294 replies to this topic

[vbnautilus]

strategy, on Monday, April 5th, 2010, 8:15 AM, said:

here's the video:

wow. what the hell are those guys doing?!

[strategy]

some more of the story:http://collateralmurder.com/"WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded."lol @ all the people rushing to say it was so obvious that they were journalists. Sure looked like an RPG to me, and they even seem to confirm it later in the video? I'm still quite confused about what I saw.

[vbnautilus]

strategy, on Monday, April 5th, 2010, 9:02 AM, said:

lol @ all the people rushing to say it was so obvious that they were journalists. Sure looked like an RPG to me, and they even seem to confirm it later in the video? I'm still quite confused about what I saw.

definitely not obvious. looks like they have AK47s too? still don't see why they needed to be destroyed from above though. also, when they blew up the building (why were they doing that??) there were people milling about in front of it. can't you just clear everyone away if you need to blow it up?

[strategy]

vbnautilus, on Monday, April 5th, 2010, 11:11 AM, said:

definitely not obvious. looks like they have AK47s too? still don't see why they needed to be destroyed from above though. also, when they blew up the building (why were they doing that??) there were people milling about in front of it. can't you just clear everyone away if you need to blow it up?

Terrible for Reuters and the staff's family, but it seems like common sense would dictate that you keep the van and children away from a recent shooting with Apaches still circling... I really hate speculating on it, you know? The building thing could very easily be some standard counter-insurgency tactic. This was in 2007, also known as the height of getting our asses kicked in Iraq, so I'm inclined to forgive these kinds of mistakes.

[strategy]

someone figured out the coordinates from the audio and found the location of the shootings:http://maps.google.c...4...mp;t=h&z=16and here's a NYT article on the occasion, from 2007:http://www.nytimes.c...i...nyt&emc=rssSeems somewhat inaccurate to me.I hate to be that guy, but it's funny that al jazeera runs this, while fox news runs stuff about tiger woods.

[vbnautilus]

strategy, on Monday, April 5th, 2010, 2:06 PM, said:

someone figured out the coordinates from the audio and found the location of the shootings:http://maps.google.c...4...mp;t=h&z=16and here's a NYT article on the occasion, from 2007:http://www.nytimes.c...i...nyt&emc=rssSeems somewhat inaccurate to me.I hate to be that guy, but it's funny that al jazeera runs this, while fox news runs stuff about tiger woods.

It was on the front page of CNN or msnbc earlier, can't remember which I saw it on, but its being covered.

[Zealous Donkey]

strategy, on Monday, April 5th, 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

some more of the story:http://collateralmurder.com/"WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded."lol @ all the people rushing to say it was so obvious that they were journalists. Sure looked like an RPG to me, and they even seem to confirm it later in the video? I'm still quite confused about what I saw.

I don't see what the big scandal is here. I guess the military said they didn't know how children came to be injured, so ok, but thats it? It looked to me like the guy was getting an RPG ready to fire. The reporters were apparently covering a weight lifting story which would explain why they may have a child with them, but why the Hell would you rush into a hot zone with your child? Extremely poor judgement. I would have shot up the van too, they looked to be aiding the insurgents, and I would have been worried about one of them getting hold of the RPG. It was obvious to me that the spotter was really concerned that the helecopter was in danger. He was trying to hurry him into position to engage. So worse case you have an honest and tragic mistake, nothing more, no criminality of any sort. Unless the problem is with how the military was reporting what happened I don't see a major scandal here. Am I missing something?

[Zealous Donkey]

vbnautilus, on Monday, April 5th, 2010, 11:11 AM, said:

definitely not obvious. looks like they have AK47s too? still don't see why they needed to be destroyed from above though.

They needed to be attacked immediately, what would you have them do? Wait? for what? You have the means at your disposal to attack why not attack, especially before the guy was able to fire off rpg. If you are talking about attacking the van, I could maybe see your point, but like I said in the last post I would be worried about one of them getting hold of the rpg.

[Zealous Donkey]

Zealous Donkey, on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 8:00 AM, said:

Am I missing something?

Ok, I did miss a couple of things. The two reporters were with the original group on the corner. I thought the two reporters were in the van that drove up later. Also, wikileaks is claimaing that RPG was not an RPG at all but a camara lens. Which after watching it a couple of times, does look to me like a camara. There were some weapons there, and on the ground audio I did hear someone speak of an RPG round near a body. The guy peeking around the corner really looked suspicious to me, but it is possible he was just readying his camara. It is possible the they jumped the gun on this one, though I don' t think it was intentional.One more thing. There was not a ground spotter as I initially thought, there were two Apache Helecoptors that were quite a distance away, which makes it possible they did mistake a camara for an RPG.

