[KEEP IT CIVIL] Wikileaks release Video of the murder of Iraqi civilians

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

The van shoot was technically legal, though admittedly I might think it was arguably un-necessary. It is permissable to engage persons attempting to relocate unless in a marked evacuation vehicle (wounded or otherwise). Contrary to a post earlier in this thread, the wounded children were transported to a US military hospital.

NTM

You can clearly hear the orders in that vehicle that the jeep carrying the injured kids were to meet with IP's (Iraqi police) and for them to be handed over.

No offence, but that report was obviously made to avoid any potential problems that arose from that attack, its a whitewash report, simple as. Covering their own asses.

As someone mentioned earlier, it's no wonder a lot of ex soldiers find their salvation at the end of a rope if that's all the value they put on human life.

youcrazyjesus!

The people who carried out this atrocity are sadistic, scum basically. They should not walk the streets of any civilised country. They are on a par with beheaders and bus bombers and should be locked up for a long time. This is terrorism, it's as clear as day. The saddest part is this is not an isolated incident, this is how most of these scumbags value human life....not at all. Shame on them all. They have no honour or morals.

The ironic thing is they are all cowards, away from an "asymmetric warfare" environment they'd wet their pants if they were put in a real fight against those equipped with the same weapons.

"How come when we see these guys on the street you tell me not to stare at them but today that's all we're doing?" - Chris Griffin.

karma_

Overheal wrote: »

2 for 2: please exemplify.

OK, we know now that there were 'ZERO' RPG's at the scene. And on the whole video there is nothing that even looks like an RPG7.

However in one of the Soldiers reports he states that there were no less that 2 RPG-7's. And he believed all were combatants who had been shooting all day. This is just opinion actually, his own as he couldn't possible have known that. No where in that report is there any shred of evidence that there was an RPG, it's fairly obvious they were protecting their comrades. There is a supposed pic of an RPG, but it's been censored.

AlmightyCushion

karma_ wrote: »

You can clearly hear the orders in that vehicle that the jeep carrying the injured kids were to meet with IP's (Iraqi police) and for them to be handed over.

Orders can change. Someone could have radiod in later to take them to a military hospital instead of the police or maybe there were other military officers with the police when the children arrived and they insisted they were brought to a military hospital.

Hagar

Overheal wrote: »

2 for 2: please exemplify.

Where is the claimed RPG7 in the pictures? I know what one looks like and I can't see one. I certainly can't see it under the censor panel on page 38. Can you? Why was it censored? It would add creedance to the "legality" of the shooting if it were shown but it isn't so the credibility is gone. There was no RPG.

There are other inconsistancies but if you can't or won't see them I am not going to waste my evening pointing them out.

karma_

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Orders can change. Someone could have radiod in later to take them to a military hospital instead of the police or maybe there were other military officers with the police when the children arrived and they insisted they were brought to a military hospital.

ok this is the statement from the medic who found the kids, word for word from that report:

"We transported them to the checkpoint, on RtE Pluto, where, there we transferred them to Iraqi Ems"

Manic Moran

"We transported them to the checkpoint, on RtE Pluto, where, there we transferred them to Iraqi Ems"

Who took them where...?

OK, we know now that there were 'ZERO' RPG's at the scene. And on the whole video there is nothing that even looks like an RPG7.

The picture on Page 17 from the gun camera footage which has the arrow pointing to 'RPG' looks a hell of a lot like an RPG to me.

No disrespect NTM, but whom permisses that?

Nobody. There's no prohibition. Laws generally regulate what you can't do, they tend not to express what you can do.

NTM

Hagar

As an aside, am I the only one shocked at the standard of handwriting in the reports? Page 32 or thereabouts. Some of it looks like it was written by barely literates. Some people may think I'm being harsh but it's very easy to manipulate the un-educated when you have authority.

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

Who took them where...?



The picture on Page 17 from the gun camera footage which has the arrow pointing to 'RPG' looks a hell of a lot like an RPG to me.



Nobody. There's no prohibition. Laws generally regulate what you can't do, they tend not to express what you can do.

NTM

I see no resemblance to an RPG. why was the only real proof censored?

