View Full Version : WikiLeaks
A video was released on WikiLeaks yesterday taken from the gun sight of an Apache helicopter showing the killing by American soldiers of innocent Iraqi civillians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1O7jL_hKXQ&feature=player_embedded
The actual video I'll not post a link to as it is extremely disturbing, not only for the killing but for the delight the pilots were taking in it. It is however easily found with google.
What is more disturbing is that the Pentagon had this video in their possession when they claimed that the pilots were following legitimate rules of engagement when they were clearly lying to their commanders in order to get permission to shoot.
Is there an unedited and correctly transcribed version of this video?
Answers on a PM I would assume.
John Little
07-Apr-10, 00:19
Are you surprised?
A video was released on WikiLeaks yesterday taken from the gun sight of an Apache helicopter showing the killing by American soldiers of innocent Iraqi civillians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1O7jL_hKXQ&feature=player_embedded
The actual video I'll not post a link to as it is extremely disturbing, not only for the killing but for the delight the pilots were taking in it. It is however easily found with google.
What is more disturbing is that the Pentagon had this video in their possession when they claimed that the pilots were following legitimate rules of engagement when they were clearly lying to their commanders in order to get permission to shoot.
I know two wrongs dont make a right but did you see the videos of innocent western civilians getting beheaded by Iraqi terrorists as well? NFT.
Are you surprised?
Not at all, which is why I ask the question.
I don't doubt that something like this may have happened, but once the 'evidence' is tampered with to make it easy for the sheep to believe a 'propaganda', then the whole thing is tainted and worthless.
Which is the possibly the bigger crime, because the actual evidence can no longer be presented without doubt.
I've watched the video on the wikileaks site and, to be honest, don't have a problem with it.
NO, I do not like seeing innocents killed but it seems to me the pilots thought they had weapons. They may well have made a genuine mistake.
Where were they "clearly lying" to get permission to shoot?
The 'delight' the pilots are taking in what they believe is the right action is perfectly understandable. If I was over there and managed to stop (or think I'd stopped) one insurgent, who would have tried to kill me or an ally in a single breath, then I'd be celebrating like I'd scored at hampden. They think they've done their job.
What I find more worrying is the editing of the video and the comments in it. The quotes given show complete anti USA/forces/war bias and therefore I cannot think that the editing and deletion of certain scenes isn't also done to reflect this.
I am sure, however, that propaganda like this will only help to recruit the next generation of fundamentalist and suicide bomber.
I am sure, however, that propaganda like this will only help to recruit the next generation of fundamentalist and suicide bomber.
I believe you are quite right.
Not because what we have seen is any actual 'evidence' but because it has been spinned, and either way it will be all 'they' require.
Boozeburglar
07-Apr-10, 01:37
How exactly was it 'spinned'?
In my view it was spinned because it has been edited, had text overlaid and the transcription is not accurate.
To me it appears like it has been edited to suit a point of view.
Spin or spinned may not be the most accurate description but in my mind it fits the bill as it is now in the public domain and with a media 'taint' to it.
Unless I am missing something (like a good link) I feel I am not getting the full facts, or any!
In my view it was spinned because it has been edited, had text overlaid and the transcription is not accurate.
To me it appears like it has been edited to suit a point of view.
Spin or spinned may not be the most accurate description but in my mind it fits the bill as it is now in the public domain and with a media 'taint' to it.
Unless I am missing something (like a good link) I feel I am not getting the full facts, or any!
I haven’t seen this video because I don't have a you tube account but I have seen other alleged gun camera footage on you tube and it is very obviously fake (you don't just fall over if you get hit by 20, 30 calibre cannon rounds). Also how does the most secret of secret materiel end up on you tube?
Wikileaks is notoriously good at fact checking, and they don't usually put up propaganda.
NO, I do not like seeing innocents killed but it seems to me the pilots thought they had weapons. They may well have made a genuine mistake.
Where were they "clearly lying" to get permission to shoot?
What they were saying and what they were seeing clearly did not match. I saw someone stop in a van to help a clearly unarmed and seriously wounded man yet they said it was "picking up bodies and weapons" to give just one example.
Wikileaks is notoriously good at fact checking, and they don't usually put up propaganda.
