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

Just as a side-point, people keep calling this a war-zone but it is also an Iraqi city and home to a population. Acting suspiciously is not a crime and does not make your life expendable.

Think Omagh Bombings every single day but instead of a terrorist group, it's a world superpower which is engaged in an illegal war who is responsible. This is going to spawn terrorists for generations down the line.. It did in Ireland, it certainly will in the Middle East. It really has been a completely counterproductive decade in the context of a "War on Terror". Unfortunately, we all know this is a war based on a demand for oil and Sadam selling oil in Euro didn't bode well for America.. In this context, the Iraqi war is a success.

karma_

Deleted User wrote: »

Just as a side-point, people keep calling this a war-zone but it is also an Iraqi city and home to a population. Acting suspiciously is not a crime and does not make your life expendable.

Think Omagh Bombings every single day but instead of a terrorist group, it's a world superpower which is engaged in an illegal war who is responsible. This is going to spawn terrorists for generations down the line.. It did in Ireland, it certainly will in the Middle East. It really has been a completely counterproductive decade in the context of a "War on Terror". Unfortunately, we all know this is a war based on a demand for oil and Sadam selling oil in Euro didn't bode well for America.. In this context, the Iraqi war is a success.

I agree, I wonder would those defending the action be as quick to do so if this footage was from Belfast or Derry.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

It really has been a completely counterproductive decade in the context of a "War on Terror". Unfortunately, we all know this is a war based on a demand for oil and Sadam selling oil in Euro didn't bode well for America.. In this context, the Iraqi war is a success.

Really? We're going there?

He's a photographer who peaked around a corner with his camera at the aftermath of US group receiving small arms fire. Completely standard practice for any camera man in a war zone, I'd also suspect it has become common practice for the locals too. The US army cannot use this as an excuse to open fire on someone.

Are you a War Zone photographer? Or an expert specializing in International Law? Its presumptuous to draw an Absolute.

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Come on ffs, the guy does not know whats around the corner so he leans out and takes a few shots. And thats suspicious to you? Having not been in a War torn country myself I dont know but I assume I would not be walking around corners without checking them out first.

Granted. But again, we have the Pilot's Perspective, which was the perspective of greatest consequence. In that perspective, it was terrible timing. He'd probably be alive if he had been 5 seconds slower to peek around the corner.

Props to distancing the Apache :eek:

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Really? We're going there?

I actually don't want to go there... Wrong thread. Ignore!

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually don't want to go there... Wrong thread. Ignore!

You tripped the IED though: this is going to be your fault!

Seriously I dont think we need to go there. Sufficient to say Everyone was where they were doing stuff for reasons on that day when people died. The Prime Cause being poor preparation, training, and timing. We could be here all day Chain-Blaming it all the way back to 03'.

karma_

Overheal wrote: »

He'd probably be alive if he had been 5 seconds slower to peek around the corner.

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).

wes

The US has no business in Iraq, the entire war was a crime. The people behind it should be in jail, but are walking around free, after getting a whole bunch of innocent civilians killled, and not to mention a whole lot of there own soldiers killed as well, for no good reason.

The war was either based on a lie, or the people behind it were criminally incompetent. The video from Wikileaks, just highlights a single instance of this criminal imcompetence, but the entire war was a crime, and it didn't need to happen.

Amalgam

The video really leaves you a bunch of nerves, if you can't even respect the dead and dying, what hope for the living?

I don't get the worth of neutralising a van trying to carry off the wounded. The psychology of the radio chatter just ****ing stinks.

smurgen

Overheal wrote: »

Well that leaves a rather large Dilled Pickle, Smurge. Insurgents don't operate by the Geneva Convention - how do you engage a target that assembles in Schools, Mosques, and Homes? Parades down the streets with Ak-47s and Children, and is hellbent on killing you?

I am not trying to defend it, just trying to provide Understanding and Comprehension.

I understand it completly but don't agree. The simple fact is they shouldn't engage insurgents when civilians are around. When there's a high speed police chase in america the cops are told to back off if it's happening in a built up area,for fear an innocent by standard is killed,even if it means the bad guy getting away for a while.
How come this same type of thinking isn't implied in iraq?because an american like is considered more important that an iraqi life.therefore if an iraqi innocent is killed the good old "it's the terrorists fault" is trotted out.