[strategy]

Zealous Donkey, on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

Ok, I did miss a couple of things. The two reporters were with the original group on the corner. I thought the two reporters were in the van that drove up later. Also, wikileaks is claimaing that RPG was not an RPG at all but a camara lens. Which after watching it a couple of times, does look to me like a camara. There were some weapons there, and on the ground audio I did hear someone speak of an RPG round near a body. The guy peeking around the corner really looked suspicious to me, but it is possible he was just readying his camara. It is possible the they jumped the gun on this one, though I don' t think it was intentional.One more thing. There was not a ground spotter as I initially thought, there were two Apache Helecoptors that were quite a distance away, which makes it possible they did mistake a camara for an RPG.

yeah, the actual ground team was a few blocks away.the fact that we have to rewind and squint to figure out if a guy's holding a camera or an RPG should say a lot about the people jumping to criticize the guys in the apaches.the reason this was a big deal is because the story given to the media was BS (taking fire from small arms and RPGs?), reuters' attempts to get the footage were denied, and then the government went a step further and tried to tamper with wikileaks. just admit the honest and completely understandable mistake and move on. this kind of behavior from our government is completely unacceptable.

[SlapStick]

Also the firing on the van apparently goes against the rules of engagement which they denied too no?

[strategy]

SlapStick, on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

Also the firing on the van apparently goes against the rules of engagement which they denied too no?

no idea. they specifically waited for permission to engage from 'bushmaster' (the guy in charge on the ground) though. supposedly you can see the little girls peek out of the van before they open up, but fuck if I'm gonna expect someone to see that in the heat of the moment. you do. not. bring children to the site of a recent shooting with helicopters still circling.I did hear that the children survived the incident.

[Zealous Donkey]

strategy, on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 12:58 PM, said:

no idea. they specifically waited for permission to engage from 'bushmaster' (the guy in charge on the ground) though. supposedly you can see the little girls peek out of the van before they open up, but fuck if I'm gonna expect someone to see that in the heat of the moment. you do. not. bring children to the site of a recent shooting with helicopters still circling.I did hear that the children survived the incident.

A friend of mine that was over there said that the video we were looking at was better than what the Apache Pilots could actually see, so he says it could have been easy to mistake a camara for an RPG, but he also said that that area in Iraq was probably a no weapons area which meant if they see anyone carrying any kind of weapon they are shoot on site. So an AK or any other rifle would have been grounds for firing on them. He said that they way it is being spun by wikileaks is anti american propaganda pure and simple. He said it amounts to treason in his eyes but that there is really nothing that can be done.

[Zealous Donkey]

strategy, on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 12:11 PM, said:

yeah, the actual ground team was a few blocks away.the fact that we have to rewind and squint to figure out if a guy's holding a camera or an RPG should say a lot about the people jumping to criticize the guys in the apaches.the reason this was a big deal is because the story given to the media was BS (taking fire from small arms and RPGs?), reuters' attempts to get the footage were denied, and then the government went a step further and tried to tamper with wikileaks. just admit the honest and completely understandable mistake and move on. this kind of behavior from our government is completely unacceptable.

See, I have a very different opinion on this. I understand why the military keeps this stuff quiet, because of the way these kinds of things are going to be spun and progandized to use to hurt the war effort. And unless you actually saw that peice of footage then you would beleive that they actually had taken fire by just listening to the pilots interact. And apparently there had been several firefights in the area on that day. To expect the military to have every detail of every battle documented to perfection for release to the media is an idiotic standard that is impossible to live up to. Also releasing battle footage to allow the antiamerican media to monday morning quarterback shouldn't be expected this video being point and case.

[Jeepster80125]

Zealous Donkey, on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 1:27 PM, said:

A friend of mine that was over there said that the video we were looking at was better than what the Apache Pilots could actually see, so he says it could have been easy to mistake a camara for an RPG, but he also said that that area in Iraq was probably a no weapons area which meant if they see anyone carrying any kind of weapon they are shoot on site. So an AK or any other rifle would have been grounds for firing on them. He said that they way it is being spun by wikileaks is anti american propaganda pure and simple. He said it amounts to treason in his eyes but that there is really nothing that can be done.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't see any reason to criticize the pilots/gunners/grunts on the ground. They're just taking orders. See: Pat Tillman's story.If you look at other apache gunship video, the images are much choppier, so I would tend to agree that the pilot didn't see the resolution that we are looking at. I am not a pilot so that doesn't mean anything at all. I would agree that it's difficult for us observers to play monday morning quarterback. I would like to see some more commentary on the situation on the ground. If this is a violent area at that time than I could see the mistake. (see hereand here)Either way, making military officials explain themselves is important to keep public support of events, including mistakes.Look at the following three images. I would imagine, in the heat of the moment, that it would be difficult to distinguish a camera from an RPG.I think anyone could argue that this would seem suspicious in such a hostile place. People who looked exactly like this were planting bombs to kill US Military personnel. Why didn't those targeted seem to realize this?

