• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

WikiLeaks releases video of US Apache helicopter (now with added RPGs)

Status
Not open for further replies.
empty vessel said:
...with the technological and tactical assistance of the US government. And it wasn't biological weapons, it was chemical weapons. And it was against a Kurdish separatist movement. And when, following this occurrence, the US Congress proposed the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988, cutting off US assistance to Iraq, the Reagan administration opposed the bill, calling it premature. But you knew all that?

You also knew that recently declassified government documents reveal that Rumsfeld was sent to Iraq specifically to tell Hussein's regime that, although the US publicly condemned its use of chemical weapons, it would have no effect on its desire to support Iraq and offer assistance:



http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB107/iraq07.pdf
Click to expand...

Thank you. People only seem to remember history that supports their viewpoint. We where deep in bed with Saddam when he committed all these "war crimes" that are the current excuse for the war.

2j3ipnp.jpg


The man on the left is the one that should be hanged.
 
Mudkips said:
Hello, there was this thing called the cold war, the 60s, etc.
I suggest you read up on it.

How is it astonishing?
The fact that America used nuclear weapons means that America can not seek to protect itself from those same weapons?

And that's the shittiest comparison ever.
jl54jl.png


The amount of destruction caused by Little Boy and Fat Man are orders of magnitude less that the destruction the cold war-era weapons were capable of. And less than the destruction caused by conventional bombs during WWII itself.
Click to expand...
Using a weapon and just impend to use it are a bit different I think.
 
iamaustrian said:
you fought against the soviets?

also, i find it astonishing that you use a pic of a nuclear explosion while the only country on earth which actually used nuclear devices(2 times in a row) on civilians were the U.S.A
Click to expand...

Not the cold war, he got it wrong. the more and more i read this the more and more this sounds EXACTLY like WWII.

indeed truman churchhill should have been hung for their crimes against humanity. it was an unjust war that was provoked by the americans and the british.
 
The scariest thing about that video is how I could see myself in the same position wanting to shoot while playing MW2. The video was extremely like MW2 chopper gunner and ac130 that it was scary.
 
minus_273 said:
Not the cold war, he got it wrong. the more and more i read this the more and more this sounds EXACTLY like WWII.

indeed truman churchhill should have been hung for their crimes against humanity. it was an unjust war that was provoked by the americans and the british.
Click to expand...

Okay, that's just ridiculous.
 
Mudkips said:
Hello, there was this thing called the cold war, the 60s, etc.
I suggest you read up on it.

How is it astonishing?
The fact that America used nuclear weapons means that America can not seek to protect itself from those same weapons?

And that's the shittiest comparison ever.
http://i44.tinypic.com/jl54jl.png[IMG]

The amount of destruction caused by Little Boy and Fat Man are orders of magnitude less that the destruction the cold war-era weapons were capable of. And less than the destruction caused by conventional bombs during WWII itself.[/QUOTE]

Well, we really didn't "fight" the Soviets per say. It was more like a contest to see who had the biggest cock. They kept making more cocks that were bigger and better than their previous cocks as did we (Arms Race). Eventually they tried to move some cocks south of the border (no not Mexico) which ended up with the US having to initiate a cock block on the ships moving the cocks down to Cuba and yadda, yadda, yadda, we won.

cocks = missiles.

cock block = naval blockade

[QUOTE=minus_273]Not the cold war, he got it wrong. the more and more i read this the more and more this sounds EXACTLY like WWII.

indeed truman churchhill should have been hung for their crimes against humanity. it was an unjust war that was provoked by the americans and the british.[/QUOTE]

Don't worry I understand where you're going with this. Scarchasm!
[QUOTE=Daheza]The scariest thing about that video is how I could see myself in the same position wanting to shoot while playing MW2. The video was extremely like MW2 chopper gunner and ac130 that it was scary.[/QUOTE]

It was totally like what we did in CoD:MW2. Especially when the EMP hit and we were all up in the white house trying to stop the Russians and all.
Click to expand...
 
Mudkips said:
Hello, there was this thing called the cold war, the 60s, etc.
I suggest you read up on it.

How is it astonishing?
The fact that America used nuclear weapons means that America can not seek to protect itself from those same weapons?

