Two Reuters Employees killed by US forces (2007)

SLUSK

You should all watch this video. This is what war looks like. This video depicts the murder of journalists in Iraq by coalition troops. You can watch this video here: http://collateralmurder.com/ How will you war supporters defend this murder of journalists?

FlutterinBantam

What kind of rubbish are you trying to stir up now:D

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

they mistook a camera for an RPG and opened fire. It's tragic, especially with the children involved but this is pretty piss poor as propoganda.

SLUSK

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

they mistook a camera for an RPG and opened fire. It's tragic, especially with the children involved but this is pretty piss poor as propoganda.

So when coalition troops kill innocent civilians that is not terrorism. Talk about double standards. The troops should not have been in Iraq in the first place.

FlutterinBantam

Trolling at it's most blatant- see ya;)

SLUSK

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Trolling at it's most blatant- see ya;)

Am I the only one having problems with the murder of innocent civilians?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Trolling at it's most blatant- see ya;)

i don't think it qualifies as trolling if the OP actually believes what they're saying.

So when coalition troops kill innocent civilians that is not terrorism. Talk about double standards. The troops should not have been in Iraq in the first place.

no they shouldn't, but they didn't set out to murder journalists or children. That's a world away from the terrorism al qaeda and the taliban are renowned for, and if you honestly can't see that then I think I'll just go the way of F. Bantam and bow out.

Nitochris

SLUSK wrote: »

So when coalition troops kill innocent civilians that is not terrorism. Talk about double standards. The troops should not have been in Iraq in the first place.

Generally terrorism is considered to be an act of violence to advance political change (anti-state) or the preservation of the status-quo (pro-state) carried out by non-state actors. A simple search on the internet will give you a more nuanced definition.

While I agree with you that the troops should never have been sent to Iraq, they are there and this video looks to be more a cock up than anything else, as Sir Digby points out.

SLUSK

Nitochris wrote: »

Generally terrorism is considered to be an act of violence to advance political change (anti-state) or the preservation of the status-quo (pro-state) carried out by non-state actors. A simple search on the internet will give you a more nuanced definition.

While I agree with you that the troops should never have been sent to Iraq, they are there and this video looks to be more a cock up than anything else, as Sir Digby points out.

I guess this "incident" is a clear case of "It's not terrorism when we do it."

ei.sdraob

more here

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/04/05/1648251

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

fairly grim watching

Nitochris

SLUSK wrote: »

I guess this "incident" is a clear case of "It's not terrorism when we do it."

If this was a criminal act it was a war crime not terrorism.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7276.doc.htm wrote:

Concerning State terrorism, the Committee had taken the trouble to proceed by consensus and keep subjectivism to a minimum, he said. Resolution 1373 (2001) was the primary guide for the Committee, but the Committee was also conscious of the 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international humanitarian law.

AlekSmart

So when coalition troops kill innocent civilians that is not terrorism. Talk about double standards. The troops should not have been in Iraq in the first place.

I`d sure as hell agree with the second part of SLUSK`s quote above,these "coalition" forces would be far better utilized in downtown Harare than in any Iraqi city.

I`m uncertain as to what the context of the Heli-Teli footage actually is.

What was the assignment of the journalists that day ?

It appears as if they were being facilitated by other armed factions to get footage of some operation being mounted.

What exactly was the cameraman attempting to take photo`s of as he looked around the corner ?
He was certainly taking cover behind that building for a reason,was there already an engagement in progress ?

Were the Helicopters providing top-cover for U.S forces against whom this particular group planned an attack ?

For sure the footage is grisly and a very strong illustration of the wanton destructive power which can be unleashed by the push of a remote button.

However,I`d be reluctant to lay total blame at the feet of the Helicoper Crews in this instance as they appear to have been fastidious about seeking clearance before opening fire on more than one occasion.

Photo-Journalism in an active War-Zone,whether it`s one WE approve of or not has always been a very hazardous occupation/vocation and these two Journalists paid the ultimate price for their committment to their job.

Byron85

SLUSK wrote: »

You should all watch this video. This is what war looks like. This video depicts the murder of journalists in Iraq by coalition troops. You can watch this video here: http://collateralmurder.com/ How will you war supporters defend this murder of journalists?

Are you a friend of Hugh's by any chance? I just ask because he posted that link on his facebook only about an hour or two ago.

