -- are deployed. I agree with you. But it is not in context here, my friend.

There is nor real way to know what these pictures depict, aside from an eye-witness. I don't want anyone to blindly cheerlead, just as much as i don't want anyone to blindly undermine the military, while they are still in theatre.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
No, because I never said anyone was a "cold-blooded killer". That's something you made up.

And yes, there's a huge difference between being a "cold-blooded killer" and someone who is thousands of miles away from home, pumped up with lies and jingoism, handed a gun and told to shoot first and ask questions later. There's a massive difference. You are only fooling yourself.

That last post said it all. My "reading between the lines" was proven accurate by your own statement.

These pictures do nothing to bolster your argument "that innocent people are being murdered by US soldiers" which, by the way is the same as saying "US soldiers are murderers", your semantics game notwithstanding.

[Harald]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You are only fooling yourself.

That last post said it all. My "reading between the lines" was proven accurate by your own statement.

These pictures do nothing to bolster your argument "that innocent people are being murdered by US soldiers" which, by the way is the same as saying "US soldiers are murderers", your semantics game notwithstanding.

Hey, Naples! Remember when you said that the torture at Abu Ghraib was like hazing?

Well, before that you said that it was all lies! That the photographic evidence proved nothing!

Just thought I'd remind you.

[giant]

let's not forget (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/aztlan_thief_host_your_own_video_iraqiwar.wmv)

The problem with people like you, naples, is you think having roses and gumdrops fantasies about the military makes you patriotic when it really just makes you ignorant. I come from two irish-american military families and have family members in iraq right now. I do volunteer research for aid agencies. Virtually all of my friends and coworkers have done at least some aid or military work in 3rd world countries. Every time you people try to mask your lack of an argument with fantasy-land views of war I pray for a draft so you finally get to learn how backwards your whole belief system is.

[johnq]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Johnq, moe, and iposter made it clear he was not in your boat.

Just so there is no confusion, I am skeptical of anything regardless of what it is where it's from and who is involved. I try to remain skeptical until the dust and flames settle. And after deciding what I feel must be right, I always leave a bit of skepticism left over in case something else comes up to put new light on the situation.

In other words, try not to jump to conclusions. Question everything, including yourself and your presumed allies.

I'm neither going to say a picture is proof someone is a killer nor am I going to presume everyone is an innocent little angel.

This is the court of public opinion after all, so our opinions, if rushed, are just shit and noise.

Personally, my intuition and observations push me in the direction where I feel there is a neocon/evangelical threat that is just as bad if not worse than the Islamist militant threat. Everything is interrelated and we need to contend with internal threats not just external threats.

So yes, I can be anti-Iraq war, anti-Bush and still not kneejerkingly believe some stills alleging a U.S. atrocity or coverup. But nor do I automatically think they are fakes.

This will get sorted out or if not, others like it will come to light - if they exist. (And we can safely assume many bad things have happened/are happening if only because *every one of our wars* and military actions have had atrocities or fuckups). Evil/lies/corruption can't hide forever, no matter who does it.

[New]

Originally posted by giant
let's not forget (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/aztlan_thief_host_your_own_video_iraqiwar.wmv)


wow.... sick... Care to defend that movie naples? ... I know you can... :no:

[johnq]

Originally posted by New
wow.... sick... Care to defend that movie naples? ... I know you can... :no:

That's the classic one. Any news on any punishment for that crime? Yes, shooting the wounded is a (war) crime in my book.

;) ...if there was any doubt.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Harald
Hey, Naples! Remember when you said that the torture at Abu Ghraib was like hazing?

Well, before that you said that it was all lies! That the photographic evidence proved nothing!

Just thought I'd remind you. I also posted that I was wrong about that.

Thanks for the thought, but you weren't paying close enough attention/

[rageous]

We don't need to gang up on Naples folks. This isn't kiddygarden.

Discuss the topic at hand and the posts made therein, please.

[shetline]

Originally posted by rageous
We don't need to gang up on Naples folks.
Ganging up? Can you substantiate this wild accusation? Are you trying to undermine our posting forces? ;) :D

[segovius]

Originally posted by shetline
Ganging up? Can you substantiate this wild accusation? Are you trying to undermine our posting forces? ;) :D

"Why do you hate Political Outsider ?"

:D

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by New
wow.... sick... Care to defend that movie naples? ... I know you can... :no: No, I wasn't there. But I will add 2 facts that should change your view. If you're being reasonable, that is.

1. These people are not afforded Geneva Conventions. They don't abide by or agree to them. They use civilians as cover. They don't wear uniforms to identify themselves as soldiers.

2. A lot of the "fighters" fake death and injury to lure US soldiers to their death.

[mrtwistor]

Naples you don't get this topic at all - the people killed here were innocent civilians.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by mrtwistor
Naples you don't get this topic at all - the people killed here were innocent civilians. according to what/who?

So far that is just assumption and estimation.

I am with most of you here, if in fact they are civilians. However there are more assumptions than you can shake a stick at.

[giant]

It's not an assumption that they moved the rpg around for posed photos with the bodies, it's a fact.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
It's not an assumption that they moved the rpg around for posed photos with the bodies, it's a fact. Fine. You are 100% correct.