And that's the shittiest comparison ever.
http://i44.tinypic.com/jl54jl.png[IMG]

The amount of destruction caused by Little Boy and Fat Man are orders of magnitude less that the destruction the cold war-era weapons were capable of. And less than the destruction caused by conventional bombs during WWII itself.[/QUOTE]

[B]You[/B] suggest me to read up on the cold war?

do you even know what the Cold War was and why it actually was called [B]cold[/B] war?
Click to expand...
 
Another soldier's perspective.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/6/854626/-The-Video:-A-perspective-from-a-liberal-veteran

snip said:
When you are hit by an IED there is no fight. There is no opportunity to get the people who caused you this harm. Along with the constant feeling of fear, comes a deep seated hatred for those that are the cause of the stress. My mind went to very dark places, I wanted those people dead. I wanted to do it myself, up close. You may not understand these emotions, and I have difficulty today with them. Writing these words makes me very emotional. Even today I have violent visions for conflict resolution, both in my dreams and waking thoughts. I have envisioned doing horrible things to people--I have to deal with that constantly.

When we actually got into shooting engagements, this fear and hatred took control. I fired my machine gun, grenade launcher, or M4 with an anger that later horrified me. I became completely desensitized when several of my close Afghan soldiers were killed or wounded recovering the body of a Marine. After that, I felt euphoric in a fight, especially when we killed the enemy.
Click to expand...
More at the link. Its worth a full read.
 
ItAintEasyBeinCheesy said:
Oh the dumbfuckery knows no end, you can be sure of that.

Some people dont even know that Saddam actually used Biological weapons on his fellow countrymen.
Click to expand...

Do you know the definition of irony? It chemical weapons. Read up on the smell of "apples" and what happens next.

BTW, we gave Saddam the chemical weapons. And we helped put him into power.
 
Pandaman said:
history knows irony.
Click to expand...
Um, Russia exists within a similar range of most NATO countries and has since missiles were invented. Also, ICBMs meant either hemisphere could bombard the other.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was more about psychology than missile ranges.
 
Death Dealer said:
Poor Soviet Union, it's not like they invaded/occupied half of Eastern Europe.
Click to expand...

the whole cold war was just a big misunderstanding perpetuated by the americans in an attempt to expand the reach of their capitalist imperialist hegemony.
 
Gigglepoo said:
Well, that's been my belief ever since we entered Iraq, but other people seem to disagree with that mindset.
Click to expand...
Terrorism or violent acts of terror increased 600% after the invasion of Iraq.(the `terrorist`` qualifier doesnt necessarily include Iraqi insurgents fighting American forces) Al Quaeda wasnt doing anything in Iraq before the invasion, now it`s running around Baghdad, killing scores of people in suicide bombings. Bush and Blair undertook the invasion of Iraq with the full expectation that terror would increase, the intelligence community was adamant about the fact that a war in Iraq would create a breeding ground for terrorists and extremist elements.
 
As a Vet, I'm in the camp that war should be as brutal as possible, it should make people sick and disgusted. As a soldier I put that all behind me, desensitized if you will, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's war, but the problem is that we are not at war in Iraq anymore (if ever) We are the occupier and need to get out of that country.

As for the pilot or CP/G who made the statement that it was their fault for bringing children to a battlefield/firefight, well, it was. What was wrong is not what he said, but how he said it, so cavalier, no remorse whatsoever.

I've served my country well in Army Aviation, and mistakes happen, there's no HUD invented yet that can distinguish from friend or foe, rpg or camera, but one should never lose their humanity, even in war.
 
theignoramus said:
Terrorism increased 600% after the invasion of Iraq.(the `terrorist`` qualifier doesnt necessarily include Iraqi insurgents fighting American forces) Al Quaeda wasnt doing anything in Iraq before the invasion, now it`s running around Baghdad, killing scores of people in suicide bombings. Bush and Blair undertook the invasion of Iraq with the full expectation that terror would increase, the intelligence community was adamant about the fact that a war in Iraq would create a breeding ground for terrorists and extremist elements.
Click to expand...
And that's how it became "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here".

A pretty fucked up thing to say to a population you're supposed to be liberating.
 
TheHeretic said:
The number's were off the top of my head, and weren't perfect. Here's from Wikipedia:

By the US

US forces killed an estimated 90,000 South Vietnamese civilians due to their extensive use of fire power (artilery, bombings, small weapons). Another 1,500 were killed in various massacres. [16] Again, these are deaths caused by US Forces apart from combat deaths inflicted on North Vietnames forces.