Either way, it's fairly damming footage for the American Forces over there.

silverharp

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Are you a friend of Hugh's by any chance? I just ask because he posted that link on his facebook only about an hour or two ago.

its doing the rounds, I saw it on the Zerohedge blog ealier today

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/wikileaks-releases-video-depicting-us-military-slaying-dozen-iraqis-including-two-reuters-em


My only thought was that had this happened in Belfast in the 80's everyone would have a hissy fit. But so long as its "towel heads in somewhere foreign" , its not an issue. The rules for engagement in a built up area seem very light to me. Talk about Maggie T. recruiting tactics on acid.

PoleStar

SLUSK wrote: »

So when coalition troops kill innocent civilians that is not terrorism. Talk about double standards. The troops should not have been in Iraq in the first place.

There is a clear and distinct difference between terrorism and war.

In this case, there were some individuals with guns, and the innocent children and photographer were injured as part of the process (Now granted that this might be a poor example).

Terrorist acts are directed at non combatants to cause fear with the aim of causing political change. eg blowing up a subway to inflict fear and kill innocents.

There is a huge difference.

FlutterinBantam

PoleStar wrote: »

There is a clear and distinct difference between terrorism and war.

In this case, there were some individuals with guns, and the innocent children and photographer were injured as part of the process (Now granted that this might be a poor example).

Terrorist acts are directed at non combatants to cause fear with the aim of causing political change. eg blowing up a subway to inflict fear and kill innocents.

There is a huge difference.

Makes no difference to these guys Pole, they have only one agenda;)

Overheal

ei.sdraob wrote: »

more here

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/04/05/1648251

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

fairly grim watching

The footage of Consequence is in between 3:30 and 5:00

The rest is just fill.

Make up your own minds, granted, before you see what I think.

Two things.

First, the Pilot shouldve just bugged, imo, rather than get permission to engage. If those were his Sortie orders (To engage armed insurgents), thats one thing though. In which case he was under orders to engage hostiles. Ak-47s: Check. RPGs? Well, thats point two.

The vantage of the Helicopter was unfortunate. There was no clear way to see through that monitor what the pilot saw. I saw a big black lump of shyte, slung over a chubby man's back. Worse, it being a camera, that the Cameraman wasnt using it, and almost attempted to conceal it from the helicopters vantage. I dont know about you but if an Apache Longbow was eyeballing me, I'd at least have the common sense to about-face and at least let him get a good look at my CNN-warez. Instead, Joe Camera acts really strangely, trying to *sneak* camera shots of the Apache. Way to go scaring the living **** out of a (Marine?) with a Wife and Two Kids. Not to mention his Co-Pilot. April Fools!

Tragic but totally avoidable.

Bigdeadlydave

Well I havent watched the video yet as I am not in a suitable location to do so, but the way I see it if I was the gunner and I saw someone with what resembled a RPG and it was pointing at me I would be pulling the trigger fairly sharpish.

ei.sdraob

@Overheal

you missed the bits with army lying to newspapers and now being on record

particularly about the driving over bodies bit

i also remember one of them saying "let me shoot"

and of course why shoot the car that pulled up to pickup the bodies?

Overheal

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@Overheal

you missed the bits with army lying to newspapers and now being on record

particularly about the driving over bodies bit

i also remember one of them saying "let me shoot"

and of course why shoot the car that pulled up to pickup the bodies?

You mean the car that ran to pick up the purported Weapons? That would be my guess anyway. Are you running to mourn a dead corpse or pick up what the Pilot already suspects is a Rocket Propelled Grenade?

Though according to sheep, they were in fact weapons: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65260257&postcount=52

SLUSK

Overheal wrote: »

You mean the car that ran to pick up the purported Weapons? That would be my guess anyway. Are you running to mourn a dead corpse or pick up what the Pilot already suspects is a Rocket Propelled Grenade?

Though according to sheep, they were in fact weapons: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65260257&postcount=52

If these troops did not do anything wrong why did the US Military try to cover this up and stop this footage from being released?

Ciaran500

Overheal wrote: »

The vantage of the Helicopter was unfortunate. There was no clear way to see through that monitor what the pilot saw. I saw a big black lump of shyte, slung over a chubby man's back. Worse, it being a camera, that the Cameraman wasnt using it, and almost attempted to conceal it from the helicopters vantage. I dont know about you but if an Apache Longbow was eyeballing me, I'd at least have the common sense to about-face and at least let him get a good look at my CNN-warez. Instead, Joe Camera acts really strangely, trying to *sneak* camera shots of the Apache. Way to go scaring the living **** out of a (Marine?) with a Wife and Two Kids. Not to mention his Co-Pilot. April Fools!