Unverifiable, anonymous sources Mmm... fancy that on the internet :lol:
I haven’t seen this video because I don't have a you tube account but I have seen other alleged gun camera footage on you tube and it is very obviously fake (you don't just fall over if you get hit by 20, 30 calibre cannon rounds). Also how does the most secret of secret materiel end up on you tube?
If it is fake then the Pentagon can deny it's authenticity and offer their own original as proof.
If it is fake then the Pentagon can deny it's authenticity and offer their own original as proof.
I wouldn't hold your breath :eek:
The Drunken Duck
07-Apr-10, 08:27
The incident happened over three years ago, and just for the record the original tape is over 17 minutes long. That version on Al Jazeera is heavily edited to show specific parts to give one view of what happened. It is similiar to the Apache clip that came out in 2003 claiming to show "innocent" Iraq farmers being killed. When the full clip was shown it showed them being monitiored at an arms cache and then being killed when it was obvious they were well acquainted with it and were about to leave with weapons. Cant have them using them against our guys. Anyway, Al Jazeera are hardly impartial as they are the channel of choice for Al Qaeda Bin Laden video exclusives.
In the original video, and in other clips of it available, you can hear the crew talking to guys on the ground about a "Brad" which is a Bradley armoured personnel carrier. Apaches are only called in after a contact and they soon spotted men matching the description of those who attacked the Americans nearby, with weapons. In the clip you can clearly see AK-47's. They dont open fire right away but monitor the group and confirm with the ground that they are the ones they are looking for, once the ground have confirmed that what the Apache crew sees is who they are after then they open fire. That the men havent heard or seen them indicates they are some distance away though. The bit where what turned out to be a cameraman puts something to his shoulder would have been interpreted by the Apache crew as either an RPG or even worse, a surface to air missile if it was spotted. As for the crew "lying" about what they see that isnt possible. The Apache is one aircraft that you cant fib about what you see, what you see on the clip is what the crew's right eye sees. The weapons are "slaved" to a monocle in front of their eye and EVERYTHING is recorded for debriefing from engine start to shutdown. If you launch a rocket or missile it will even record the date/time/position/ so a full picture can be built up at the debrief.
As for taking "pleasure" in it then thats a part of it and has been since the first guy picked a rock up and started a scrap with it. Iraqi civilians have paraded foreigners bodies being dragged behind pick ups, they paraded round town in the possesions of British militairy policemen they beat to death. They take pleasure in the deaths of us, such as the Taliban mutilating the bodies of our dead for us to find. Just as we take pleasure in the deaths of those who would kill our mates, it is what it is.
Sure this video might be used to drum volunteers for the cause, big deal. if they havent considered the consequences of going head to head with an Apache before doing so, then more fool them.
The incident happened over three years ago, and just for the record the original tape is over 17 minutes long. That version on Al Jazeera is heavily edited to show specific parts to give one view of what happened. It is similiar to the Apache clip that came out in 2003 claiming to show "innocent" Iraq farmers being killed. When the full clip was shown it showed them being monitiored at an arms cache and then being killed when it was obvious they were well acquainted with it and were about to leave with weapons. Cant have them using them against our guys. Anyway, Al Jazeera are hardly impartial as they are the channel of choice for Al Qaeda Bin Laden video exclusives.
In the original video, and in other clips of it available, you can hear the crew talking to guys on the ground about a "Brad" which is a Bradley armoured personnel carrier. Apaches are only called in after a contact and they soon spotted men matching the description of those who attacked the Americans nearby, with weapons. In the clip you can clearly see AK-47's. They dont open fire right away but monitor the group and confirm with the ground that they are the ones they are looking for, once the ground have confirmed that what the Apache crew sees is who they are after then they open fire. That the men havent heard or seen them indicates they are some distance away though. The bit where what turned out to be a cameraman puts something to his shoulder would have been interpreted by the Apache crew as either an RPG or even worse, a surface to air missile if it was spotted. As for the crew "lying" about what they see that isnt possible. The Apache is one aircraft that you cant fib about what you see, what you see on the clip is what the crew's right eye sees. The weapons are "slaved" to a monocle in front of their eye and EVERYTHING is recorded for debriefing from engine start to shutdown. If you launch a rocket or missile it will even record the date/time/position/ so a full picture can be built up at the debrief.