By North Vietnam

An estimated 95,000 civilians died in the communist re-education camps, another 500,000 were involved in forced labor projects, which killed 48,000 civilians. Another 100,000 were executed. Finally, 400,000 boat people died while trying to flee Vietnam. This is 643,000 killed during the consolidation of communist rule.[17] This consolidation ended around 1984, although boat people deaths occurred through 1988. A similar high death toll occurred in North Vietnam during 1950s when the Communists consolidated power in that geographic region.

You also have to calculate the massacres pre and post war, which are in the millions.
Click to expand...

You conveniently left out a bunch of numbers from that very same page:

The estimated total number of civilian and suspected communist deaths caused by South Vietnamese forces from 1955 to 1975 was 89,500.


Complete statistics for the American bombings of North Vietnam are unavailable. As noted above estimates of total 1957 to 1975 North Vietnamese civilian deaths caused by American bombing range from Rummell's low estimate of 52,000, his mid-level estimate of 65,000, his high level estimate of 70,000. There is a separate PBS estimate that the 3.5 year Operation Rolling Thunder killed 182,000 civilians, with an additional 20,000 Chinese troops.

But more obnoxiously, you left out the massive carpet bombing of Cambodia which killed an estimated half million Cambodians and you`ve also neglected to mention post-war deaths attributable American chemical warfare and land mining.
 
Treo360 said:
As a Vet, I'm in the camp that war should be as brutal as possible, it should make people sick and disgusted. As a soldier I put that all behind me, desensitized if you will, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's war, but the problem is that we are not at war in Iraq anymore (if ever) We are the occupier and need to get out of that country.

As for the pilot or CP/G who made the statement that it was their fault for bringing children to a battlefield/firefight, well, it was. What was wrong is not what he said, but how he said it, so cavalier, no remorse whatsoever.

I've served my country well in Army Aviation, and mistakes happen, there's no HUD invented yet that can distinguish from friend or foe, rpg or camera, but one should never lose their humanity, even in war.
Click to expand...

It's not wrong to drive your kids to school and stop to help people lying wounded in the street, especially when you just arrived and don't know what's going on.

It's no different than people going into buildings on fire to save others. This guy didn't expect an helicopter to blow up his van out of nowhere. He just passed by the scene AFTER everything had happened and saw someone lying down on the ground crawling, tried to help, and got shot at.

Nice try tho.
 
I'm not sure how people are taking the comment about the children as an indication of not caring. Think about what might motivate them to say something like that.
 
Ether_Snake said:
It's not wrong to drive your kids to school and stop to help people lying wounded in the street, especially when you just arrived and don't know what's going on.

It's no different than people going into buildings on fire to save others. This guy didn't expect an helicopter to blow up his van out of nowhere. He just passed by the scene AFTER everything had happened and saw someone lying down on the ground crawling, tried to help, and got shot at.

Nice try tho.
Click to expand...
How many people run into a burning building with their kids?

Agree to disagree, but if I see bodies torn up/blown up (as is the case with the 30mm HE shells that are fired from the Apaches) I'm going to err in the side of caution, especially if I have my kids with me. My kids safety before all others.
 
KHarvey16 said:
I'm not sure how people are taking the comment about the children as an indication of not caring. Think about what might motivate them to say something like that.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. If they really hadn't cared, I don't think anything would have been said. Haven't any of you guys done something and knew you fucked up, and made some kind of shitty rationalization for it on the spot? He knew what he did.

NullPointer said:
More at the link. Its worth a full read.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is. Thanks for the link.
 
It's hilarious how some geniuses are using official US numbers of Iraqi deaths in the same fucking thread that we we discuss about a proven US coverup of a massacre.
 
Treo360 said:
How many people run into a burning building with their kids?

Agree to disagree, but if I see bodies torn up/blown up (as is the case with the 30mm HE shells that are fired from the Apaches) I'm going to err in the side of caution, especially if I have my kids with me. My kids safety before all others.
Click to expand...

What was he gonna do? He wanted to help people that were just lying there in the street with no one else in sight. You act like it was written all over the place that an apache was flying somewhere and aiming at everyone passing by.

