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

karma_

the_syco wrote: »

Have any buddies? Ever see them getting shot in front of you? Maybe beheaded? I doubt they're given a "balanced" view of what's happening, other than seeing their buddies getting killed every day.

=-=

At 19:15 they say "Six; this is Four. I got one individual looks like he's got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break." in reference, I think to 02:30 "All right, we got a guy with an RPG". Sure, it could a camera, but it all I could see was a long tube shaped object at a foot long which one of the individuals picks up off the ground (what camera man would leave that sort of equipment on the ground?), and then, holding the tube shaped object at a 45 degree angle down, looks around the corner.

At 32:53 "This is Bushmaster Six. Has the RPG round", followed at 32:56 by "been extended alread or is it still live, over" "Looks live to me." (second bit, different voice/response).


Maybe so, but that is one long tube shaped camera that he picks up from the ground...

He's got an RPG (safe - not gruesome)

Now, from rewatching the clip a few times, I do find it odd the way the person edges out bit by bit, as the chopper moves to the right.

=-=

By the way, I'm not condoning what has happened. Sh|t happened, and I would like the procedure that evaluates the threats to be reworked. Sentencing the men on the chopper to prison for trying to protect their comrades from getting shot with an RPG is stupid. Whilst it makes great news, and a few hippies get a pat on their back, it won't ensure future f**ks up won't happen.

=-=

Did I hear a "Yaaarrrr" @ 30:59 ?

load of nonsense syco to be quite honest. I'm no soldier but I know what an RPG looks like, well an RPG7 anyway which is what the insurgents were using over there, It has a very distinctive shape and frankly that camera looked nothing like it.

Katniss everMean

"Its there fault for bringing children into war" 0_0

Dave!

uughhh, feel sick after watchin that

Local-womanizer

Yes it was a mistake,and yes its terrible. But its not if the 2 pilots went out to do this intentionally. That said there should be reprecussions.

But to clear up a few points:

"But it would be impossible to take down an Apache with an RPG from that range!!!!"

This is true,but the concern wasent for the Apache but rather the ground troops. The Apache is there to provide cover for those on the ground.

"Why did they shoot the van up?!!!"

This stems from the fact that the original targets were "insurgents" They dident want weapons falling back in to the enemies hands,or the possibility of that man recovering and coming back to wage jihad against the coalition forces. Unfortunatly as we know he wasent an insurgent....

Ok they should have taken a few seconds more to identify the targets,but it would always be playing on there minds that them few seconds more could cost one of the troops lives on the ground. Its a hard balance to strike for those involved in such a constant high-pressure enviroment where one split-second decision can mean the difference between life and death.

And why are people debating the morallity of this war and the reasons there are over there,at the end of the day,its happening so why not just debate the video?

KevinVonSpiel

karma_ wrote: »

Just like back in 'Nam where teh units liked to keep their 'bodycounts' high because the superiors liked to see good news get reported. (yes this did happen).

'Nam? Are you seriously using the abbreviation? You don't come across as a "vet'".

Le King

info@williamrua wrote: »

Which half, buddy, top or bottom, who in their right mind would work in an organization full of psycho's. I don't have to paint them all with the one brush they perfectly able to do that themselves, and if your two brothers have a problem being associated with these murdering sobs, why are they in the military, to protect us from all these evil terrorists with their cameras and stuff. Please enlighten me.

You fail bad man. I didn't say any of it is a problem for my brothers.


By your logic, the world would be a terrible, terrible place. Thankfully this world isn't full of people like you and if you feel so strongly about it, then why don't you do something about it.


And yeah, the whole US Army is full of Murderous SOB's. :rolleyes:

Dara Robinson

Pretty good interview with the guy from WikiLeaks and a good American perspective. Also I like the fact that she goes over what the US Military Stated at the time of the event and they also go into other related aspects.

AlmightyCushion

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Seeing as the Apache Helicopter can fire its M242's from up to 3km away I think your point is irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster


Because they had no idea what was going to happen. This is why these aircraft specialise in attacking from great distances.
Its been bugging me so I did a little math. between the sound of firing and the bullets hitting the ground its between 2/2.5 secs. Given that the muzzle velocity os around 1100 meters per second ..... now you do the math
We are talking over 2k possibly 3k distance

We don't know how far away the apache was. Yes we can speculate given what is shown on the video but it's far from scientific. The video could have been encoded poorly and introduced a delay between the audio and the video or it could have lost sync. The only way we could clear that up is by seeing the original or asking someone who knows just how far out they were.

I haven't seen the full version just the 17 minute version. The guys certainly looked like they had weapons especially the guy peaking around the corner. Whether it's confirmed later is debatable by the looks of it. Given the circumstances I'd have probably opened fire as well. Thankfully, I wasn't there though.

Saying that the decision to open fire on the minivan is questionable. They didn't look like they had weapons and if they were hostile and armed surely they would have opened fire on the helicopter straight away. Saying that hindsight is 20/20 vision.