As for taking "pleasure" in it then thats a part of it and has been since the first guy picked a rock up and started a scrap with it. Iraqi civilians have paraded foreigners bodies being dragged behind pick ups, they paraded round town in the possesions of British militairy policemen they beat to death. They take pleasure in the deaths of us, such as the Taliban mutilating the bodies of our dead for us to find. Just as we take pleasure in the deaths of those who would kill our mates, it is what it is.
Sure this video might be used to drum volunteers for the cause, big deal. if they havent considered the consequences of going head to head with an Apache before doing so, then more fool them.
The original is 39 minutes long and is available to view on the web.
Many people carry weapons in Iraq, local militias, body guards, the group were clearly not engaged in any sort of military activity. If the pilots could see clearly enough to distinguish not only rifles but the model of the rifle then they could see clearly enough to see camera equipment and tripods.
Yes you can lie if you know nothing will be done about it, if you know your superiors will cover it up, if you know that your superiors will refuse to release the evidence of the lie citing national security as the excuse.
Watched the 39 minute version. It does not make easy watching, and I am sure that there are many factors we cannot account for simply by watching and listening to the video - I do not think in any way that they had the intention of killing innocent victims, but do agree that scant regard was paid to any innocents who may have got in the way, particularly striking was the guy wandering past the building before the 2nd Hellfire missile was launched.
From the little I have been able to research on the story, it appears the two Reuters guys were embedded with insurgents, and they were not wearing press markings. It is claimed that their cameras fitted with long lenses were mistake for weapons - anyone watching the video will be able to clearly witness what certainly looks like an RPG being poked round the corner and aimed at the Chopper - why would any press personnel take this action in that area? Not condoning or justifying the actions, just that there will be additional info we don’t have to make a full judgment.
It is also clearly visible that the troops on the ground are carrying the young child caught up and injured in the attack, and several references are made to getting her medivac’d out of the area.
All in all it is depressing, but nothing in War is nice.
Watched the 39 minute version. It does not make easy watching, and I am sure that there are many factors we cannot account for simply by watching and listening to the video - I do not think in any way that they had the intention of killing innocent victims, but do agree that scant regard was paid to any innocents who may have got in the way, particularly striking was the guy wandering past the building before the 2nd Hellfire missile was launched.
Didn't I see them willing an obviously very badly wounded Iraqi trying to drag himself to safety to pick up a weapon so they could shoot him?
From the little I have been able to research on the story, it appears the two Reuters guys were embedded with insurgents, and they were not wearing press markings. It is claimed that their cameras fitted with long lenses were mistake for weapons - anyone watching the video will be able to clearly witness what certainly looks like an RPG being poked round the corner and aimed at the Chopper - why would any press personnel take this action in that area? Not condoning or justifying the actions, just that there will be additional info we don’t have to make a full judgment.
"Insurgent", that means anyone we killed doesn't it? We label them all "insurgents" till it can be proved they were only 12 years old and female.
It didn't look much like an RPG to me, RPGs are long thin and pointed. This is the actual photo he was taking.
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/rpg.jpg
Interesting this, a few diagrams:
The NY Times, in their story about the incident, spends paragraph after paragraph fretting that we killed a bunch of innocent men standing around doing nothing more than contemplating whether Grotius' notion of jus ad bellum conflicted with that of Aquinas. Then they hit you with this seemingly important piece of information buried near the end:
Late Monday, the United States Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released the redacted report on the case, which provided some more detail.
The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees “made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.”
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php
Didn't I see them willing an obviously very badly wounded Iraqi trying to drag himself to safety to pick up a weapon so they could shoot him?
"Insurgent", that means anyone we killed doesn't it? We label them all "insurgents" till it can be proved they were only 12 years old and female.
It didn't look much like an RPG to me, RPGs are long thin and pointed. This is the actual photo he was taking.
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/rpg.jpg
I don't know (neither did those in the Helicopter) the nationality or the wounded person, but they didn't shoot him when he was crawling around.........although I agree the language used indicated they wanted to take him out, that to me shows that they were following their rules of engagement (whether I agree with those or not).