In those kinds of situations, especially in countries ravaged by war, people often don't think twice about running to help someone. Everyone there lost loved ones because of war, suicide attacks, insurgents, militias, etc.

What that guy did was fine. He was not a threat to anyone and should not have been shot at, period.
 
KHarvey16 said:
I'm not sure how people are taking the comment about the children as an indication of not caring. Think about what might motivate them to say something like that.
Click to expand...

It's a really lame justification, and it only means he realizes he might get in trouble over this, not that he really cares or thinks he was wrong.

Treo360 said:
How many people run into a burning building with their kids?

Agree to disagree, but if I see bodies torn up/blown up (as is the case with the 30mm HE shells that are fired from the Apaches) I'm going to err in the side of caution, especially if I have my kids with me. My kids safety before all others.
Click to expand...

Probably all he saw was a guy lying wounded on the street.
 
fortified_concept said:
It's hilarious how some geniuses are using official US numbers of Iraqi deaths in the same fucking thread that we we discuss about a proven US coverup of a massacre.
Click to expand...

C'mon, massacre is not the appropriate word here. Massacre implies large scale, intentionally indiscriminate killing. These soldiers made a terrible, tragic mistake but they didn't do it on purpose.

How much information do we have on where the ground forces were? I saw a picture that one of the journalists took of the US convoy but I don't know when that was. Were these civilians visible from the convoy's position?

ArjanN said:
It's a really lame justification, and it only means he realizes he might get in trouble over this, not that he really cares or thinks he was wrong.
Click to expand...

That is not likely. Think harder.
 
NullPointer said:
Another soldier's perspective.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/6/854626/-The-Video:-A-perspective-from-a-liberal-veteran


More at the link. Its worth a full read.
Click to expand...

What surprises me is that soldiers like the one in that blog, and the majority who actually do openly speak about their experiences, is that there is a centred and insightful opinion. This is in stark contrast to the brisk, irrational, bias and immature comments the average person here makes in regards to the war.

It amazes me at how anyone can show little empathy at the loss of innocent lives or have this arrogant mentality towards war. Maybe it's because the US is usually depicted as the victor in situations like this, but if it was the US that was occupied and the rest of the world was reading about the war there in front of our screens, then I wonder what these people would think of those who make similar comments towards their situation? Maybe people would be more humble and compassionate when they experience war and death around them?

But we generally don't. We find it alien to acknowledge that the "enemy" can be an ally in a second, or that they too have children and fears just like everyone else; we can't seem to acknowledge the humanity in others and this is fuelled by the social perceptions of war and the perception the media gives of it.

This is why there will always be war after war after war. We never learn
 
Don't know if this has been posted yet but I'm just gonna leave this here.

I'm going to try not to get into a semantic debate about the realities of war versus civilian perception of war, but I do want to clarify a little of what's happening in a technical sense so that the viewer understands what is and is not allowed in these situations. And I'm sure that, despite my best abilities, my personal bias as an Active Duty US Soldier will ultimately show through in the end. I'm currently deployed to a region in southeast Baghdad, near where this incident took place, and the Rules of Engagement that dictate the use of lethal force state 51% certainty that the individual represent a threat to you or another US Soldier. (To my knowledge, it always has been.)

First off, I would be interested in knowing whether or not Reuters reported the presence of journalists to the US Forces who were responsible for operating the battlespace they were located in.

That fact that the Bradley unit's ground commander clears the Apaches to engage without further target description implies that this was not the case, and if so it means that these journalists were operating completely independent of any ability of the US to track them, or even know they were present somewhere. This is incredibly dangerous, even now in 2010. Back in 2007, that sort of thing would have been damn near suicidal.

Despite the video's hesitancy in acknowledging that several of the men 'appear' to have weapons, it is clear to me that several of them are carrying AK-47s. If you look at graphics representing the positioning of these journalists from a Bradley convoy only a few blocks away, I think that it is entirely reasonable that the pilots would consider them a threat - particularly after mistaking a massive zoom lens peaking out from behind cover on the very street that an American patrol was taking place for an RPG. Complex ambushes with 8-12 men with AK-47s and RPGs were very common back in early 2007. I can't speak as to why the two Reuters journalists were walking around with men carrying AK-47s trying to sneak pictures of an unaware American combat patrol, and I certainly do not assume that the reason was nefarious.