Tragic but totally avoidable.

From reuters


He was taking pictures of an engagement, or the aftermath. An apache isn't at all close to youin a situation like that you would have no idea its looking at you.

DERICKOO

very disturbing to watch, man's inhumanity to man.

GuanYin

Thread title changed to something less like a National Enquirer headline.

peasant

Overheal, if it's any consolation, ze Germanz can do it much better ...they call in an airstrike and kill 142 people, not just a handful.

but they do finally admit that they f*cked up and take the consequences

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20091223-24131.html

Mr.Micro

Another proud moment for the US.:rolleyes:

hallelujajordan

Overheal wrote: »

The vantage of the Helicopter was unfortunate. There was no clear way to see through that monitor what the pilot saw. I saw a big black lump of shyte, slung over a chubby man's back. Worse, it being a camera, that the Cameraman wasnt using it, and almost attempted to conceal it from the helicopters vantage. I dont know about you but if an Apache Longbow was eyeballing me, I'd at least have the common sense to about-face and at least let him get a good look at my CNN-warez. Instead, Joe Camera acts really strangely, trying to *sneak* camera shots of the Apache. Way to go scaring the living **** out of a (Marine?) with a Wife and Two Kids. Not to mention his Co-Pilot. April Fools!

Don't know about you but the flight crew did not sound to me like they had the living **** scared out of them ! And if you could only see a big black lump of shyte (and that's all I could see too !) how come trigger-happy-heli-guy (who ought to be trained to look for these things) could be so sure that he had seen both AK-47s and RPG's . . The facts this video I think bears out is that the heli-crew could not have been certain that the men were armed yet had placed so little value on their lives that they were willing to eliminate them at the touch of a button . . Watch for the laughs and sniggers from the crew as they kill what turned out to be innocent journalists and children ! Particularly the bit where a tank runs over one of the bodies and the crew think this is hilarious !

Is this what Bloody Sunday would have looked like if it had happened 35 years later ?

LostinKildare

Ciaran500 wrote: »

He was taking pictures of an engagement, or the aftermath. An apache isn't at all close to youin a situation like that you would have no idea its looking at you.

+1. They're not looking up at the helicopter, much less pointing anything at it. And the lag between the sound of the helicopter gunfire and when it hits them -- must be at least a mile away.

Nuravictus

Anyone who thinks this is ok is ok with Blood Sunday in Derry. This is so bad in so many ways. They could of followed that truck and guided forces on it, this is really really bad.

Whats the American rules of Engagement, If these were Irish Soldiers they would be going to prison right now

Manic Moran

Hang out with insurgents, and the fact that you're Reuters is no guarantee of safety. You can clearly see that some of the people that the Reuters guys are with are definitely armed with real weapons, not RPG-lookalike-zoom-lenses. Even the header text on the decidedly unbiased video admits that there were people with weapons there. Even if the camera had been correctly identified as a camera, it would have made no difference. Insurgents routinely video/photograph their work for propoganda purposes and to get paid.

I'm a little more uncomfortable with the shooting of the van, though if they picked up the weapons as well as the wounded, I can see that too.

What are the American Rules of Engagement

At the time:
http://collateralmurder.com/en/resources.html



NTM

gandalf

Overheal wrote: »

Worse, it being a camera, that the Cameraman wasnt using it, and almost attempted to conceal it from the helicopters vantage.

Nope that's just the way you tend to carry a SLR with a big zoom lens because of its weight. Photography is one of my hobbies.

Pretty damning and disturbing video that. You can clearly see one armed man but does that justify opening up and killing so many people with heavy weaponry on a city street? I think not. If an action like this happened in the western world there would be an out cry.

BluePlanet

The helicopter was so far away it didn't appear the victims even became aware that it was firing on them.

There also seemed to be a certain psychology at work regarding getting the green light to engage.
Particularly for the targetting the van.

Also, don't those helicopter pilots receive any training regarding target recognition?
No way that was a RPG slung over the fellas shoulder.
It was either a large camera or a shoulder bag that had some serious weight to it.

Life is cheap in Iraq.

