I haven't watched the video since it debuted. I remember it looking like 1 guy maybe had a gun. Or maybe some odd thing with a shoulder strap.
It doesn't change the fact that the trigger puller still knowingly fired on people that had no weapons shown and posed zero threat. This demonstrates he is willing to fire on innocent threatless people because of his "targeting laws". The video clearly shows people without weapons getting fired on by this gunship. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Is society was made of coral our world would be floral.
☮★★☮ Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
Perhaps you should watch the video again. With the exception of the camera men (again, their equipment was mistaken for weapons which based solely on the video, is totally understandable) several of the men with them had AK-47s. The air support was called in at the request of ground forces nearby that had been attacked.
Wanna know the real outrage here? WTF is Reuters doing letting their reporters embed with armed insurgents in a US controlled combat zone when said insurgents are a fully authorized target? Frankly, authorizing this is absolutely gross negligence on the part of Reuters as well as the two men who took the assignment.
This like a local newspaper wanting to see what the deer's perspective is like by sending their reporters out dressed up in a deer suit on opening day of hunting season. Would it be a surprise if the reporter was shot by a hunter?
Seriously, how are any of the "small government" types not in favor of watchdogs making sure the government can't overstep its bounds? Does it only matter when it comes to your bank account, but it's fine when governments are murdering people? It's fine if it's happening to someone else? There is nothing that Wikileaks has done that is any different from Carl Burnstein and Bob Woodward investigating Watergate. Is anyone now going to suggest that Nixon's crimes should not have been exposed?
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
You're all about due process, right? I'm not a lawyer--far from it--but if I was a jury member, those are the questions that I would want answered before I called these men guilty of a crime.
They both deserve it more than Obama did. I still think it's ridiculous that he was given the award. And this is coming for someone who supported him in 2008 and will more than likely support him in 2012.
Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
The Psychology of Persuasion