Manic Moran

naughto wrote: »

if the iraqi civilian had rps and k47 are where planning on killing people then what where the journalists doing in the middle of it.surley they would have reported if they knew that they was going to an attack

That's actually quite a topic of ethical debate in the journalist community. Those who consider themselves impartial reporters first, and damn the effects, think one way, and there are the other crowd who believe that there's a 'right and wrong' to the actions being observed, and will let their morals override their impartiality (If feasible). It is even more interesting if the reporters are of the same nationality as the personnel they are about to record being attacked.

On the other hand, it doesn't work the other way around. It's been known that reporters trying to do a hit piece on the military will get captured, and the military will still do their damndest to get the reporters back. The French lads taken a couple of months ago come immediately to mind.

why not be prudent and wait for confirmation?

The pilots identified weapons. They had their confirmation. That some items at the scene were not weapons did not affect the fact that other items at the scene were weapons. For the record, even if it had been identified as a camera, the end result would not have been different. It's standard practice for insurgents in Iraq to film their handiwork for both propoganda purposes and proof of their work so they can get paid. Simply having a camera on the street wouldn't get you shot in Iraq (Though it would get you questioned), but having one in company of people with weapons is a far more risky proposition.

Hmmm. Ak-47's aren't common at all in Iraq

They're not uncommon at all. Every household is permitted to keep one. Carrying it around, on the other hand, is very uncommon unless part of a militia or other such security organisation (Or the opposition).

You two should join the US forces and when you're flying over Iraq you should both jump out with your bayonets drawn and your night vision goggles on, just in case, and ye could sort the whole sorry mess out, you're both so completely right.

For the record, some of us have been in Iraq trying to identify what we're looking at through night vision.

Furthermore, any pictures or video reports of Afghan farmers invariably shows them carrying an AK47

Odd. I never met an Afghan farmer carrying an AK47. I just spent the last 9 months there. For the record, I never met an Iraqi farmer carrying on either.

Only about 15-20% of Combat troops during WW2 would fire at the enemy. This is why training has changed so dramatically in recent times, the military train you to kill, its brainwashing in fairness.

The SLA Marshall study on the matter has since been discredited. A good book on the subject is 'On Killing', by LTC Grossman, which, unfortunately, does rely on Marshall a fair bit, but that does not detract from much of the psychology he references.

I'm no soldier but I know what an RPG looks like, well an RPG7 anyway which is what the insurgents were using over there, It has a very distinctive shape and frankly that camera looked nothing like it.

FWIW, RPGs up to RPG-29 have been used in Iraq. Plus there are a large number of warheads available for even the simple RPG-7, which often look radically different to the stereotypical 'diamond' shape. The Chinese bounding APERS round being a case in point, though the Iranian Namer warhead is particularly interesting as it has no impact fuse on the tip.

'Nam? Are you seriously using the abbreviation? You don't come across as a "vet'".

Oddly, I've never as yet come across a Vietnam vet who didn't refer to the place as 'Vietnam' or 'SouthEast Asia'

NTM

Ciaran500

the_syco wrote: »

Maybe so, but that is one long tube shaped camera that he picks up from the ground...

He's got an RPG (safe - not gruesome)

http://imgur.com/MHePA.png

Blatantly not an RPG, once they decided they were carrying weapons they never made another attempt to identify them.

FlutterinBantam

I never realised there were so many weapons experts, military strategists, and helicopter tactical air strike specialists on AH.

I'm amazed.

biko

info@williamrua wrote: »

Well yeah I'm real sorry man I didn't mean to step on your toes there man, like I mean you know right, you are the great informed one right, here's me falling over a glass of light beer, you's the man.
Tell me do you wear soiled vests a la Bruce Willis when you pose in front of the mirror with your extra strong ultra informed beer, let me see I'll try to picture you now,...nice. wow I could never be like you, what's it like being you hombre on yo hos there.
Get me some ice.

Stick to the topic, this is a US Army warning.

KevinVonSpiel

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oddly, I've never as yet come across a Vietnam vet who didn't refer to the place as 'Vietnam' or 'SouthEast Asia'

I only heard the A team & the guys from Magnum talk about it.

Oh, I forgets Bobby Peru.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Deleted User wrote: »

That along with the attitude of the soldiers is what's shocking imo. They're gagging to shoot.

Plus the way it was presented at the time didn't reflect the truth.

You must understand that a soldier, especially a marine, does not simply go to boot camp for a month and then go to war. These men are weapons themselves. They are not like Joe Soap down the road, they are trained to kill and killing is their speciality. It's what they have trained to do over the years, the government didn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to train these guys to spread peace and love. Try put yourself in their position, anybody. If I was trained for years to kill, and the opportunity arose, would I decline? No. Would I enjoy it? Not sure. To some soldiers killing is like you printing off a report for your boss. Same thing in effect really, you just have to press a button.

Well firstly it's disturbing to see videos like this, but I have seen it all before and worse. It's very unfortunate that the reporters and the children amoung the other innocent men were killed.