[Jeepster80125]

Zealous Donkey, on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 1:38 PM, said:

See, I have a very different opinion on this. I understand why the military keeps this stuff quiet, because of the way these kinds of things are going to be spun and progandized to use to hurt the war effort. And unless you actually saw that peice of footage then you would beleive that they actually had taken fire by just listening to the pilots interact. And apparently there had been several firefights in the area on that day. To expect the military to have every detail of every battle documented to perfection for release to the media is an idiotic standard that is impossible to live up to. Also releasing battle footage to allow the antiamerican media to monday morning quarterback shouldn't be expected this video being point and case.

I would argue that attempting to cover this type of stuff up actually hurts the cause, because of instances exactly like this, which show a culture of covering things up, non-disclosure etc. I don't think anyone would argue that mistakes don't happen, I think it's the cover-up that offends the nay-sayers the most. I think if there were full disclosure, it would keep both sides honest, and give some people reason to make changes, get better intelligence, etc, in order to keep mistakes like this from happening again.

[Zealous Donkey]

Jeepster80125, on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 2:43 PM, said:

I would argue that attempting to cover this type of stuff up actually hurts the cause, because of instances exactly like this, which show a culture of covering things up, non-disclosure etc. I don't think anyone would argue that mistakes don't happen, I think it's the cover-up that offends the nay-sayers the most. I think if there were full disclosure, it would keep both sides honest, and give some people reason to make changes, get better intelligence, etc, in order to keep mistakes like this from happening again.

I can see your point, especially in this case where two reporters were killed and two children were injured. They should have been more forthcoming for the families invloved. Then maybe this doesn't have the scandalous tone it has now.

[strategy]

Zealous Donkey, on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 2:27 PM, said:

A friend of mine that was over there said that the video we were looking at was better than what the Apache Pilots could actually see, so he says it could have been easy to mistake a camara for an RPG, but he also said that that area in Iraq was probably a no weapons area which meant if they see anyone carrying any kind of weapon they are shoot on site. So an AK or any other rifle would have been grounds for firing on them. He said that they way it is being spun by wikileaks is anti american propaganda pure and simple. He said it amounts to treason in his eyes but that there is really nothing that can be done.

I'm not going to call it treason, but I'll say that it is a pretty unreasonable way to react to the footage. wikileaks is definitely using it to advance the cause (government transparency, forced if necessary) which I think benefits every world citizen in the long run.

Zealous Donkey, on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 2:38 PM, said:

See, I have a very different opinion on this. I understand why the military keeps this stuff quiet, because of the way these kinds of things are going to be spun and progandized to use to hurt the war effort. And unless you actually saw that peice of footage then you would beleive that they actually had taken fire by just listening to the pilots interact. And apparently there had been several firefights in the area on that day. To expect the military to have every detail of every battle documented to perfection for release to the media is an idiotic standard that is impossible to live up to. Also releasing battle footage to allow the antiamerican media to monday morning quarterback shouldn't be expected this video being point and case.

Yeah, this is all why I am so hesitant to criticize. This is war, and we lack context. I will just say that we wouldn't have to be so concerned about public sentiment if we were a little more careful about why we wage wars to begin with...

[hblask]

OK, I watched most of this video, and I have to say..... unless I got to watch a couple thousand hours of video where things went right, I don't really have a good way to judge.Personally, the never-been-to-war me says that if these people are mulling about, and may or may not be carrying weapons, then just let them be. It doesn't seem like they were a threat to the helicopter. Was there some particular reason that our troops needed to occupy that particular corner right at that moment?Anyway, since I've never been to war, I have no idea. If one out of 50 events that starts out like that ends in the death of US troops, then it's probably justified to take them out first. Being shot at for a living is a really, really crappy job, so I'd tend to give them leeway.If the controversy is about the lying about it afterward, well, yeah, don't do that. It makes it look worse.

[vbnautilus]

hblask, on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 3:34 PM, said:

OK, I watched most of this video, and I have to say..... unless I got to watch a couple thousand hours of video where things went right, I don't really have a good way to judge.Personally, the never-been-to-war me says that if these people are mulling about, and may or may not be carrying weapons, then just let them be. It doesn't seem like they were a threat to the helicopter. Was there some particular reason that our troops needed to occupy that particular corner right at that moment?Anyway, since I've never been to war, I have no idea. If one out of 50 events that starts out like that ends in the death of US troops, then it's probably justified to take them out first. Being shot at for a living is a really, really crappy job, so I'd tend to give them leeway.If the controversy is about the lying about it afterward, well, yeah, don't do that. It makes it look worse.

This is pretty close to how I felt about it too.