Video Shows Reuters Camerman With Insurgents Being Killed [BUMPED/UPDATED: Vidcaps Show Weapons]

UPDATE 4/06/2010 AM: I've uploaded a moving image created by Ryno which clearly shows weapons being carried by the so-called "civilians" who were killed along with the news that we have photos of rifles and grenades at the scene.

UPDATE 4/06/2010 PM: We've added important info to the new post linked above, including the fact that an RPG was found at the scene. Click here for more recent updates.


Contrary to all of the "context" given by Wiki Leak which try to lead the viewer into thinking the US Military "murdered" several Iraqis including two who worked for Reuters, the video clearly runs contrary to the narrative.

I've embedded the Wiki Leak video below. Just ignore all the propaganda they write before and after the video and watch it.

A crowd of men surround at least two armed insurgents. The voices indicate that a Bradley and some Humvees are headed in the direction and that a recent engagement has taken place.

So, the helicopter pilot and ground controllers see armed men with a convoy approaching and taking fire and .... Wiki Leak has the nerve to call this murder?

They've even embedded it on a site they call "Collateral Murder."

These people are beyond stupid, they're evil.

Worst case scenario this is a few innocent being accidentally killed in the fog of war.

But the video doesn't even appear to be worst case scenario. It appears, in fact, that the video shows armed insurgents engaging or about to engage US troops. The Reuters camera men had embedded themselves with the insurgents. This makes them enemy combatants themselves and should have been shot.

Reuters has a long history of its local stringers embedding themselves with terrorist forces. Perhaps they do this because they are sympathetic, perhaps they do this to get "the story", but it matters little to those engaging insurgents.

When you embed yourselves with terrorists you know the risk. You are producing propaganda for them. You have become one of them.

Anything less than this understanding is purposeful naivite about "objective journalism". In war there can be no objective journalism. You're either with us or the enemy. If you want to stay neutral stay out of the war zone.

As for those who went in to pick up the bodies? Perhaps they were innocents. I've no idea.

But you drive your van into an active military engagement? What the hell were you thinking?

You are stupid. Innocent, but stupid. You're asking to be killed.

And if you brought children into the midsts of an ongoing military engagement that makes you more than stupid: it makes you criminally negligent.

"It's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle," says one of the Americans on the video. Indeed it is.

People, this is war. This happens in war. It can't be avoided. If you want to end civilian casualties then end war. Start by asking armed Islamists to put down their weapons. But you won't do that because your real objection isn't war, it's America. Which is why anti-war activists around the globe never protest al-Qaeda, only America.

They're not anti-war, they're anti-American.

Again, watch it. It's tragic, yes. War is tragic.

Video below.

UPDATE: Ed has some more thoughts.

UPDATE II: I made some screenshots for the naysayers. Beginning at 3:36 you can clearly see two men holding weapons. This guy at 3:43 has an AK-47. You can see it more clearly as he swings it but here's a screenshot that shows it.


This screenshot is at 3:35. This guy is definitely carrying a weapon. In motion it looks like it might be a rifle, but from the profile angle snapped below it looks like an RPG.


A few seconds later at 3:50 he puts the weapon down. The weapon is long enough that it's comes up well beyond his waist and it certainly has the width of an RPG. Or at least from this angle it looks that way.


The person than goes behind a building, out of view. A few seconds later someone is down on the ground behind the same building. At 4:06 he starts to pick up whatever he has laid down on the ground.


The one above is a bit fuzzy, but the next vidcap from 4:07 is a little clearer although the person in it has ducked behind the building. I'll remind you that a convoy was approaching the group of individuals and this would appear to the helicopter pilots like he was scoping out the oncoming US soldiers.

Remember, about 15 seconds ago the pilot saw a guy with what looks like an RPG. He ducks behind this building. Then a few seconds later he sees someone down on the ground with something that looks like it could be an RPG.


Which is exactly the conclusion the pilot makes.


Could that be the Reuters photojournalist with a long lense? Maybe. But from what the pilot is seeing the man seems like a threat. In war you eliminate threats.

The pilot then notifies others that he sees an individual about to fire an RPG and asks fire control for authority to eliminate the threat. Which he does.

Let me also sneak in a couple of other links grabbed from Hot Air (I still miss our trackbacks function).

Cassey Fiano has this good point:

I’ve long held the view that journalists shouldn’t even be embedded with our troops in a war zone. It endangers the journalists, and it endangers our troops.
Let alone embed with the enemy. Whatever happened to the good old fashioned military pool reporter? Alas, gone out with the era of the dinosaurs and when "supporting the troops" actually meant, you know, supporting the troops.

Over at Political Byline:

I humbly submit, that these so-called Journalists got just was coming to them
Perhaps. 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 American Pundit:

The video demonstrates the danger of traveling to a war zone. Which is why war correspondents tend to be respected and rare. Wikileaks, hosted in Sweden, decides instead to paint the situation as a clear and straight-forward murder case. Which is both sad and pathetic.
Sad, pathetic, and evil.

And Free Market Military notes on the seemingly callous words used by the soldiers on the video:

Frankly, I’d never hold it against anyone in taking enjoyment out of their job. You might find that callous as well. Tough. If your living this 24/7 I doubt you would spend a year without laughing and having a good time.
Amen brotha! Why is it wrong for our men and women to celebrate a perceived victory over their enemies? In their minds they just saved the lives of their fellow soldiers. Celebrations seem perfectly in order.

Video still below.

UPDATE III: You'll have to scroll down even further for the video since I found a couple of good posts from Blackfive. First from Lauging Wolf (thanks man) and then from Uber Pig:

The point is, for me to respect Wikileaks, they'll have to stop picking sides and doing agitprop.

I have zero respect for the people running Wikileaks, their sanctimonious preaching, and anyone who donates money to their organization.

Here's the video.

Thanks to Mark.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:56 PM


Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0036 seconds.
13 queries taking 0.0029 seconds, 7 records returned.
Page size 14 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.