One must understand war to fully comprehend this act. I would advise people to look up the rules of engagement and then put yourself in the soldiers position. There is not just one set of ROEs, but each force can have different ROEs for different situations. The force must abide by the rules of war, but that doesn't always happen.

This is a war zone, a hot zone, where soldiers die very often due to these militia, some are highly trained, some are just answering the call and have never been in combat before. We must look at the facts. The men did have weapons, there is no doubt about that. What would you have done? I for one would have given the order if I was in the position, to fire. Should the militia have been let go? Should the be let roam free to fire upon a section of infantry or Iraqi police?

It is extremely unfortunate that these reporters were there at the time. It's what happens, it's war.

My problem is the with second and third engagement, the van was fired upon without knowing anything about that van and it's occupants. They simply didn't want the wounded man to get away.

The third attack you can clearly see people walking by that building before it is hit with a helfire missile. After a minute or two people are standing outside and looking in the building to see what's going on, the helicopter is still firing missiles. That is a dissplay of complete disregard for human life, that, in my opinion is a war crime. What exactly is the difference between the US and any other terrorist group? Popularity and ignorance is on the side of the US. Although that is changing.

People need to get rid of this idea that war is romantic, heroic, honorable and clean. It's filthy, unjust dishonorable and far from romantic. The war you see on film is not war, that's an idealistics impression of war. It's far far nastier than that. War is unforgiving.

Biggins

Oddly, I've never as yet come across a Vietnam vet who didn't refer to the place as 'Vietnam' or 'SouthEast Asia'

Look out for a brilliant book called "Nam" by Mark Baker (HERE).
A book of compact of short and long experiences from solders that were there. They refer to the country as "Nam" all the time.

(He also did another class book called "Cops" - HERE)

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Biggins wrote: »

Look out for a brilliant book called "Nam" by Mark Baker (HERE).
A book of compact of short and long experiences from solders that were there. They refer to the country as "Nam" all the time.

(He also did another class book called "Cops" - HERE)

I have spoken with vietnam veterens too, they always refered to Vietnam as "nam" or "the nam"..

"Back in nam we were...."

Dave!

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I never realised there were so many weapons experts, military strategists, and helicopter tactical air strike specialists on AH.

I'm amazed.

Well what do you expect here on www.weaponsexpertsmilitarystrategistsandhelicoptertacticalairstrikespecialistsforum.com ?

Hey waiiiiiit a minute...........

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I never realised there were so many weapons experts, military strategists, and helicopter tactical air strike specialists on AH.

I'm amazed.

You'd be surprised at the many different types of people who use AH. Some have served in the US army in Afghanastan and Iraq. Others have been to chad, lebanon and other countries on peace keeping missions.

Either way, you don't need to be an expert to hold an opinion

biko

Royalty Future Klutz wrote: »

My problem is the with second and third engagement, the van was fired upon without knowing anything about that van and it's occupants. They simply didn't want the wounded man to get away.

When the only tool you have is a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail.

karma_

KevinVonSpiel wrote: »

'Nam? Are you seriously using the abbreviation? You don't come across as a "vet'".

Looks like you missed the sarcasm there buddy, well done.

KevinVonSpiel

karma_ wrote: »

Whatever makes you sleep at night. The lives of those people we got to see slaughtered was sealed from the moment they were spotted walking down the street.

It's probably happened like this time and time again, and reported as insurgents killed. Just like back in 'Nam where teh units liked to keep their 'bodycounts' high because the superiors liked to see good news get reported. (yes this did happen).

Oh, I'm not that sophisticated. I didn't see the sarcasm.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

biko wrote: »

When the only tool you have is a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail.

So true. At that point the gunner only wanted to shoot, but he kept on requesting that permission from his CO, or who ever was in command.

karma_

KevinVonSpiel wrote: »

Oh, I'm not that sophisticated. I didn't see the sarcasm.

Keep it up, maybe eventually you will make some kind of relevant contribution to the thread.

Dara Robinson

Wow, more personal attacks. Aren't we all getting web balls, very mature...

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

We don't know how far away the apache was. Yes we can speculate given what is shown on the video but it's far from scientific. The video could have been encoded poorly and introduced a delay between the audio and the video or it could have lost sync. The only way we could clear that up is by seeing the original or asking someone who knows just how far out they were.

I haven't seen the full version just the 17 minute version. The guys certainly looked like they had weapons especially the guy peaking around the corner. Whether it's confirmed later is debatable by the looks of it. Given the circumstances I'd have probably opened fire as well. Thankfully, I wasn't there though.

There is no evidence that the video is out of sync. In fact if you watch it carefully they are interacting, voice wise, with whats happening on the ground in real time. I have seen the video 3 or 4 times now and I have seen no evidence to suggest that. Have you?

And as for the full video.... speak for yourself mate. I linked it so if you did not watch it thats up to you. But the full video is almost 40 mins long. and thats the one I have watched over and over.