Voodu Child

Seifer wrote: »

It's funny the way people hear what they want to hear:

"Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle" is what he says and there is no laughing.

Its a 40 minute video, with a lot of conversation, and I watched all of it. I don't claim to have word-for-word recollection of it. Hence why I made sure to use the phrase "or something to that effect". If you find it funny that I didn't recall it exactly, fair play, you must be easily entertained.

Maybe he didn't laugh at that exact point in time, but it was said in light-hearted way, and you cannot argue that the general attitude was one of flippancy towards the death and destruction they were raining down. At one point they were firing missiles at a building and one of the men whooped "There it goes! Look at that bitch go! Patoosh!". And "Did it look good? Sweet!". They seemed to behave as if they were playing a video game rather than killing real people.

Overheal

smurgen wrote: »

I understand it completly but don't agree. The simple fact is they shouldn't engage insurgents when civilians are around. When there's a high speed police chase in america the cops are told to back off if it's happening in a built up area,for fear an innocent by standard is killed,even if it means the bad guy getting away for a while.
How come this same type of thinking isn't implied in iraq?because an american like is considered more important that an iraqi life.therefore if an iraqi innocent is killed the good old "it's the terrorists fault" is trotted out.

The Collective Police Forces of the US are not a great example to draw upon either, to be perfectly fair. -_-

The fact is, you can't point out anybody or any organization or any country that gets it right, or does it right, all of the time. Humans are tragically Fallible. And this is definitely a situation that was FUBAR. But I Understand why its exacerbated more when the US is involved, as we're meant to be an example. Unfortunately, not everyone over here agrees, and maintain a very "F*ck Them" attitude.

mojesius

smurgen wrote: »

I understand it completly but don't agree. The simple fact is they shouldn't engage insurgents when civilians are around. When there's a high speed police chase in america the cops are told to back off if it's happening in a built up area,for fear an innocent by standard is killed,even if it means the bad guy getting away for a while.
How come this same type of thinking isn't implied in iraq?because an american like is considered more important that an iraqi life.therefore if an iraqi innocent is killed the good old "it's the terrorists fault" is trotted out.

I agree completely. Jaysus, they took their sweet time ferrying the wounded child(ren), (later transpired to be two) out of there. They had an entire convoy and had to call a third party. No respect for any innocent bystanders, absolutely zero justification. Operation Iraqi Freedom my a*se.

phantom_lord

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S06nIz4scvI

Pygmalion

I've read the first hundred or so posts here but it seemed to get a bit repetitive so I stopped. Apologies if what I'm about to say has already been discussed.

The way I see it the shootings in the first place were a terrible accident, they should have been a bit more careful but they actually did seem to find guns afterwards so I can't question their judgement, even if they did just mistake cameras for weapons that would be terrible but not necessarily purposeful or due to neglect.

The problem I have with the video is what happened afterwards, you clearly see an unarmed man crawling away, they aren't firing on him (thankfully) but seem to be hoping he'll give them a reason to (I don't want to have to find that part of the video again but he seems to say at one point "Come on, reach for a weapon"). I'll admit that I may be seeing the above through tinted goggles based on what I expected to see though, maybe it wasn't meant in that way.

The part which is completely unexplainable, and which, IMO, cannot be justified, is that they open fire on the men trying to help the wounded man, killing the wounded man in the process (and let's face it, they knew 100% that would happen, the accuracy on those guns is clearly terrible considering the spread you see every time they fire, also the delay involved in getting them there, and they would have to take into account both wind and gravity at that range).
They never saw any evidence that these men were armed and they posed no threat to the helicopter while carrying (each with both hands) a severely wounded man into the van, yet they practically begged for permission to open fire, claiming that they were there to collect weapons as well as the wounded, which there was also no evidence of.
Perhaps these men were terrorists, as claimed, or perhaps they just happened to be driving by and saw a severely wounded man who couldn't walk and decided to help, this did not matter to the men begging for permission to kill them.

K-9

karma_ wrote: »

I agree, I wonder would those defending the action be as quick to do so if this footage was from Belfast or Derry.

Many of them wouldn't.