I am not sure what definition you want to use, the fact is that the reuters journos were embedded with personnel whose aim was contrary to that of those in the Helicopter.
I'm not an expert in RPGs Fred, so I will bow to your superior knowledge of the subject, the fact is that those in the helicopter thoguht it was, that is what they stated - I have no reason to think they were lying, the rest of the conversation was candid enough.
I don't know (neither did those in the Helicopter) the nationality or the wounded person, but they didn't shoot him when he was crawling around.........although I agree the language used indicated they wanted to take him out, that to me shows that they were following their rules of engagement (whether I agree with those or not).
Well no, rules of engagement do not allow American soldiers to kill someone for holding a weapon. Even if the man who was probably close to death had picked up a weapon he would still not have been any threat to American forces.
I'm not an expert in RPGs Fred, so I will bow to your superior knowledge of the subject, the fact is that those in the helicopter thoguht it was, that is what they stated - I have no reason to think they were lying, the rest of the conversation was candid enough.
This is a rocket propelled grenade:
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s269/techwarriorz1/cfda%20mod/rpg.jpg
This is a professional camera:
http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/94176403.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=B53F616F4B95E55368019F5F639149E4C661F581287D2432 8411656110DBDD571D842B4D5671C9AA
They had told their base that the Iraqis were not only carrying rifles but that they were AK47s if they can distinguish the model of the rifle they can tell the difference between a RPG and a camera.
John Little
07-Apr-10, 10:57
The way that Propaganda works is that the propagandist finds the idea that his target already wishes to believe. If the target does not already have the seeds of the idea in his head already then the propagandist may dig all he likes in a desert and find no water.
War is about more than shooting - ergo this exchange.
Believe what you want to believe, but once the dogs of war are loose there are no rules, despite our oh so civilised pretensions.
Aye very good Fred, of course perspective and orientation have everything to do with how something is viewed.
Well no, rules of engagement do not allow American soldiers to kill someone for holding a weapon. Even if the man who was probably close to death had picked up a weapon he would still not have been any threat to American forces.
Is that your opinion or fact. If fact can you provide a reference for it.
Unverifiable, anonymous sources Mmm... fancy that on the internet :lol:
Well anonymous after they verify, as say a journalist would with a confidential source.
That said I'm stepping out of what is obviously an ongoing argument with other members.
Well anonymous after they verify, as say a journalist would with a confidential source.
That said I'm stepping out of what is obviously an ongoing argument with other members.
No need to step out, its all just a matter of opinions.
Well no, rules of engagement do not allow American soldiers to kill someone for holding a weapon. Even if the man who was probably close to death had picked up a weapon he would still not have been any threat to American forces.
Permitted (even under the new rules of engagement)
"The cameraman raises the camera to sight through the viewfinder and his action appears prompts (sic) one of the pilots to remark “He’s getting ready to fire.” Photos later recovered from the camera show a U.S. Army HMMWV sitting at an intersection, less than 100 meters away from the camera. The digital time/date stamp on the photo indicates that these photos were the ones taken as the cameraman peered from behind the wall. Due to the furtive nature of his movements, the cameraman gave every appearance of preparing to fire an RPG on U.S. Soldiers."
John Little
07-Apr-10, 12:32
Here's a pic of a grenade launcher too.
http://arniesairsoft.co.uk/news2/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/rap4_40mm_gl2.jpg
So once again we have been presented (as fact) with the idea that American servicemen deliberately target innocent civilians for fun.
To get the full story we have to research and discuss for quite a while.
I'm sure it would be easier if we just believed everything that Fred says
:roll:
I dont doubt that it happened as it was shown in the film.
I find it quite incredulious that so many pepole with expierience of war will stand back and say it never happens....blue on blue/ frendly fire/ miss id/ bad calls or whatever.
If you stick your head deep enough in the sand then you can clearly see that it is enemy propaganda
Its war and bad things happen....lots!!!
Why is it so suprising when it is revealed?
I dont doubt that it happened as it was shown in the film.
I find it quite incredulious that so many pepole with expierience of war will stand back and say it never happens....blue on blue/ frendly fire/ miss id/ bad calls or whatever.
If you stick your head deep enough in the sand then you can clearly see that it is enemy propaganda
Its war and bad things happen....lots!!!