AlekSmart

I remain of the belief that this "Coalition" has no place whatever in Iraq.

Worse still,in many peoples eyes,I believe that Saadam Hussein had a far more justifiable claim to run Iraq than any "Coalition" friendly Iraqi who has followed since.

The World is an ever evolving hotbed of Human Nature inspired conflict often based upon the most tenuous of justifications.

What the Video capture shows is just a very awful yet deadly accurate depiction of the destructive power available to mankind.

It`s of little consequence that had that power been available to some of the group in the video they would not have hesitated to use it against the opposing forces also.

Whether any of us here in Ireland can appreciate the real meaning of it or not,the street scene we were presented with remains a War Zone and it`s relative desertion points to the locals being somewhat more aware of that.

For sure the footage does not represent a high-point in USMC or U.S. Government honesty but it`s still a positive thing to note that the U.S actually HAS a Freedom of Information act which can be utilised by the Citizenry to hold its leaders to account.

It`s worthwhile noting the extreme reluctance of the Irish Government to fulfilling FoI requests in relation to the "Informal" meetings which preceeded the Banking Guarantee.

If America is such an all encompassing Evil Empire I constantly wonder WHY so many millions persist with the unquenchable desire to enter the place and swear allegiance to it`s Flag

molloyjh

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Don't know about you but the flight crew did not sound to me like they had the living **** scared out of them ! And if you could only see a big black lump of shyte (and that's all I could see too !) how come trigger-happy-heli-guy (who ought to be trained to look for these things) could be so sure that he had seen both AK-47s and RPG's . . The facts this video I think bears out is that the heli-crew could not have been certain that the men were armed yet had placed so little value on their lives that they were willing to eliminate them at the touch of a button . . Watch for the laughs and sniggers from the crew as they kill what turned out to be innocent journalists and children ! Particularly the bit where a tank runs over one of the bodies and the crew think this is hilarious !

Is this what Bloody Sunday would have looked like if it had happened 35 years later ?

I would say that if you or anyone else here were in a combat situation with a real risk of being killed you'd be ok with playing it cautiously. These guys were armed and if the camera had been an RPG it would have been a very real threat. What would you have done in that scenario? Hindsight is a great thing, but that is something these pilots were not blessed with. And if they had to get approval every time they had to fire they wouldn't last long!

But of course it's easier to point the finger from way up on high than try and be truly objective...

Brown Bomber

molloyjh wrote: »

I would say that if you or anyone else here were in a combat situation with a real risk of being killed you'd be ok with playing it cautiously. These guys were armed and if the camera had been an RPG it would have been a very real threat. What would you have done in that scenario? Hindsight is a great thing, but that is something these pilots were not blessed with. And if they had to get approval every time they had to fire they wouldn't last long...

Remind me never to take your photograph

molloyjh wrote: »

But of course it's easier to point the finger from way up on high than try and be truly objective...

Easier still to pull the trigger from way up on high.

gandalf

Alex my problem is not with the whole should the US be in Iraq or not, the fact is they are there now and it is their responsibility to sort the mess out for the Iraqi people.

My problem is with the fact that a weapon system that was designed for use against Tanks & Personnel Carriers is being used against individuals in populated areas. That surely is not clever or conducive to winning hearts and minds. In the video only one person can be seen with a clearly identifiable weapon (looks like an AK47).

So is it correct that they shoot so many to get one person armed with a rifle?

Is it right that they use munitions that can pass through walls of homes like a hot knife through butter in a built up urban area?

It shows a distinct lack of concern and respect for the people that the coalition forces are supposed to be protecting and liberating.

(BTW this has nothing to do with the Banks in this country Alex so I would suggest that you hold off ranting about that here)

gandalf

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Easier still to pull the trigger from way up on high.

Very easy to pull the trigger by the looks of it.

Jonny7

Manic Moran wrote: »

Hang out with insurgents, and the fact that you're Reuters is no guarantee of safety. You can clearly see that some of the people that the Reuters guys are with are definitely armed with real weapons, not RPG-lookalike-zoom-lenses. Even the header text on the decidedly unbiased video admits that there were people with weapons there. Even if the camera had been correctly identified as a camera, it would have made no difference. Insurgents routinely video/photograph their work for propoganda purposes and to get paid.

I'm a little more uncomfortable with the shooting of the van, though if they picked up the weapons as well as the wounded, I can see that too.