Seifer

Voodu Child wrote: »

Its a 40 minute video, with a lot of conversation, and I watched all of it. I don't claim to have word-for-word recollection of it. Hence why I made sure to use the phrase "or something to that effect". If you find it funny that I didn't recall it exactly, fair play, you must be easily entertained.

I meant funny as in odd, not funny haha. You don't have to recall it, you can simply rewind to that bit, especially if you're going to make a point of it.

Voodu Child wrote: »

Maybe he didn't laugh at that exact point in time, but it was said in light-hearted way, and you cannot argue that the general attitude was one of flippancy towards the death and destruction they were raining down. At one point they were firing missiles at a building and one of the men whooped "There it goes! Look at that bitch go! Patoosh!". And "Did it look good? Sweet!". They seemed to behave as if they were playing a video game rather than killing real people.

I don't think that particular line was said in a light-hearted way but I agree with you about a lot of the rest of the audio; especially at the missile firing part.
I also think it's crazy that they proceed with the missile launches even when they can clearly see there are innocent people just casually walking in front of the target building.

Dara Robinson

Overheal wrote: »

Are you a War Zone photographer? Or an expert specializing in International Law? Its presumptuous to draw an Absolute.

Personally I am not either but I am trying to become one and not only that I am focused on Documentary photography so its this kind of photography that I am into and I read a lot about it. There is no manual clearly but best advice before going into these situations is to receive private seals based training (or an equivalent) where the object of the training is you learn how to move like the special forces, evade capture, lower your target profile, etc
While clearly not everyone or probably most of them receive this training its recommended and latest book I read talks about what training was received and things like how to read hand signals from the major military forces around the world and a bunch of other stuff

Overheal wrote: »

Granted. But again, we have the Pilot's Perspective, which was the perspective of greatest consequence. In that perspective, it was terrible timing. He'd probably be alive if he had been 5 seconds slower to peek around the corner.

The point is that the time between start to finish was something like 125 secs. And I am talking about from the first instant that you see any figures on camera to the point where they cease fire on the original and first attack (before the van incident). Does that seem like adequate surveillance and time to assess the situation properly?

I will also point out again. The "incident of small arms fire" did not originate from this area as one of the pilots points out in the full video. The small arms fire actually came from another location and is the place where they hit last in the video where they use the missiles. There were no troops in the area, again stated by their command centre over the radio as he is getting clearance to engage.
Actually when giving out the locations the command centre mixes up the grids about half way through the vid. If you watch the whole thing it should make sense.

Overheal wrote: »

Props to distancing the Apache :eek:

Thanks the assumption of people that the heli's were over head and clearly visible was starting to grate on me

Overheal wrote: »

The fact is, you can't point out anybody or any organization or any country that gets it right, or does it right, all of the time. Humans are tragically Fallible. And this is definitely a situation that was FUBAR. But I Understand why its exacerbated more when the US is involved, as we're meant to be an example. Unfortunately, not everyone over here agrees, and maintain a very "F*ck Them" attitude.

And oh yes I bloody well can. Ireland and Switzerland. Why, cause we dont ****ing invade other countries for the purpose of profit of individuals.
The most Ireland ever does is peacekeeping with the UN. And Swizerland... have they ever been out of those mountains since the times the Templar's and the Crusader's???

Sod'o swords

Gordon wrote: »

How come the youtube video only shows 359 views still?

I noticed, yet with 5k+ 'likes'.

I've watched loads of AC130 and AH64 gun cam videos and now it seems obvious that they were cameras, but you're after after reading the video description and title, they're not all that different from small arms at that view. Also i doubt they see local reporters that often.

Granted, in this case they were wrong, and if they waited they'd of seen they weren't small arms not I'm not supporting the act at all.

the_syco

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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).

karma_ wrote: »

There was no RPG, the whole point of this video is the camera was supposedly mistaken for an RPG.

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 ?

/edit
I also have to acknowledge that the poster here makes a valid point, but it still would look very dodgy at the time.

Does anyone know who they were with, and if the people they were with had guns?

Dara Robinson

Fox news covers the story:

Army Accused of 'Video Game Killings' | FoxNews

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/05/video-appears-forces-firing-unarmed-suspects-baghdad/om/

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.