Also, if anyone is interested in reading the American Presses reaction WikiLeaks is posting most of the articles out there on their Twitter page

FlutterinBantam

Royalty Future Klutz wrote: »

You'd be surprised at the many different types of people who use AH. Some have served in the US army in Afghanastan and Iraq. Others have been to chad, lebanon and other countries on peace keeping missions.

Either way, you don't need to be an expert to hold an opinion

Indeed, indeed, just surprised at the level of certainty some people seem to have over extremely complex issues and tactical strategy based on a grainy video, the context of which one can't be sure of.

Some people seem to know more than the people involved!!!

Must be an awful lot of airforce,military and combat troops people in AH.

Who would have thunk that;)

Mister men

AlcoholicA wrote: »

I just watched the full video, there are no words to really describe it. Theres too many things wrong with it.

It is sadly though, no real surprise, I'm sure this is one of many incidents like this, only this has been leaked.

It's pretty sad aswell to see some peoples comments.

Goes on each and every single day i've heard and read. This is just one incident that's been leaked. You wonder just how many "terrorists" :rolleyes: that one single unjustified attack will have created. Brothers,sisters,relations,children,mothers,fathers of the dead could be turned into suicide bombers due to the carelessness of these idiots. So counter productive to act in this manner but what more do we really expect from a nation that brought us Abu Ghraib.

Lizzzard

Quote:
Originally Posted by info@williamrua
Which half, buddy, top or bottom, who in their right mind would work in an organization full of psycho's. I don't have to paint them all with the one brush they perfectly able to do that themselves, and if your two brothers have a problem being associated with these murdering sobs, why are they in the military, to protect us from all these evil terrorists with their cameras and stuff. Please enlighten me.

Osu wrote: »

You fail bad man. I didn't say any of it is a problem for my brothers.


By your logic, the world would be a terrible, terrible place. Thankfully this world isn't full of people like you and if you feel so strongly about it, then why don't you do something about it.


And yeah, the whole US Army is full of Murderous SOB's. :rolleyes:

First off, your having to defend your brothers who are serving in Iraq by saying the guys in the USMC are not ALL murdering basterds, so your saying your brothers work alongside and with these murdering basterds?? Why am I asking a question of course they are, YOU SAID IT.

I couldn't wait to read your silly response to what williamrua said to you(I know how defensive you american's and half american's get when it comes to "war").

I think what he meant (I don't expect you to understand your half american) was, IF your brothers had a problem with being painted with the same brush, which by your defensive reply they do, MAYBE they shouldn't be in the army working with a load of murderous basterds. Do you think this is the ONLY video Wikileaks has????? No, they have another 8 similar videos lined up which they are currently analysing which once again depicts american soldiers gunning down INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILIAN'S. Sorry instead of saying "gunning down" lets use a more appropriate word, MURDERING INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILIAN'S.

These are people that work with your brothers, and how do you know that your brothers aren't over there behaving like that?? You think those pilots are going to go home and sit down with their kids or wife and say, "Oh honey, there was this one day where I just wanted to KILL, we saw these guys on the street and all I wanted to do was FIRE. I was pretty sure they were holding a gun.........." I'll stop there. You are not at "war" with these people, weather it be brothers, cousins, best friends - your not going to hear about the really sick stuff that happens. All your ever going to hear is, "Yup I shot the bad guys".

And maybe the world would be a "terrible, terrible place" if williamrua was in charge, but it'd sure as hell be a lot better than it is now with america in power. By the way, WHY is america still in Iraq???

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Indeed, indeed, just surprised at the level of certainty some people seem to have over extremely complex issues and tactical strategy based on a grainy video, the context of which one can't be sure of.

Some people seem to know more than the people involved!!!

Must be an awful lot of airforce,military and combat troops people in AH.

Who would have thunk that;)

Honestly? You can gather a lot of information from that video. For instance, the eagerness of the gunner, the lack of certainty, the lax attitude of the other officers/ncos giving the permissions. The gunner is crying for the wounded photographer to pick up a weapon, just so he can shoot him again. There's no doubt about it, he wanted to kill people, but he wanted to do it legally .

Remember, it's not extremely complex at all. A lot of civies have military knowledge too, information is readily available on the internet and in books etc etc.

Go to the military forums and check it out, it's quite active and you will find people from all walks of life, from different armies around the globe.

Although, I do not know who you refer to.

FlutterinBantam

You are right of course.

Here was me thinking the trained forces kinda knew what they were doing after years training and I have to admit I thought most of the AH experts were spotty nerds playing out fantasies in darkened rooms, as they kill the evil empires of the world on their computers.

I honestly thought only Maikikomi and Manic Moran were real soldiers, but having read this thread ,and seen an out of context engagement I now realise that there is a wealth of actual combat experience,weapons knowledge, military air strategists, logistics experts, urban warfare containment officers,and post engagement analysts amongst us.

I wouldn't have believed it 'till you told me.

Just shows how one can be so wrong;)

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You are right of course.