At the time:
http://collateralmurder.com/en/resources.html
NTM

Every single neighbourhood watch in Iraq are armed to the teeth with AK's and small arms. The groups who protect their communities from the Taliban in Pakistan are packing RPG's and some very heavy MGs. Helicopters were/are v commonplace above Iraqi towns and cities. Hard for the crews to distinguish friend from foe, but to these guys its just a video game.

Also why on earth are people so 'shocked' by this video?? I've watched and read worse over the years commited by troops all over the world.

These are young dumb gungho grunts, they are trained to kill not to peacekeep, they generally all hate the country they are protecting, and they know their superiors will always try to protect them if they make a bad call.


Its not exactly a phenomenom, you had religious dogoody all-american farmboys mowing down women and children in Vietnam and their superiors counting them as 'enemy killed'. Happens in war.

You need older more professional soldiers who are specificially trained to peacekeep.

Mr.Micro

Jonny7 wrote: »

These are young dumb gungho grunts, they are trained to kill not to peacekeep, they generally all hate the country they are protecting, and they know their superiors will always try to protect them if they make a bad call.


You need older more professional soldiers who are specificially trained to peacekeep.

Brought up on video games X box and Playstation and its all a big game to them. The US knows nothing about peace keeping only killing people in other countries. It has a long history of it and are no longer seen by many as the good guys.

AlekSmart

(BTW this has nothing to do with the Banks in this country Alex so I would suggest that you hold off ranting about that here)

Suggestion duly noted and disregarded as I don`t consider the follwing single sentance to be a rant...

It`s worthwhile noting the extreme reluctance of the Irish Government to fulfilling FoI requests in relation to the "Informal" meetings which preceeded the Banking Guarantee.

It is however an attempted illustration of the entire point of Freedom as understood by the average Saadam era Iraqi and by the average "New" Iraqi.

The "Coalition" see their function as the preservation of these new found "Freedoms" and the single guy armed with "only" an AK47 and intending to discharge it at other coalition forces represents a very real threat to some other young dude from downtown Poughkeepsie who just wants to go home...thats how it is.

I don`t believe anybody posting on this thread sees anything to celebrate or glory in.
What we see is a sad gory illustration of how Wars never end in Victory for anybody,a trueism going all the way back to the dawn of Mankind.

However,the re-naming of this thread has essentially broadened the scope of the discussion too which is a good thing.

Manic Moran

Every single neighbourhood watch in Iraq are armed to the teeth with AK's and small arms.

Although this is true, efforts are generally made to let the CF know where they are. They also tend to not be in the hot spots, mainly as a result of their presence.

NTM

LostinKildare

AlekSmart wrote: »

For sure the footage does not represent a high-point in USMC or U.S. Government honesty but it`s still a positive thing to note that the U.S actually HAS a Freedom of Information act which can be utilised by the Citizenry to hold its leaders to account.

Alek, one of the main points of this story is that FOIA did not work to hold the military to account. Reuters tried to get this video released under FOI for years, from the day after the deaths occurred, but they were blocked by the Pentagon. The only reason we are seeing this is because a whistleblower inside the military gave it to Wikileaks, who broke the military encryption.

The 2007 US Rules of Engagement for Iraq (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf) permit "deadly force" only against individuals who "pose a threat to Coalition Forces by committing a hostile act or demonstrating a hostile intent."

Which is why the military lied and said that they were returning fire on were positively-identified "insurgents" who had been firing on coalition troops. Here's how it was reported at the time:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202357.html

During the fighting, an Apache helicopter fired bursts of 30mm rounds toward several people who had been directing machine-gun fire and rocket-propelled grenades at U.S. soldiers. The helicopter also fired on a silver Toyota minivan in the area as several people approached the vehicle, soldiers said.
Two of the civilians killed during the fighting were with the Reuters news service.

<snip>

It was unclear whether the journalists had been killed by U.S. fire or by shooting from the Iraqis targeted by the Apache.

<snip>

The Apache crew fired because militants "were endangering the stability of Iraq" and because they had positive identification that the militants "had weapons and were using them against coalition and Iraqi security forces," said Maj. Brent Cummings, the battalion's executive officer. "No innocent civilians were killed on our part deliberately. We took great pains to prevent that. I know that two children were hurt, and we did everything we could to help them. I don't know how the children were hurt."