My real problem with this video, as media, is that it takes conclusions drawn after careful and repeated analysis and includes those conclusions in the videos for others who are seeing it for the first time. Try to imagine watching the video WITHOUT the giant textual labels stating who each of the men are, or without the prior knowledge that two of the men are journalists and they're carrying massive camera equipment, or without the selectively enlarged segments near the end of the video that the pilots never had access to.

It is by no means obvious, without those labels, that the giant cylindrical object that Namir Noor-Eldeen is peeking out from behind the wall with is not an RPG, especially for an Apache gunner whose mind is immediately directed to the US troops down the street he believes this man is probably preparing to fire at. Saeed Chmagh had the misfortune of being on his cellular phone on top of all of these other circumstantial misfortunes, and the cell phone detonation is a classic element of a complex attack involving small arms, RPGs and radio-controlled IEDs.

Keep in mind also that an Apache cockpit has two Soldiers - a pilot and a gunner, and while you are seeing the gunner's IR footage, it is not necessarily conveying what the pilot saw on his monitors or with his own eyes.

I won't speak as to why they fired on the van after the initial attack. They were cleared by the ground commander after accurately conveying what was going on over the radio, and I don't have a comprehensive enough understanding of the Law of Land Warfare. I must say that my stomach turned watching the video at the tragic misunderstanding of it all, and the residual questions about what I would have done have kept me awake for hours now. If there is one act that this video validates an investigation beyond what's already been conducted, firing on the van would be it.

As far as the language of the pilots, the emotional status of the guys pulling the trigger... more than anything else, the outrage surrounding that is what I find the most absurd. Who are you to tell men at war how to react to being in a position that demands they take human life? Do civilians truly believe that Soldiers would be capable of performing their duties in any capacity if they were forced to confront the sheer wretched magnitude of their most prolific duty in the very instances that people are depending on them to perform it? Is the romanticized image of the reluctant warrior really so ingrained in the psyche of the general public that they honestly think that shock and melodrama is the only way remorse can manifest itself? Just hearing the pilot towards the end try and justify (to himself, more than anyone) why the children he had no idea were present were present is more heartbreaking than all the "Oh God, no's" in the world to me.

If the previous commenter is somehow shocked by the words of this incident, I would be willing to bet that his time in the military did not include placement on a line unit. Or if it did, he must have had shit jammed in his ears the entire time. The comparison of al-Amin al-Thaniyah to My Lai, where hundreds of unarmed women and children were systematically raped and executed point blank is a little bit ridiculous, regardless. The fact that his comparison somehow elevates the latter as a sign that we have declined since then is insulting.

There is no script for how one is supposed to react to systematically killing another person. Many laugh, many make macabre jokes during and after the fact and, in general, line troops revel in the death an destruction of their enemy. It's how they deal with the enormity of what they're doing. And if you or any of your readers assume for even a moment that things like that mean that they or the other hundreds of thousands of Soldiers who embrace dark humor and excess to cope with what they're doing are somehow depraved, then you need to be re-introduced to the reality.

Better yet, you can just look at the rising suicide statistics of Soldiers over the past few years. The number of PTSD cases. I'm here to let you know that the dialogue that took place in that cockpit was neither uncommon or, to me, even all that appalling. It was quite restrained, compared to what usually comes out of the mouths of Soldiers here when radio etiquette is not an issue. The video editor who included the George Orwell quote at the beginning was laughably misinformed. They were speaking in sterile terms for the purpose of observing radio protocols and clarity on their ASIPs; nothing more. Soldiers are intimately familiar with the unsanitary horrors of war, and are not for lack of a thousand unseemly two and three-syllable ways to described it. People needn't worry.

Instead of being outraged about the words or tone of the pilot willing the man to pick up a weapon, to give him an excuse, why not think about the discipline necessary to remember his Rules of Engagement? To recognize, as much hate as he may feel towards the enemy, he was not allowed to fire on the enemy unless he picked up a weapon?

This entire incident is an unbelievably sickening tragedy, and I don't mean for my tone to imply that the loss of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh was anything but. But it was also a tragedy when it happened to Pat Tillman. When it happened to any of the dozens, if not hundreds of Soldiers killed by fratricide in this war so far. 90% of what occurs in that video has been commonplace in Iraq for the last 7 years, and the 10% that differs is entirely based on the fact that two of the gentlemen killed were journalists.