Here was me thinking the trained forces kinda knew what they were doing after years training and I have to admit I thought most of the AH experts were spotty nerds playing out fantasies in darkened rooms, as they kill the evil empires of the world on their computers.

I honestly thought only Maikikomi and Manic Moran were real soldiers, but having read this thread ,and seen an out of context engagement I now realise that there is a wealth of actual combat experience,weapons knowledge, military air strategists, logistics experts, urban warfare containment officers,and post engagement analysts amongst us.

I wouldn't have believed it 'till you told me.

Just shows how one can be so wrong;)

I'd given my opinion, I have explained a little more and yet you still take the piss. I mean, you seem to think you need to be an expert, you need combat experience, weapons knowledge, military air strategist, logistics expert, urban warfare containment officer or a post engagement analyst to have clue of wtf is going on? The video is extremely clear. There's also more than MM and Maik that are in the military, or have been in the military on this website.

Did you make half that up? Are those titles just plucked out of the air? I mean, wtf is an urban warfare containment officer?

Again, I will state that information on military topics is not difficult to come by. A lot of it is common sense. There is a good amount of absolute crap in this thread, posted by people who have watched too many hollywood war films.

BluePlanet

All that stuff is besides the real point Iamxavier.
That being for a few posters, FlutterinBantam being one, USA can do no wrong. Ever.
It doesn't matter how many innocent people get gunned down in whatever circumstances.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

BluePlanet wrote: »

All that stuff is besides the real point Iamxavier.
That being for a few posters, FlutterinBantam being one, USA can do no wrong. Ever.
It doesn't matter how many innocent people get gunned down in whatever circumstances.

What I cannot understand is how some people cannot see this? I seen links of this on a forum where all the posters seemed to be militants of some form or another. All army sigs, pics, names etc etc. They convinced themselves that the gunner engaged the target legally. Silly silly people, try take a neutral stance and look at the video from that perspective. Initially they engaged a target, using extrene force. This is not the problem, it's the illegal engagements after this that's the problem.

It's simple really. Educate yourself, even a little, in military sops (standard operating procedures), check out the rules of engagement and check out the rules of war. They do exist.

DeVore

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You are right of course.

Here was me thinking the trained forces kinda knew what they were doing after years training and I have to admit I thought most of the AH experts were spotty nerds playing out fantasies in darkened rooms, as they kill the evil empires of the world on their computers.

I honestly thought only Maikikomi and Manic Moran were real soldiers, but having read this thread ,and seen an out of context engagement I now realise that there is a wealth of actual combat experience,weapons knowledge, military air strategists, logistics experts, urban warfare containment officers,and post engagement analysts amongst us.

I wouldn't have believed it 'till you told me.

Just shows how one can be so wrong;)

Sarcasm is the refuge of the beaten.

DeV.

karma_

Royalty Future Klutz wrote: »

What I cannot understand is how some people cannot see this? I seen links of this on a forum where all the posters seemed to be militants of some form or another. All army sigs, pics, names etc etc. They convinced themselves that the gunner engaged the target legally. Silly silly people, try take a neutral stance and look at the video from that perspective. Initially they engaged a target, using extrene force. This is not the problem, it's the illegal engagements after this that's the problem.

It's simple really. Educate yourself, even a little, in military sops (standard operating procedures), check out the rules of engagement and check out the rules of war. They do exist.

I even have a problem with the first engagement. A little care and some time would have convinced the pilot & gunner there was no threat. Insurgents don't just waltz down a street in a relaxed fashion like the lads in that video, especially when there was heavy US ground forces on teh next street. The truth i fear is the gunner desperately wanted to take out those people. Maybe he convinced himself they were insurgents and maybe he is one of the 2 or 3% in the military who get their rocks off killing folk, either way it isn't excusable.

jake la motta

OK, there is one thing that really stands out in the video for me, and I'm going to avoid calling anyone a bloodthirsty trigger happy murderer because war and geo politics are complicated with a lot of split second and harsh calls to be made day by day, hour by hour and in this case minute by minute. There are a lot of grey areas out there, its not simply as black and white, good vs bad as some people on here would have you believe.

The overall impression I get from the video is one of shock and sadness but also an overwhelming sense of carelessness on both parties involved and how this could have been easily avoided if common sense was used. Firstly the error in judgment and recklessness of the two reporters and secondly the attitude of the American soldiers is what I find most alarming here.

Let me state I have no great admiration for the War in the Middle East. I am in no way Pro-America and Pro-War but I do appreciate what a tough almost impossible task the troops are faced with. Its virtually impossible for any country to come out of any war without innocent blood on their hands, war is chaos after all, you can't control or pick and choose what happens or how devious you enemy will be or in this case how careless two people who should have know better will be.

Why would two war zone journalists, who must be fully aware of the methods used by the US forces when they encounter an armed group who are mobilized and planning to engage somebody somewhere, decide to embed themselves within a group of armed terrorists? It’s a cathostrophic error in judgment.