Um, "directing machine-gun fire and rocket-propelled grenades at U.S. soldiers"? "unclear whether the journalists had been killed by U.S. fire or by shooting from the Iraqis targeted by the Apache"? "I don't know how the children were hurt"?

Manic Moran

The 2007 US Rules of Engagement for Iraq (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf) permit "deadly force" only against individuals who "pose a threat to Coalition Forces by committing a hostile act or demonstrating a hostile intent."

Your definition of 'demonstrating hostile intent' and the legal definition may not match. What is 'hostile intent' in one situation may not pass muster in another and is dependant on a lot of factors, not just what the opposition is doing with the rifle at that moment and time. Several of them may not be apparent from a gun camera recording.

Um, "directing machine-gun fire and rocket-propelled grenades at U.S. soldiers"? "unclear whether the journalists had been killed by U.S. fire or by shooting from the Iraqis targeted by the Apache"? "I don't know how the children were hurt"?

Sadly, a lot of times the pressure to make a response results in people who should really know better saying things that they shouldn't, either making statements on faith and not caveating them, or speaking without research (if the latter is possible in the time frame). A BXO is not a PR professional. I can think of a few examples of statements and the real truth not being quite the same with no particular malice or incompetence being involved.

NTM

BluePlanet

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sadly, a lot of times the pressure to make a response results in people who should really know better saying things that they shouldn't, either making statements on faith and not caveating them, or speaking without research (if the latter is possible in the time frame). A BXO is not a PR professional. I can think of a few examples of statements and the real truth not being quite the same with no particular malice or incompetence being involved.
NTM

It's worse than that MM.
The denials, lies and cover-ups are not isolated incidents. They are common, regular and predictable.

US special forces soldiers dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched night raid, then washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened, Afghan investigators have told The Times.
Two pregnant women, a teenage girl, a police officer and his brother were shot on February 12 when US and Afghan special forces stormed their home in Khataba village, outside Gardez in eastern Afghanistan.

“Despite earlier reports we have determined that the women were accidentally killed as a result of the joint force firing at the men,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Todd Breasseale, a Nato spokesman. The coalition continued to deny that there had been a cover-up and said that its legal investigation, which is ongoing, had found no evidence of inappropriate conduct.

The Kabul headquarters of General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and Nato forces, claimed originally that the women had been “tied up, gagged and killed". - (a day before the raid)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7087637.ece

hallelujajordan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Your definition of 'demonstrating hostile intent' and the legal definition may not match. What is 'hostile intent' in one situation may not pass muster in another and is dependant on a lot of factors, not just what the opposition is doing with the rifle at that moment and time. Several of them may not be apparent from a gun camera recording.

mmmm ? ? The gun camera had a pretty good sight of the people and their surroundings . . . its hard to believe there was something else going on that was not evident in the video . . . Did you see any 'hostile intent' (by any definition?) . . Did you see hostile intent in the van that came to recover the bodies ?

Molloyjh wrote:

I would say that if you or anyone else here were in a combat situation with a real risk of being killed you'd be ok with playing it cautiously. These guys were armed and if the camera had been an RPG it would have been a very real threat. What would you have done in that scenario? Hindsight is a great thing, but that is something these pilots were not blessed with. And if they had to get approval every time they had to fire they wouldn't last long!

The pilots were blessed with (hopefully) many years of training and several minutes of foresight before they pulled the trigger. I don't believe that anyone can look at that recording objectively and argue that the pilots felt there lives were under threat and reacted as a result. I note this is the same defence as was used by the soldiers who opened fire on civilians in Derry in 1972.

gandalf

Jonny7 wrote: »

You need older more professional soldiers who are specificially trained to peacekeep.

You see that's the problem. Essentially the job is now to peace keep but from what I can see the forces in Iraq are not trained for that purpose and the equipment they use is definitely not surgical enough for that purpose.

Again why use a Helicopter Gunship against 1 man armed with an AK47 and two men with Camera's. Is killing 11 people to subdue one armed man a ratio that's acceptable to the US forces? If it is all that will happen is the insurgency will grow in strength as all those people will have relatives and they will blame those that pulled the trigger and a not the armed man in their midst.

I am very interested in noting that no one responded to whether using a Helicopter Gunship firing 30mm rounds from a long distance away is acceptable engagement in a built up urban area?