Why is it so suprising when it is revealed?
Well no there is no doubt it happened as shown on the film which means the American soldiers were not following their rules of engagement which means there was a cover up which would not have come to light if the video had not been leaked.
Talking of coverups, there was another one in the news yesterday:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/05/us_forces_afghanistan_killings_open2010
Well no there is no doubt it happened as shown on the film which means the American soldiers were not following their rules of engagement which means there was a cover up which would not have come to light if the video had not been leaked.
Talking of coverups, there was another one in the news yesterday:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/05/us_forces_afghanistan_killings_open2010
It is these wee "leaps"that confuse me Fred........where has that been established?
It is these wee "leaps"that confuse me Fred........where has that been established?
http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf
northener
07-Apr-10, 16:14
The Apache crew made errors of judgement, that's all. The consequences are terrible - but these things happen in wars.
They reported back what they believed they were seeing and were given clearance to fire.
Regarding the language, well, I suppose to anyone not used to being slapped round the face with reality it must seem shocking. No heroic speeches, no talk about respect for a noble foe....just kill the 8888888 before they kill you. Nothing there that hasn't been heard millions of times before in any conflict.
TBH, when I read about the Apache crews 'language' I was expecting some of the ridiculous US-style whooping and hollering. I thought those guys were very calm and controlled under the circumstances.
The 'RPG'? Listen to the commentators voice - it goes up a hell of a pitch when he spots it. Thats real concern kicking in, not some sort of looking for an excuse to fire. Misinterpretation - nothing more.
As for the Apache crews comments regarded the wounded 'insurgent' - they played it fair and square: Stay down and you live - raise a gun and you die.
The fact the crewman was willing him to pick up a gun is irrelevant.
The reason they were keen to engage the van before the bodies were moved is because one of the oldest tactics in the book is to clear the area of any dead or wounded 'combatants' (along with any weapons) so that when the press turn up - all there is to see is a lot of craters and a lot of obviously civilian casualties. Hence the commment about "taking your kids to war"...that is what the Apache crew believed they were seeing.
I aren't taking sides, I aren't pointing the finger. There's mistakes been made by all those involved.
The gunships, the reporters, the local militia and the guys who turned up in a van with an obviously hostile aircraft still buzzing. I could criticize them all.
The Apache crew made errors of judgement, that's all. The consequences are terrible - but these things happen in wars.
They reported back what they believed they were seeing and were given clearance to fire.
Regarding the language, well, I suppose to anyone not used to being slapped round the face with reality it must seem shocking. No heroic speeches, no talk about respect for a noble foe....just kill the 8888888 before they kill you. Nothing there that hasn't been heard millions of times before in any conflict.
TBH, when I read about the Apache crews 'language' I was expecting some of the ridiculous US-style whooping and hollering. I thought those guys were very calm and controlled under the circumstances.
The 'RPG'? Listen to the commentators voice - it goes up a hell of a pitch when he spots it. Thats real concern kicking in, not some sort of looking for an excuse to fire. Misinterpretation - nothing more.
As for the Apache crews comments regarded the wounded 'insurgent' - they played it fair and square: Stay down and you live - raise a gun and you die.
The fact the crewman was willing him to pick up a gun is irrelevant.
The reason they were keen to engage the van before the bodies were moved is because one of the oldest tactics in the book is to clear the area of any dead or wounded 'combatants' (along with any weapons) so that when the press turn up - all there is to see is a lot of craters and a lot of obviously civilian casualties. Hence the commment about "taking your kids to war"...that is what the Apache crew believed they were seeing.
I aren't taking sides, I aren't pointing the finger. There's mistakes been made by all those involved.
The gunships, the reporters, the local militia and the guys who turned up in a van with an obviously hostile aircraft still buzzing. I could criticize them all.
So safe up in the air we have the American soldiers laughing because one of their colleagues on the ground just drove over a dead Iraqi body in their half track.
While on the street an Iraqi who was passing taking his children to their classes sees someone in desperate need of medical help so putting himself in danger he stops and tries to put the person in his van to take him to hospital and hopefully save his life.