The report is full of inconsistencies one soldier on pg27. says the kids were taken by them (we evacuated) to FOB Loyalty.
However the medic stated they were transfered to Iraqi EMS. I'm presuming you mean they still ended up in the same place.

I've read that report, and its amateur hour to say the least. If I was handed that I'd throw it back at the guy who wrote it for a complete redo. His conclusions are all over the place too. There are lies on there too, for instance they say there was no time to pick up guns or photo the bodies, but we can clearly see in the video the photographer doing his work, there was time for sure, and we can clearly see that none of the guys shot were engaging anyone, the compiler of the report somehow disagrees.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

The picture on Page 17 from the gun camera footage which has the arrow pointing to 'RPG' looks a hell of a lot like an RPG to me.

Which from what I can tell is take from the 2:00 - 2:25 mark. The RPG/Tripod/Jonas Brothers Poster in question is being carred by the man highlighted by the camera crosshair - the one standing by the lamp post.

FlutterinBantam

karma_ wrote: »

I see no resemblance to an RPG. why was the only real proof censored?

The report is full of inconsistencies one soldier on pg27. says the kids were taken by them (we evacuated) to FOB Loyalty.
However the medic stated they were transfered to Iraqi EMS. I'm presuming you mean they still ended up in the same place.

I've read that report, and its amateur hour to say the least. If I was handed that I'd throw it back at the guy who wrote it for a complete redo. His conclusions are all over the place too. There are lies on there too, for instance they say there was no time to pick up guns or photo the bodies, but we can clearly see in the video the photographer doing his work, there was time for sure, and we can clearly see that none of the guys shot were engaging anyone, the compiler of the report somehow disagrees.

Once again I have to point out that the video only covers a certain amount.

What may be going on outside the camera footprint is not shown. None of us can say for certain and undoubtedly ,without this contextual information. what the full story was.

Some people here are making totally definitive and cast iron accusations with having the full picture.It's as simple as that, and quite frankly is foolish in the extreme.

Sheeps

if the guys didnt want to get shot they shouldnt have tried to shoot the rpg at the helicopter

concussion

karma_ wrote: »

The report is full of inconsistencies one soldier on pg27. says the kids were taken by them (we evacuated) to FOB Loyalty.
However the medic stated they were transfered to Iraqi EMS. I'm presuming you mean they still ended up in the same place.

Presumably the medic patched up the kids on the scene, loaded them onto the evac vehicle and that was the last he saw of them. Wikileaks themselves comment that the kids treatment was possibly delayed and compromised (paraphrasing) by the transfer to an Iraqi hospital yet they link the med reports which clearly show the military hospital treated them. Are Wikileaks lying, covering up the truth?? Or was there simply a change in orders along the way? :cool:

concussion

Sheeps wrote: »

if the guys didnt want to get shot they shouldnt have tried to shoot the rpg at the helicopter

There's nothing to show they tried to fire it at the helicopter. Nevertheless, just having it was justification to fire on them.

Overheal

concussion wrote: »

There's nothing to show they tried to fire it at the helicopter. Nevertheless, just having it was justification to fire on them.

Did the report mention which type of Ammunition the RPG was using? A quick google of RPG7 shows half of the things its able to launch are designed for Anti-Personnel, not Anti-Armor. As the Report goes to suggest, there were soldiers in the area, evidenced by the Footage of the Hummer/Squad from the Reuters camera. Which both meets the Anti-Personnel and the Anti-Armor requirements. Insurgents were within 100m of Coalition forces.

They had a weapon that they intended to use.

I no longer maintain as I did a couple days ago that the RPG7 was a real threat to the Apache or that it was the grounds for attack in Defense. As an aside and reminder though, Insurgents have downed 12 Apaches since the start of the War and damaged several more. Not that Im saying they did this with RPGs.

karma_

concussion wrote: »

Presumably the medic patched up the kids on the scene, loaded them onto the evac vehicle and that was the last he saw of them. Wikileaks themselves comment that the kids treatment was possibly delayed and compromised (paraphrasing) by the transfer to an Iraqi hospital yet they link the med reports which clearly show the military hospital treated them. Are Wikileaks lying, covering up the truth?? Or was there simply a change in orders along the way? :cool:

What do Wikileaks have to cover up? they weren't the people responsible for blowing 14 people away. They didn't write a report that was inconsistent. There is only one side that had anything to cover up, and if you need help in figuring that chestnut out well I'm sorry.

karma_

Overheal wrote: »

Did the report mention which type of Ammunition the RPG was using? Half of the things its able to launch are designed for Anti-Personnel, not Anti-Armor. As the Report goes to suggest, there were soldiers in the area, evidenced by the Footage of the Hummer/Squad.

