溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: This is sick. [打印本頁]

作者: daimo 時間: 2010-4-5 18:37 標題: This is sick.

網站發布美軍濫殺平民短片 (09:01)

http://inews.mingpao.com/htm/INews/20100406/ta20901i.htm

http://www.youtube.com/verify_ag ... yer_embedded#at=130

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-4-5 18:51

唔睇住

未食飯

作者: chowB 時間: 2010-4-5 19:24

Hmm... honestly, not too surprise la. And US might not be alone, many other countries and people do things behind us out of our imagination. But that's sad.

作者: Nox 時間: 2010-4-5 21:27

what's been exposed may only be tip of an iceberg

作者: Lik 時間: 2010-4-5 22:15

This is why we need a free press.

Now, imagine what would happen to both the video and to the website if this were to happen in China?

-Lik

作者: chowB 時間: 2010-4-5 22:30

This is why we need a free press.

Now, imagine what would happen to both the video and to the websi ...
Lik 發表於 2010-4-5 22:15

Already seen la -- 6.4! Doesn't matter which country is, the sad thing is we can do nothing la.

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2010-4-5 22:32

This is why we need a free press.

Now, imagine what would happen to both the video and to the websi ...
Lik 發表於 2010-4-5 22:15

i~ content filtering
不果一樣有計

作者: daimo 時間: 2010-4-5 22:34

Free press? took 2 years to dig this up; I don't recall Routers raised a fuzz even 2 of their employees were killed.

this is even more interesting :

http://wikileaks.org/

15. Mar. 2010: U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks, 18 Mar 2008

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-4-5 22:40

This is why we need a free press.

Now, imagine what would happen to both the video and to the websi ...
Lik 發表於 2010-4-5 22:15

hahaha, again you are just itching to drag the Chinese into this.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-4-6 05:54

樹大有枯枝...

作者: tofu 時間: 2010-4-6 10:05

yes, this is sad, but not surprise.

作者: CWong 時間: 2010-4-6 10:10

华盛顿最终係將棵樹砍掉！

作者: hium 時間: 2010-4-6 10:12

佢地真係當係打緊機咁。。。冇人性嫁。。。

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-4-6 10:32

佢地真係當係打緊機咁。。。冇人性嫁。。。
hium 發表於 2010/4/6 10:12

Let me argue that 人性 or human nature is supposed to be like that.

We have been fighting over resources by killing each other since the first day.

作者: siumaibb 時間: 2010-4-6 14:20

跟本打仗就係殘酷，軍人本身日日都要面對類似問題。邊個係敵人，邊個唔係敵人，佢地可能已經麻木晒。

Furthermore, if they let a suspicious enemy go, tomorrow the soldier or his friend might be killed by the same guy that he let go, going to war is killing, people like us sitting at home watching a youtube clip won't understand it at all.

The only way to avoid this is to end the war.

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-4-6 14:27

跟本打仗就係殘酷，軍人本身日日都要面對類似問題。邊個係敵人，邊個唔係敵人，佢地可能已經麻木晒。

Furt ...
siumaibb 發表於 2010/4/6 14:20

Agree
I am glad that there is some valuable opinion.

作者: MSN04 時間: 2010-4-6 14:57

跟本打仗就係殘酷，軍人本身日日都要面對類似問題。邊個係敵人，邊個唔係敵人，佢地可能已經麻木晒。

Furt ...
siumaibb 發表於 2010-4-6 14:20

100% agree with your comment.
For people who keep crying about innocent people getting killed, go join the army and fight in the war. See if you will act like a mr. nice guy anymore.

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-4-6 16:47

本帖最後由 sheep 於 2010-4-6 16:53 編輯

跟本打仗就係殘酷，軍人本身日日都要面對類似問題。邊個係敵人，邊個唔係敵人，佢地可能已經麻木晒。

Furt ...
siumaibb 發表於 2010-4-6 14:20

saving private Ryan
They let one go and in the end, the sniper was killed.
His throat was slowly cut by the guy they released.

作者: chowB 時間: 2010-4-6 18:59

saving private Ryan
They let one go and in the end, the sniper was killed.
His throat was slo ...
sheep 發表於 2010-4-6 16:47

Hey, I'm just about to quote SPR too. But I think of another scene, what made Tom Hanks die?!

作者: daimo 時間: 2010-4-6 19:25

well, first of all, it's the attitude that matters. it's just part of life to have accidents. but if you have listened carefully, it's the conversation, which reviewed the pilot's attitude, that drove people angry.

" With great power, comes great responsibility"

p.s. the "weapons" were just the journalist's cameras.

作者: chunsh 時間: 2010-4-6 22:21

佢地真係當係打緊機咁。。。冇人性嫁。。。
hium 發表於 2010-4-6 10:12

人性?
你咪睇緊人性其中既一面o羅

作者: samsung 時間: 2010-4-6 22:30

跟本打仗就係殘酷，軍人本身日日都要面對類似問題。邊個係敵人，邊個唔係敵人，佢地可能已經麻木晒。

Furt ...
siumaibb 發表於 2010-4-6 14:20

作者: Lik 時間: 2010-4-7 17:54

Pentagon's rebuttal:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978017,00.html

Several hours after WikiLeaks posted the video, the Pentagon fired back with large pieces of its own 2007 investigations into the attack. It concluded that the Reuters employees had joined up with several armed insurgents on a day that had been filled with attacks on U.S. troops in the vicinity. One knelt to take a photograph, without wearing any vest or other apparel indicating he was a reporter. From the Apache, the camera was mistaken for an RPG launcher. The Apache crews had "neither reason nor probability to assume that neutral media personnel were embedded with enemy forces," a probe concluded.

Reuters, in a statement, didn't criticize the Pentagon, instead saying that its employees' deaths "were tragic and emblematic of the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones." But Assange said the attack was unjustified. "If those killings were lawful under the rules of engagement," he told reporters at the National Press Club in Washington, "then the rules of engagement are wrong."

The rebuttal sounds like a load of bullshxt to me. With a close-up like that, if a solider still can't tell an RPG launcher from a camera, then perhaps he shouldn't be a solider in the first place.

-Lik

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-4-7 18:00

The rebuttal sounds like a load of bullshxt to me. With a close-up like that, if a solider still can't tell an RPG launcher from a camera, then perhaps he shouldn't be a solider in the first place.

Army enrollment is low. Soldiers are just human who work for a wage. If there's a slight chance that you might get killed, it's much better for the other party to be killed first.

Dying for a photograph is a very nice ending to the reporter's life anyway.

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://loyaukee.com/forum/)