I can clearly see in the video a man with an RPG, at the start of the video when the journalists first meet the group in the street before they all walk towards the entrance to the open courtyard, you can clearly see a man holding and RPG. I'm sorry for all of you who love to pigeon hole the US army as reckless gung-ho idiots but it’s clearly and RPG. I have never seen a camera tripod this tall with a pointy top in the shape of a small missile and at this point the two Journalists have been accounted for so any theory that a third person, who was later killed, was a terrorist holding a tripod for them or another journalist that Reuters failed to list as missing or KIA just doesn’t make sense. He was a terrorist with an RPG.

Most war zone journalists who are looking for some frontline footage of armed forces engaging with each other usually don’t carry a tripod around with them and try to set it up in the middle of a gun fight. Most footage from Afghanistan and hot zones like this are of the shaky cam variety due to reporters taking footage whilst on foot.

We then see the two cameramen running ahead of this guy with there equipment straps thrown over their shoulders. We only know from information gathered about the two men afterwards that this is camera equipment but from the video it is impossible to tell because the equipment seems to be slung behind them when the shot is taken so unlike the man with the RPG in front of himself the two journalists have there gear on their backs out of sight from the camera.

Now I'm not trying to defend the actions of the US troops, I'll get to them shortly, but when the US troops spotted the terrorist with the RPG and saw two men running to join them with equipment slung on their shoulders they would have come to the same conclusion most people would have considering that 99% of automatic weapons come with a shoulder sling. Its easy to watch a video in hindsight with the two deceased civilians freeze framed and pointed out to you, labeled even, along side the Antiwar media calling such video the latest cover-up/blunder or what you will but for the troops on the scene with no information of the two journalists who decided to join the terrorists its a different more difficult ballgame altogether.

The US troops would have had no way of knowing these were two Reuter’s employees and came to a different, and given the circumstances, more understandable conclusion. The actions of the two journalists too run and mobilize themselves within this group is a fatal error. Yes, on another day it may have lead them to get some fantastic frontline footage of the terrorists in action but instead they became victims of such footage.

How were the Journalists tipped off that the group was in place and ready to move? Was it the group themselves that tipped them off and wanted footage of an attack on US troops to be captured? I'm sure some Conspiracy nuts are only hours away from implying that maybe the US troops tipped them off so they could have a field-day but this makes little sense and is only for the narrow minded.

For those saying why did the US troops decide the men were terrorists when they were not certain and peaking out from behind a wall is not a given sign that you are a terrorist, acting suspiciously is not enough, well this is both wrong and right. More importantly why were the two men peaking out from behind the wall suspiciously? Well, we know from the video that gunfire is taking place elsewhere, close by, and it involves US troops so the two journalists would have know not to simply run around a corner in that direction because US troops who are under fire and scared with bullets whizzing by them will see two middle eastern men as a possible threat. The two Journalists knew they were taking a risk by joining the terrorists but took that risk anyway.

As for the US troops, what strikes me is there willingness to engage in situations that are not 100% clear, but even so this is understandable because close by troops are under fire and they need to safeguard and look out for more threats in the surrounding area. I presume this was not a random flyover where the spotted the group, the troops engaged in gunfire nearby would have alerted them and called for backup. When they spot another armed group ready to move in and possibly reinforce another pocket of resistance they have little choice but to engage and would feel urged to do so to protect there own kind in the thick of battle.

Some of the gung-ho "We got em, there dead, cool man" smack talking by the troops in the Apache is not exactly the most noble act to engage in after the shooting dead a group of about 12 people but up to this point they thought it was terrorists only who were dead.

They are talking about or at least they think they are talking about the kind of men who actively kill US troops, beat and torture them, drag them from the streets and decapitate them with rusty knives and leave their bodies dumped on the roadside, oh and they also do this to civilians, women and children included. So I dont think they have much respect for the dead in the context of who the dead are.

The one area I cannot defend the US troops on however is the attack on the mini-van. If they were a terrorist support group coming in to rescue their own wounded couldn’t they have stopped the vehicle with the incoming Humvee instead just to confirm this? They would have then avoided the death of the, up to then, injured terrorist (or was he one of the two journalists, sill alive up to this point?) and causing the injury of the two children.

If they were only coming into rescue the injured man, which they didn’t fire on again as they couldn’t identify a weapon in his possession, and not to engage in combat but just to pick and run, couldn’t they have pulled over or attempted to pull over the mini-van and then engaged in fire if they became hostile. If they ordered the men out of the van, hands behind head and lying flat on the ground they could have avoided further bloodshed but even this becomes more complicated when you analyise further.

As the two men who departed the mini-van to pick up the wounded man were killed and they are no further reports of innocent civilians getting killed beside the two journalists we would assume that these are terrorists also who came into support there own wounded group members?

It’s also easy to freeze frame the video and highlight the two young passengers after multiple viewings but no so easy to do with split second timing in a high pressure situation. How many of you can honestly say they spotted all these things on the first viewing?