They had a weapon that they intended to use.

Your getting ahead of yourself, the only proof an RPG was present is a censored photo?

Overheal

karma_ wrote: »

Your getting ahead of yourself, the only proof an RPG was present is a censored photo?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65331663&postcount=431

karma_

Overheal wrote: »

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65331663&postcount=431

No offence mate, but that is hardly conclusive by any stretch.

FlutterinBantam

karma_ wrote: »

Your getting ahead of yourself, the only proof an RPG was present is a censored photo?

I'd certainly accept the judgment from a professional rather than an amateur .

karma_

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I'd certainly accept the judgment from a professional rather than an amateur .

I'm sure of it, then again a lot of folk accepted the Widgery report too.

FlutterinBantam

What has that got to do with this incident?

karma_

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

What has that got to do with this incident?

What had the Twin towers got to do with it? yet that didn't stop you bringing it up.

FlutterinBantam

It was in response to a particular post.

You are wasting your time trying to wind me up, won't get you anywhere.

meanwhile back on topic...................

Sheeps

karma_ wrote: »

What do Wikileaks have to cover up?

theyre' agenda

concussion

karma_ wrote: »

What do Wikileaks have to cover up? they weren't the people responsible for blowing 14 people away. They didn't write a report that was inconsistent. There is only one side that had anything to cover up, and if you need help in figuring that chestnut out well I'm sorry.

I was pointing out that 'inconsistancies' by the military in the AAR re: medical treatment of the children was were replicated by Wikileaks. What are they covering up? Well, that's not where I was going with my post, I was questioning how the exact same error by both parties could only be a 'cover up' by one.

Seeing as you asked however, they edited out the radio messages about the RPG warhead being trapped under an injured insurgent anyway. It's also interesting that while the military confirm weapons at the scene, Wikileaks don't refute it, going only as far as saying 'while some of the men appear to be armed'. If they're so convinced it was an unlawful attack, why don't they confirm the journalists were not associating with insurgents?

Manic Moran

As an aside, am I the only one shocked at the standard of handwriting in the reports? Page 32 or thereabouts

Imagine, if you will, you've just come in from an 8-hour patrol in 130 heat wearing full battle gear (you might have just been shot at), and instead of preparing to collapse on your bunk, some Major wanders up to you at your HMMWV and says 'I'm MAJ Blank, conducting the investigation into the actions of whatever. I need you to fill out this form please, and as soon as possible.' You are (a) Going to leave it aside until you have a shower, dinner, maybe some sleep, find a nice desk and chair, and write away, the Major can get his form in good time or (b) going to pull out your pen right then and there and fill out the form on the hood of the Hummer.

Your handwriting's going to be pretty miserable too, and to hell with worrying about spelling and grammar.

For the record, my handwriting is pretty damned atrocious at the best of times and I am anything but un- or poorly educated.

No offence mate, but that is hardly conclusive by any stretch.

I'm probably one of the few people on here to have handled an RPG, and I'm fairly certain I'm the only one to have seen one held by a insurgent through a thermal sight. That stated, it looks a hell of a lot like an RPG to me.

NTM

Overheal

karma_ wrote: »

No offence mate, but that is hardly conclusive by any stretch.

Neither is calling it a tripod, then.

Zombienosh

Just like the mass media focusing attention on an argument that doesnt matter to distract away from the real issue here, the second "attack".

forget about rpgs and tripods for a minute. nothing can excuse the the attack on the men with their children simply trying to save the wounded. last time i checked trying to saves someones life wasn't considered hostile.

karma_

Overheal wrote: »

Neither is calling it a tripod, then.

Yea, I would concede that, it's not conclusive either way, but my argument that not enough care was taken is still valid.