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

Your definition of 'demonstrating hostile intent' and the legal definition may not match. What is 'hostile intent' in one situation may not pass muster in another and is dependant on a lot of factors, not just what the opposition is doing with the rifle at that moment and time. Several of them may not be apparent from a gun camera recording.

Far be it for me to impose my own definition of “demonstrating hostile intent”!
Handily, the 2007 Rules of Engagement in Iraq that I linked to provides the operable definition of "hostile intent":

Section I-11
When hostile intent exists, the right exists to use proportional force, including armed force, in self-defense by all necessary means available to deter or neutralize the potential attacker or, if necessary, destroy the threat. Determination of hostile intent must be based on convincing evidence that an attack is imminent prior to the use of proportional force in self-defense. Evidence necessary to determine hostile intent will vary depending on the state of international or regional political tension, military preparations, intelligence, and indication and warning information. Evidence of hostile intent is considered to exist when a foreign force or terrorist(s): is detected to maneuver into a weapon launch position; is preparing to fire, launch, or release weapons against the US, US forces, and in certain circumstance, US nationals and their property, or US assets; is preparing to lay mines in US territorial waters; or attempts to gain control of information systems critical to military employment or national infrastructure.

Now, if the trigger man was brought up on criminal charges I’m sure his lawyer would do the very best he could with this definition, but use your common sense. Do you see anyone maneuvering a weapon into launch position or preparing to fire against US persons or “assets”?

It’s pointless to argue on and on about whether one of those killed had an RPG or a camera tripod, how many people were carrying AK-47s, whether there was an RPG on the ground or not, etc. IT DOESN’T MATTER. They weren’t firing AK-47s or RPGs at US forces, or pointing them, or “preparing to fire, launch, or release” them.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sadly, a lot of times the pressure to make a response results in people who should really know better saying things that they shouldn't, either making statements on faith and not caveating them, or speaking without research (if the latter is possible in the time frame). A BXO is not a PR professional. I can think of a few examples of statements and the real truth not being quite the same with no particular malice or incompetence being involved.

Oh, please. Cmon. From the contemporary NY Times account (July 2007):

The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.
“There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.

Google the news stories on this from 12-14 July 2007. The military spun this as a firefight.

BluePlanet, right on. Particularly vile that military speculated to the press that those pregnant women our soldiers had just dug their bullets out of were honor killings by those -- gasp! -- barbaric Afghans. Hearts and minds, eh?

Manic Moran

hallelujajordan wrote: »

mmmm ? ? The gun camera had a pretty good sight of the people and their surroundings . . . its hard to believe there was something else going on that was not evident in the video . . . Did you see any 'hostile intent' (by any definition?) . .

Nope. As I said, it need not necessarily be evident in the video. You will forgive me for not going into examples and specifics on a public forum, the opposition have already become very good at figuring out when we can shoot them and when we can't, I have no desire to help them along.

The pilots were blessed with (hopefully) many years of training and several minutes of foresight before they pulled the trigger. I don't believe that anyone can look at that recording objectively and argue that the pilots felt there lives were under threat and reacted as a result. I note this is the same defence as was used by the soldiers who opened fire on civilians in Derry n 1972.

I don't think anyone with a general knowledge of the background is going to claim that the pilots felt their lives under threat. That is, however, not a requirement.

Again why use a Helicopter Gunship against 1 man armed with an AK47 and two men with Camera's.

The helicopter was there and in a position to shoot. It would have been daft not to. And it wasn't just one man with an AK and two with cameras, it seems to have been a collection of persons.

I am very interested in noting that no one responded to whether using a Helicopter Gunship firing 30mm rounds from a long distance away is acceptable engagement in a built up urban area?

It's a fairly accurate system, and it works. You have to admit, they didn't seem to hit anyone that they didn't intend to hit.

Do you see anyone maneuvering a weapon into launch position or preparing to fire against US persons or “assets”?

Can do. As I said, the requirements vary depending a lot on background info. See the preceeding line in the ROE. Again, I'm not going to go into specifics.

They weren’t firing AK-47s or RPGs at US forces, or pointing them, or “preparing to fire, launch, or release” them.

With respect, you need to know the totality of the situation. You seem to have an image of the text above having a requirement for Iraqi or American forces being in line of sight with the opposition group with their weapons locked and loaded and aimed. That's not required. As others have noted, the gunner was concerned about the legality of his shooting, doing so only when he felt it could be legally justified. Why would he suddenly have been concerned after he just killed a bunch of people?