The two kids in the van are the ones that I feel for the most here, why would anybody, terrorist or not drive them into a situation where heavy gunfire has taken place seconds earlier? Its unforgivable and some of the tricks terrorist use to try and put off the US troops. If the mini-van drivers are innocent of any terrorist involvement then the footage is even more damning and the US troops need to be in jail but has there been anymore about the drivers?

People are quick to judge the US troops on a short amount of footage but don’t know half of the disturbing methods used by the terrorists. They are know to get kids to aged as young as 12 too behead know spies so as to get them used to such acts of barbarism and to send out a message to the US troops that they are preparing a whole new generation of evil to take there place should they be killed.

Another report that struck me was about the early days of the invasion when the battle for Fallujah was about to take place. It was know as a terrorist hotspot were only diehard members of Al-Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers resided. I'm talking whole families not only grown men. The US army deployed planes to drop leaflets all over the area warning anyone there that they would shortly be invading and advising them to leave and that anyone remaining would be regarded as a threat. Troops reported that when they first went in they had whole families shooting at them from the streets and rooftops, imagine it for a second, women and children with guns firing at them.

What do you do with an enemy like that? Prepared to sacrifice there kids for the cause, they are fanatics. Do you freeze and let a kid shoot you, a kid who has been brain washed by his Mom and Dad or do you defend yourself and how can you live with yourself after gunning down a child? You tell yourself it was him or me but such decisions and images would haunt you forever.

We can sit here all day, behind the safety of our keyboards and condemn the US troops but the reality is we only get a 10% idea of how difficult their job is and what kind of horrors they face each day. The men in the chopper may sound relaxed and although far away from the action but they would have a zero risk policy in place, if it looks like a possible danger to our troops then neutralize it. Otherwise they guy your serving with is captured and faces horrors we can’t even imagine.

The two journalists took a big risk, it’s hard for the US troops to offer them protection once they run with the enemy.

karma_

I think you have misunderstood, which is a shame given the length of your post, but there was no insurgents in that video, no one was 'running with the enemy' and there was no RPG.

In teh time it took you to type all that out you could have easily found this information by yourself.

Overheal

BluePlanet wrote: »

All that stuff is besides the real point Iamxavier.
That being for a few posters, FlutterinBantam being one, USA can do no wrong. Ever.
It doesn't matter how many innocent people get gunned down in whatever circumstances.

I never said it was Right. I just said it Was. They were not properly trained to react to the situation.

I even have a problem with the first engagement. A little care and some time would have convinced the pilot & gunner there was no threat. Insurgents don't just waltz down a street in a relaxed fashion like the lads in that video, especially when there was heavy US ground forces on teh next street.

Are you a seasoned Veteran Insurgent? What do you know of Insurgency Warfare? Really? Just asking.

From my limited understanding Insurgency and Guerilla Warfare greatly relies on breaking the rules: That is, Assembling in Churches and Schools, doing Patrols with Women and Children, etc.

And - further to my limited experience - have you ever seen a patrol of UN/US/UK infantrymen being completely Tom Clancy for their entire patrol? Are the lads outside the AIB with Steyrs in attack stance with their guns at Sight? Just because they were walking casually - it doesnt confirm shyte.

karma_

Overheal wrote: »

From my limited understanding Insurgency and Guerilla Warfare greatly relies on breaking the rules: That is, Assembling in Churches and Schools, doing Patrols with Women and Children, etc.

And - further to my limited experience - have you ever seen a patrol of UN/US/UK infantrymen being completely Tom Clancy for their entire patrol? Are the lads outside the AIB with Steyrs in attack stance with their guns at Sight? Just because they were walking casually - it doesnt confirm shyte.

No Overheal I'm not a military man at all, in fact I'm a pretty committed pacifist, however I do have some degree of common sense and common sense tells me that due care wasn't taken in that instance, and if it wasn't taken in that instance does it ever get taken? Common sense tells me also, that if those guys really were insurgents then they were fairly poor ones because it looked like a few lads walking down a street.

Regarding patrols, I grew up in NI when the troubles were in full swing and I've seen many a patrol on the streets, and yes they were always fairly professional.

prinz

Terrible tragedy verging on the criminal. That's the video.

On the other hand I await the same people to be as vocal in their horror when video of the next terrorist attack takes place in say Pakistan, where hundreds of innocent people have been murdered by Taliban-styled scum, everyday news items get glossed over, 40 killed in Peshawar, 30 civilians killed in Kabul, they are not even getting a mention. A handful of innocent people killed by Americans and bam, straight to the top of boards AH.

karma_

prinz wrote: »

Terrible tragedy verging on the criminal. That's the video.

On the other hand I await the same people to be as vocal in their horror when video of the next terrorist attack takes place in say Pakistan, where hundreds of innocent people have been murdered by Taliban-styled scum.

Nice effort Prinz but this has already been covered a few pages back.

Overheal

karma_ wrote: »

Common sense tells me also, that if those guys really were insurgents then they were fairly poor ones because it looked like a few lads walking down a street.