Ok, smarty, heres a question - why did they do that?

Give me some solid proof, not some educated guess or some perceived wisdom on your part, I want solid proof.

Otherwise you are just blowing your usual hot air.

I am totally willing to agree with your premise, if you can do that for me. I am simply reserving judgement.

I await your reply.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Fine. You are 100% correct.
Really? Thanks for the insight. :no:
Ok, smarty, heres a question - why did they do that?
For the same reason for the suppression and denial of reports and stats on civilian casualties.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Really? Thanks for the insight. :no:

For the same reason for the suppression and denial of reports and stats on civilian casualties. I am awaiting some proof by you...

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I am awaiting some proof by you...
Which standard of proof are you using today, your usual clinton is a serial killer/iraqi wmd in lebanon standard of proof?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Which standard of proof are you using today, your usual clinton is a serial killer/iraqi wmd in lebanon standard of proof? It's funny.

I have learned in my small amount of years on this earth, that when you are having a debate with someone, you can tell when who's losing - they will be the ones making personal attacks.

What's funny is how your post resembles just that - a personal attack.

Funny huh?

[giant]

It's not about a personal attack, I'm making a point about the futility of discussing it with you. First, when you want to believe something, like clinton being a serial killer, your standard for proof drops to nothing. Next, when you don't want to accept something you raise the bar, strip out context and history and will even completely distort facts (see first point). The only common element in both situations is the complete absence of reason and utterly mindblowing ignorance of the facts.

The fact is that even if we had a sequence of photos starting with the kids playing soccer, then getting shot, then these photos, you would still make up some story to explain it away to yourself, just as you've done time and time again and will likely continue to do in perpetuity. There is no amount of evidence that can shake your misguided beliefs.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
It's not about a personal attack, I'm making a point about the futility of discussing it with you. First, when you want to believe something, like clinton being a serial killer, your standard for proof drops to nothing. Next, when you don't want to accept something you raise the bar, strip out context and history and will even completely distort facts (see first point). The only common element in both situations is the complete absence of reason and ignorance of the facts. And your outright lying does what for a "standard of proof"?

Fact:
The Clinton Body Count (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=clinton+body+count&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) is something that a lot of people think is more than mere coincidence. That was my point way back when we had a discussion that touched on it. Clinton has nothing to do with this argument. But if you insist on bringing that up, you prove your childishness and your lack of original ideas, IMO. hey, WDiK?

Originally posted by giant
The fact is that even if we had a sequence of photos starting with the kids playing soccer, then getting shot, then these photos, you would still make up some story to explain it away to yourself, just as you've done time and time again and will likely continue to do in perpetuity. Perhaps, but we are not talking about that level of discernible facts. You are asking that:

a. we assume the kids are not "militants", despite the fact that the country is still being menaced by militants.
b. we assume that they were shot by the US military, without proof.
c. we assume they can't recognize the easily recognizable "kids playing soccer".
d. we assume that the soldiers involved are stupid enough to take pictures of their crimes.
e. all the while being smart enough to have enemy weapons on hand to plant.
f. we assume the soldiers neither have or follow strict rules of engagement.

There's more, but you have already made all these assumptions, so there is no sense in telling you what you already know.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Fact:
The Clinton Body Count (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=clinton+body+count&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) is something that a lot of people think is more than mere coincidence.
:lol:

[mrtwistor]

Ok, smarty, heres a question - why did they do that?


It must be a fashion shoot - the dead look is in, with RPG accessories.

[tonton]

To assume that those in power are capable of abusing that power, and to always keep a watchful eye to prevent such abuse is the only way to keep real abuse from happening.

It is our right, and our duty as Americans to prevent abuse of power anywhere, and by anyone, including our soldiers, as well as our government leaders.

When there is evidence (not proof) of abuse, something must be said, otherwise there is a great risk of abuse running unchecked.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by tonton
To assume that those in power are capable of abusing that power, and to always keep a watchful eye to prevent such abuse is the only way to keep real abuse from happening.

It is our right, and our duty as Americans to prevent abuse of power anywhere, and by anyone, including our soldiers, as well as our government leaders.

When there is evidence (not proof) of abuse, something must be said, otherwise there is a great risk of abuse running unchecked. Once again, I'm all fine with that.

There is no evidence of abuse in these pictures, to the contrary, they seem to show one of the evil soldiers helping one of the wounded. That little tidbit of evidence blows your theory out of the water.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
evil soldiers
This is exactly why people like you have such a hard time understanding what we are talking about. Because you've adopted the lazy us/them, evil/good binary world view you wrongly believe that's how others think. Until you correct that habit of error you will never be able to understand anything said here.

As for the rest of your post, I see bullet-ridden children's bodies being posed by US soldiers with the same rpg and rockets. Don't try to whitewash it and don't delude yourself into thinking you speak anyone but yourself. Do yourself a favor and note that not even veterans on this board (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=798728#post798728) share your political views, although you probably have a kindred soul in this kid (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/aztlan_thief_host_your_own_video_iraqiwar.wmv).