War is a disgusting, horrible thing. As cliche as that excuse has become, for people to look at the natural heartbreaking nature of it and say that they're somehow anomalous just shows how far people who have not experienced war have to go to understanding it. That doesn't justify failing to take every reasonable precaution necessary to avoid incidents like these. However, a little humility, or a little desire to have a broader contextual understanding of why these pilots did what they did before condemning them as war criminals would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
 
KHarvey16 said:
That is not likely. Think harder.
Click to expand...
They're beginning to feel guilty and their response is deflect blame to whomever was driving the children around in the van. It's a natural defense mechanism.
 
JambiBum said:
Don't know if this has been posted yet but I'm just gonna leave this here.
Click to expand...
It's been linked several times but people have been too busy outraging to read an opinion from someone with more intimate knowledge. Just look at the last few pages of this thread.

It really is an excellent write up by the soldier. He isn't blindly defending the actions in the video either.
 
Evlar said:
They're beginning to feel guilty and their response is deflect blame to whomever was driving the children around in the van. It's a natural defense mechanism.
Click to expand...

The piece a few posts above explained it well. They can't let it get to them in that moment so they say what they said.
 
JambiBum said:
Don't know if this has been posted yet but I'm just gonna leave this here.
Click to expand...

One problem with the piece is it is built on the premise that the events depicted in the video occurred on a "battlefield" in a "war" against "enemies." They didn't. Of course, that's not really the soldiers' fault for not understanding that either. They, like many, were led to believe by their political and military leaders that they were engaged in a war with enemies inside of Iraq instead of as police officers of an occupation in which their primary duty and loyalty is to the Iraqi citizenry.

Speaking for myself, I am content to add these unfortunate deaths to the criminal charges against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.
 
empty vessel said:
One problem with the piece is it is built on the premise that the events depicted in the video occurred on a "battlefield" in a "war" against "enemies." They didn't. Of course, that's not really the soldiers' fault for not understanding that either. They, like many, were led to believe by their political and military leaders that they were engaged in a war with enemies inside of Iraq instead of as police officers of an occupation in which their primary duty and loyalty is to the Iraqi citizenry.

Speaking for myself, I am content to add these unfortunate deaths to the criminal charges against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.
Click to expand...

And I am content to label you as severely detached from the differences between political semantics and reality.

They were on a battlefield. Whether you disagree with why that was is irrelevant.
They were at war. Whether you disagree with why is irrelevant.
 
minus_273 said:
the whole cold war was just a big misunderstanding perpetuated by the americans in an attempt to expand the reach of their capitalist imperialist hegemony.
Click to expand...

Could you please stop purposely ignoring a question that multiple people asked you? It's really blatant at this point. You came in to argue with the majority, so at least answer people when they ask you something.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=20637950&postcount=1559
 
Mudkips said:
We were wrong to fight against the Soviets?
Honestly, what the fuck do they teach you kids in history class these days?
2889xft.gif

xbfwye.jpg


You can argue that the recent excuse for going to war with Iraq was bullshit (because it was), but it was just that - an excuse. You remember how we fought in Iraq in the 90s, right? Right? You remember that? Everyone with a brain knew this from day one. So I ask you - why point are you trying to make with that terribly baseless comparison?
Click to expand...

I like how you leave out the part where those missiles were removed after the US agreed to move missiles out of a base in turkey.

I have to wonder what redscare shithead tricked you into thinking that soviets were the only ones setting up missiles near the enemy.
 
JambiBum said:
Don't know if this has been posted yet but I'm just gonna leave this here.
Click to expand...

The soldiers aren't the problem. It's people who tried to cover the thing up rather than be honest with Reuters from the start and admit that there was a fuck up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

embedding Youtube videos now is enshitified
18
487
Toots replied
Alan Ritchson : Update - Neighbor Confrontation Video Released
2 3 4 5
201
1K
midnightAI replied
kids video content flooding with ai slop
25
624
Madflavor replied
House of the Dragon Season 2 releases July 21 2026
News 
28
372
jason10mm replied
US GAF, you too can now send money to help pay off the US National Debt now!
2
54
2K
DownLikeBCPowder replied
Top Bottom