WikiLeaks Post Video, Claim US Troops Murdered Civilians Here is the Truth Multiple Updates

**1.53PM update #3** Rusty Shackleford does it again...shows video proof of RPG (what Lefties had been calling a Zoom Lens being used by the Reuters Reporter)[link] I've swiped the animated image and posted it here in all it's glory.


Why is that Lefties and lefty libertarians are always so eager to make excuses for armed terrorists and are so quick to pounce on the forces of good, like our soldiers and our own police? Do they hate our civilization that bad? Or do they just enjoy being contrarians?


**11.36AM update #2** I found a chorus of approval for the WikiLeaks video at Daily Paul (a pro-Ron Paul website) [link] and expressions of hatred for America and our soldiers in the comment thread. Only one comment on the first page expressed anything remotley pro-American, and the commenter acknowledged a fear of being 'black-listed' at the website for daring to express a dissenting opinion. [link to comment][link to screenshot with text highlighted]  


**10.42AM update #1** More information on the editor of WikiLeaks: Julian Assange is president of a NGO and Australia's most infamous former computer hacker. He was convicted of attacks on the US intelligence and publishing a magazine which inspired crimes against the Commonwealth.


Read more at America Power. I believe that it will become even more clear that this organization is inherently anti-American.

A friend on Facebook, Paul D. Metcalf, posted a link to a video released by WikiLeaks alleging to show US Troops murdering civilians in Baghdad. I watched the video and found nothing wrong with what our pilots did. I commented on the link on Paul's page, saying something along the lines, "I see nothing wrong with what they did. If I were there, I would have engaged the targets as well." Paul, not being interested in hearing that, gave me the boot. I have noticed that that is something that a lot of people who call themselves "libertarian" minded or say they are for liberty. When confronted with an opposing opinion...they go nuts and shut down dialogue before they are proven wrong.


I had it in mind to go through the video and grab some screen captures of the terrorists (who WikiLeaks...and by extension, Paul were calling civilians) carrying weapons and seeking to kill American soldiers. Come to find out, that has already been done by some fellow Counterjihadists. I will link to some of them after I embed the videos purporting to show American soldiers murdering civilians...when they are quite plainly killing armed terrorists.


Here are the videos, the first is a very transparent propaganda piece:
















The Weekly Standard [link to article] has answered this piece very nicely, and an excerpt follows:

Wikileaks, the website devoted to publishing classified documents on the Internet, made a splash today with a video claiming to show that the U.S. military "murdered" a Reuters cameraman and other Iraqi "civilians" in Baghdad on July 12, 2007. But a careful watching of the video shows that the U.S. helicopter gun crews that attacked a group of armed men in the then Mahdi Army stronghold of New Baghdad was anything but "Collateral Murder," as Wikileaks describes the incident.


There are a couple of things to note in the video. First, Wikileaks characterizes the attack as the U.S. military casually gunning down Iraqis who were innocently gathering on the streets of New Baghdad. But the video begins somewhat abruptly, with a UAV starting to track a group of Iraqi males gathering on the streets. The voice of a U.S. officer is captured in mid-sentence. It would be nice to know what happened before Wikileaks decided to begin the video. The U.S. military claimed the Iraqis were killed after a gun battle with U.S. and Iraqi security forces. It is unclear if any of that was captured on the strike footage. Here is what the U.S. military had to say about the engagement in a July 2007 press release:


Soldiers of 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, and the 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, both operating in eastern Baghdad under the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, along with their Iraqi counterparts from the 1st Battalion, 4th Brigade, 1st Division National Police, were conducting a coordinated raid as part of a planned operation when they were attacked by small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. Coalition Forces returned fire and called in attack aviation reinforcement.


There is nothing in that video that is inconsitent with the military's report. What you see is the air weapons team engaging armed men.


Second, note how empty the streets are in the video. The only people visible on the streets are the armed men and the accompanying Reuters cameramen. This is a very good indicator that there was a battle going on in the vicinity. Civilians smartly clear the streets during a gunfight.


Third, several of the men are clearly armed with assault rifles; one appears to have an RPG. Wikileaks purposely chooses not to identify them, but instead focuses on the Reuters cameraman. Why?


Fourth, there is no indication that the U.S. military weapons crew that fired on this group of armed men violated the military's Rules of Engagement. Ironically, Wikileaks published the military's Rules of Engagement from 2007, which you can read here. What you do see in the video is troops working to identify targets and confirm they were armed before engaging. Once the engagement began, the U.S. troops ruthlessly hunted their prey.


Fifth, critics will undoubtedly be up in arms over the attack on that black van you see that moves in to evacuate the wounded; but it is not a marked ambulance, nor is such a vehicle on the "Protected Collateral Objects" listed in the Rules of Engagement. The van, which was coming to the aid of the fighters, was fair game, even if the men who exited the van weren't armed.

And now, WikiLeaks has released what they say is an unedited video...yet it begins in the middle of an engagement.


Here is that video:
















As I commented on Paul D. Metcalf's Facebook Page, I can see nothing wrong with what the US Military Pilots did. I would have pulled the trigger myself and engaged as they did. These men were clearly armed and a clear and present danger to our troops.


I was going to do some screen grabs, but the trusty Rusty Shackleford over at The Jawa report already has [link to article]. Here is an excerpt of what he (and his fellow Jawas have posted regarding this traitorous lie being told by the anti-war freaks at WikiLeaks:

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 thismurder?

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.

The people at WikiLeaks are so anti-war (and in my opinion, anti-American) that they cannot see what is before their eyes. They have no qualm about letting facts get in the way of telling a lie or stop them from propagandizing against America.