You realise that Guerrilla Warfare (of which the Irish are sometimes considered the Fathers of) relies heavily on the Guerrilla force blending in with the local population?

MaybeLogic

Overheal wrote: »

You realise that Guerrilla Warfare (of which the Irish are sometimes considered the Fathers of) relies heavily on the Guerrilla force blending in with the local population?

In a group like that? With a chopper overhead?

karma_

Overheal wrote: »

You realise that Guerrilla Warfare (of which the Irish are sometimes considered the Fathers of) relies heavily on the Guerrilla force blending in with the local population?

You saw my last post yea? That should answer this question for you also.

prinz

karma_ wrote: »

Nice effort Prinz but this has already been covered a few pages back.

Saying that you 'expect better from the americans' doesn't really cover anything. In wars innocent people are killed, nobody is perfect. Yes it certainly looks like the US forces screwed up here, but there is a reason that the deaths of 11 Iraqis gets a thread of it's own here, and it isn't due to the deaths of 11 Iraqis, it is solely due to the nationality of the perpetrators.

60+ people were killed by Maoist Naxal rebels in India today too if what you are interested in is the sanctity of human life. Where's the crocodile tears for them?

karma_

prinz wrote: »

Saying that you 'expect better from the americans' doesn't really cover anything. In wars innocent people are killed, nobody is perfect. Yes it certainly looks like the US forces screwed up here, but there is a reason that the deaths of 11 Iraqis gets a thread of it's own here, and it isn't due to the deaths of 11 Iraqis, it is solely due to the nationality of the perpetrators.

60+ people were killed by Maoist Naxal rebels in India today too if what you are interested in is the sanctity of human life. Where's the crocodile tears for them?

Thats because we now have something quantifiable to make an informed judgement on this action, do you have video footage of Taleban attacks or those Maoist rebels? If so, I'm sure we can get a discussion going.

And yes, because that we expect 'terrorists' to be douchebags and the US forces or any Governmental force not to be, is because the bar is and should be set higher for them, and no matter how you feel about that, it is a salient point.

In saying that don't let me stop you being a broken record.

Overheal

MaybeLogic wrote: »

In a group like that? With a chopper overhead?

We've been in circles about this. One version of events argues that a) The Apache was as much as 3km distant and that b) The Cameraman was not trying to photograph the Apache, but a Hummvee Wreck further down the Road that he was looking around the corner to.

Therefore the group would have not been paying heed to the Apache Longbow and therefore would have been acting more casually than if they were in direct contact with a hostile.

Or you can choose to believe they saw the Apache but much like drunk Teenagers on O'Connel Street they "Acted Cool" in front of a Superior.

karma_ wrote: »

I think you have misunderstood, which is a shame given the length of your post, but there was no insurgents in that video, no one was 'running with the enemy' and there was no RPG.

In teh time it took you to type all that out you could have easily found this information by yourself.

Whether there was or not, made no difference in those 3 minutes. As this thread has proven, the Evidence available is seriously debatable.

karma_

Overheal wrote: »

We've been in circles about this. One version of events argues that a) The Apache was as much as 3km distant and that b) The Cameraman was not trying to photograph the Apache, but a Hummvee Wreck further down the Road that he was looking around the corner to.

Therefore the group would have not been paying heed to the Apache Longbow and therefore would have been acting more casually than if they were in direct contact with a hostile.

Or you can choose to believe they saw the Apache but much like drunk Teenagers on O'Connel Street they "Acted Cool" in front of a Superior.
Whether there was or not, made no difference in those 3 minutes. As this thread has proven, the Evidence available is seriously debatable.

Chances are they knew a chopper was in the area, they are a noisy beast and you can hear them from a good distance away, there was footage posted earlier which shoes that there were 2 or 3 hovering over the city that day.

I appreciate you want to defend the honour of your countries armed forces, but somethings transcend national pride, were this the Irish army, I'd be equally outraged.

Overheal

karma_ wrote: »

Chances are they knew a chopper was in the area, they are a noisy beast and you can hear them from a good distance away, there was footage posted earlier which shoes that there were 2 or 3 hovering over the city that day.

I appreciate you want to defend the honour of your countries armed forces, but somethings transcend national pride, were this the Irish army, I'd be equally outraged.

Chances are.

If I'm defending my country of anything its the Internet Brigade who takes a Hypothesis (Chances are...) calls it a fact, and runs with it.

Nowhere in this thread have I upheld that a) We are Right to be there in the first place b) That they were properly trained to handle the situation or c) that they acted appropriately, if legally. And that d) We Don't Know Everything. We are Not the Judge or the Jury. This is the sad circus of Public Opinion.

So Im not sure what pre-conception you have of my Stance: But its time to drop it.

Sheeps

Actually the velocity of the rounds it was firing is about 800m/s, and it took a good 3 seconds for them to actually hit their target which puts the helicopter about a mile and a half away.

They probably didn't know it was there.

karma_

Time to finish up here and go bang my head against the nearest brick wall. I'd say it's been fun but it hasn't.