The military spun this as a firefight.

Combat operations against a hostile force means exactly that. Shooting is not required. They weren't out for a Sunday drive. I go on a cordon and knock, I may never see a hostile force, but it's still a combat operation. These guys were out looking for members of the opposition, and they apparently found them.

NTM

hallelujajordan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nope. As I said, it need not necessarily be evident in the video. You will forgive me for not going into examples and specifics on a public forum, the opposition have already become very good at figuring out when we can shoot them and when we can't, I have no desire to help them along.

So your hypothesis is that there were other circumstances that we did not see on the video that may justify this aggressive reaction. Do you know this to be the case or are you just speculating ? If you don't, isn't it possible that this is exactly what it looks like . . an overly aggressive act of aggression against an unconfirmed target outside of the rules of engagement and one that ought not to go unpunished particularly given the civilian casualties. And if there are other circumstances that justified this reaction why have the US military not released this information as opposed to making up a different story that the helicopter was under direct fire and immediate threat when clearly it was not ?

Manic Moran wrote:

The helicopter was there and in a position to shoot. It would have been daft not to. And it wasn't just one man with an AK and two with cameras, it seems to have been a collection of persons.

Why would it have been daft not to shoot at an unconfirmed target ? Would it also have been daft not to open fire on the van (containing children) that was picking up dead bodies ?

Manic Moran wrote:

It's a fairly accurate system, and it works. You have to admit, they didn't seem to hit anyone that they didn't intend to hit.

On the contrary . . they hit two journalists and two children . . they cannot have been intended targets ? . . . or perhaps they were

Combat operations against a hostile force means exactly that. Shooting is not required. They weren't out for a Sunday drive. I go on a cordon and knock, I may never see a hostile force, but it's still a combat operation. These guys were out looking for members of the opposition, and they apparently found them.
NTM

Well if you include two journalists and two children in your definition of 'opposition' then I agree. It looks more like they identified a bunch of guys acting suspiciously and who 'appeared' to be armed and rather than doing anything to confirm the threat they simply eliminated it.

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

You have to admit, they didn't seem to hit anyone that they didn't intend to hit.

Wrong. The children.

Manic Moran wrote: »

With respect, you need to know the totality of the situation. You seem to have an image of the text above having a requirement for Iraqi or American forces being in line of sight with the opposition group with their weapons locked and loaded and aimed. That's not required.

No I don't. Don't mischaracterize what I write. There does need to be a reasonable threat, though.

Manic Moran wrote: »

As others have noted, the gunner was concerned about the legality of his shooting, doing so only when he felt it could be legally justified. Why would he suddenly have been concerned after he just killed a bunch of people?

Just because the gunner was there, and -- though this is just an assumption -- felt that it could be legally justified, doesn't mean that it was justified. Jeez. What kind of an argument is that?

The shooters are wrong all the time. Did you see this the other day from McChrystal about the high number of civilians killed and wounded at checkpoints and in convoys in Afghanistan?:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/gen_mcchrystal_weve_shot_an_amazing_number_of_peop.php?ref=fpb

We really ask a lot of our young service people out on the checkpoints because there's danger, they're asked to make very rapid decisions in often very unclear situations. However, to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it. That doesn't mean I'm criticizing the people who are executing. I'm just giving you perspective. We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Combat operations against a hostile force means exactly that. Shooting is not required. They weren't out for a Sunday drive. I go on a cordon and knock, I may never see a hostile force, but it's still a combat operation. These guys were out looking for members of the opposition, and they apparently found them.

And "the ensuing fight" the statement refers to? There wasn't a fight, it was shooting fish in a barrel.

AlekSmart

I note this is the same defence as was used by the soldiers who opened fire on civilians in Derry in 1972.

Halleujajordan astutely raises a Northern Irish perspective to this which would bring me to the 1988 kilings of Corporals Wood and Howes in Belfast.

What is of particular significance here is the as yet unreleased British Army Heli-Teli footage of their executions.

It has been remarked that Helicopter footage captured all of the events that day and that the footage was very clear and accurate.

Belfast,at that time was certainly regarded by many as a war-zone,but it is interesting to note the difference in scale of response between Belfast 1988 and Baghdad 2007.

The Rules of Engagement were luckily entirely different in Belfast and thankfully so.