[iPoster]

To take the dissenting side again, does anyone else wonder how these 'kids' were playing soccer in what appears to be (from the narrow views in the photos) a rough/hilly, wooded area?

:???:

Has anyone here who knows Photoshop/etc. taken a good look at these?


(Please don't assume I don't think some US soldiers are capable of planting weapons, etc. But at the same time I don't agree with the"OMG! All US soldiers are EVIL and do this all the time!" opinions.)

[giant]

Originally posted by iPoster
were playing soccer in what appears to be (from the narrow views in the photos) a rough/hilly, wooded area?
We don't know exactly how it went down, but it's clear that there are no weapons besides the rpg which only shows up in the later photos and is subsequently moved around for posed shots with the bodies.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by iPoster
To take the dissenting side again, does anyone else wonder how these 'kids' were playing soccer in what appears to be (from the narrow views in the photos) a rough/hilly, wooded area?

:???:

Has anyone here who knows Photoshop/etc. taken a good look at these?


(Please don't assume I don't think some US soldiers are capable of planting weapons, etc. But at the same time I don't agree with the"OMG! All US soldiers are EVIL and do this all the time!" opinions.)

If it's a photoshop work, it's a good job. Because there is a lot of pics, here and not just two : before and after.

It would be easier , to make fake pics with actors, than make a photoshop job here.

[iPoster]

Thanks for the replies, I was just raising the photoshop issue because I don't think it had been brought up before. I don't know about the photos, they certainly could be real, but IMHO it just doesn't feel right.

A US citizen working in Iraq e-mails this guy (I don't know who John Young is, assume a reporter of some kind) pictures of a event that he happened to get from a Solider? In the first place, *if* I was a solider taking part in something highly illegal and immoral, why the frack would I take blatantly staged pictures then pass them out to others? Don't you think they would have learned anything from Abu Ghraib? (which photos IMHO were taken and then released when the story broke, by the CIA or whoever was actually in charge of the interrogations, to let the 'little guys' take the fall for the 'big guys')

Not that I would condone planting weapons in any case, I'm an NCO in the Navy, not the Army, but if I was and someone suggested doing that instead of owning up to what allegedly happened, they would get their you-know-what kicked all the way back to base! :mad:

IRT Giant, when I read kids, I think young children, i.e. pre-teens that probably wouldn't be involved in the insurgency anyway. I was trying to point out that they are old enough to possibly *be* insurgents. Ask a Vietnam vet whether they always considered 'kids' to non-combatants. Sorry for any confusion caused.

[mrtwistor]

I know Photoshop fairly well, and I have also shot photos professionally for a construction company. I looked at the histograms of the photos and they showed that ,basically , they had not been tampered with. The photos with the RPG were taken about 15-30 minutes after those without - I take almost all of my photos late in the afternoon to take advantage of the rich lighting and am very sensitive as to how fast lighting and shadows can change.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by giant
It's not about a personal attack, I'm making a point about the futility of discussing it with you. First, when you want to believe something, like clinton being a serial killer, your standard for proof drops to nothing. Next, when you don't want to accept something you raise the bar, strip out context and history and will even completely distort facts (see first point). The only common element in both situations is the complete absence of reason and utterly mindblowing ignorance of the facts.

The fact is that even if we had a sequence of photos starting with the kids playing soccer, then getting shot, then these photos, you would still make up some story to explain it away to yourself, just as you've done time and time again and will likely continue to do in perpetuity. There is no amount of evidence that can shake your misguided beliefs.

I've felt this way also. Providing absolute proof is futile with these guys because they just dismiss it as being this or that. It's a waste of time. Either that or they run and hide for awhile.:lol:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by jimmac
I've felt this way also. Providing absolute proof is futile with these guys because they just dismiss it as being this or that. It's a waste of time. Either that or they run and hide for awhile.:lol: No-one has yet provided absolute proof. So your statement, like everything else in this thread is based on extrapolation and assumption.

Sorry.

[tonton]

Originally posted by NaplesX
There is no evidence of abuse in these pictures...

This is where our opinion differs drastically.

I guess it's a question of where we draw the line.

Where you draw the line in terms of military behaviour would tend to foster abuse.

Where I draw the line would tend to prevent it.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
No-one has yet provided absolute proof. So your statement, like everything else in this thread is based on extrapolation and assumption.

Sorry.


Well we do know stuff like this happned in Vietnam so it's not like it's unbelieveable. As of right now there's more evidence for it having happened than not. So your statement doesn't really have alot of weight behind it.

And I'm not sorry.:rolleyes:

[Gene Clean]

Apparently, there's trouble in Paradise:

Iraq envoy accuses US of killing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4643481.stm)

Iraq's ambassador to the UN has called for an inquiry into the apparent "cold-blooded murder" killing of his young unarmed relative by US marines.

Samir Sumaidaie said his 21-year-old cousin was shot as he helped marines who were carrying out searches at his village in the restive Anbar province.

Mr Sumaidaie said the ramifications of such a "serious crime" were enormous for both the US and Iraq.

US officials said the allegations would be thoroughly investigated.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
US officials said the allegations would be thoroughly investigated.

uh-oh....