So the safe in the air soldiers lie to their base, they said he was picking up bodies and weapons when he was obviously doing neither, they kill him and shoot up his children.
Just who are supposed to be the good guys here?
George Brims
07-Apr-10, 17:14
If it is fake then the Pentagon can deny it's authenticity and offer their own original as proof.
The Pentagon now claims it has lost its copy. Fancy that.
northener
07-Apr-10, 17:25
So safe up in the air we have the American soldiers laughing because one of their colleagues on the ground just drove over a dead Iraqi body in their half track.
While on the street an Iraqi who was passing taking his children to their classes sees someone in desperate need of medical help so putting himself in danger he stops and tries to put the person in his van to take him to hospital and hopefully save his life.
So the safe in the air soldiers lie to their base, they said he was picking up bodies and weapons when he was obviously doing neither, they kill him and shoot up his children.
Just who are supposed to be the good guys here?
It's war, Fred. in all it's glory. Not right, not wrong and definitely not following anything as nice as getting it right, following rules and playing fair.
As for the body being run over, I could tell you a tale about a dead soldier in Bosnia called 'Flat Stan' who became a known landmark to NATO forces.......grim humour abounds in wartime.
As I see it that helicopter crew had a dodgy first engagement but the second one shooting up people involved in medical evacuation is clearly wrong in any civilised context and probably a crime even in war time.
When these incidents find their way in to the light then it behoves us and the powers to be to investigate and prosecute wrong doing.
Turning a blind eye ore feeble excuses or just saying bad stuff happens is just not enough really. It denigrates every single one of us in the free world. It erodes the fabric of real justice and undermines democracy. It confirms the propaganda of the enemy and makes the hill steeper.
Murdering medics and civilians giving aid to wounded is not what we are there for is it.
I don’t really think its on!!
redeyedtreefrog
07-Apr-10, 22:52
Okay, so even if they mistook the guy's equipment for an RPG, even if it was an error of judgement, why did they open fire on a good Samaritan in a van?
Neil Howie
07-Apr-10, 23:36
Further information on wikipedia here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike)
for those interested.
If you look well enough around "LiveLeak" you will find dozens of misuse of power in Iraq. There was one(Can't remember whether it made it to the news or not) where they collected people standing at the side of the road, took them behind a fence where no one would see them and beat them until they were unconscious.
There's a few heat vision ones where the pilot is told to "take out any movement".
It's sickening, to be frank.
northener
08-Apr-10, 08:20
Medics? Where?
I see no marked medical vehicle (and naughty people are very keen to use these to transport themselves around in - so even they're on dodgy ground) and I see no obviously medical staff.
What I do see is what I referred to earlier. Someone trying to help out who should have had more sense.
Look at the pictures in front of you. An empty square, nothing but bodies and destruction - se anyone else running to their aid? No? Why not?
Because they knew what was happening.
Along comes the van.
Now, be honest: Something has obviously just taken place - if you had your kids in the van would you approach this situation? This is Iraq..not a country lane where the local vicar has just fallen off his bike.....
The poor sod in the van did what he thought was best - and he paid for it dearly. The Apache crew, based upon their existing knowledge of these situations did what they thought was best.
You don't go running round war zones getting involved without clear means of identification. You certainly don't park up a van with kids in and start lugging people into it without fully assessing the situation first.
But, then again, hindsight is a wonderful thing, as more than a few of us have proved in this thread.........
As I see it that helicopter crew had a dodgy first engagement but the second one shooting up people involved in medical evacuation is clearly wrong in any civilised context and probably a crime even in war time.
Murdering medics and civilians giving aid to wounded is not what we are there for is it. I don’t really think its on!!
You must have better eyes than me - I did not see a 'medical evacuation' or anyone murdering 'medics' - this is exactly how propaganda is spread, but your post: #32 "I find it quite incredulious(sic) that so many pepole(sic) with expierience(sic) of war will stand back and say it never happens....blue on blue/ frendly(sic) fire/ miss id/ bad calls or whatever". Gives an indication that of course 'things' happen.
'War' is not an exact science, but don't at the same time suggest that we, who have experience, stand back and say it never happened; it does.
Sorry northerner but i disagree.
Firing on anyone that are engaged in helping the wounded appears to me to be a complete breach of the laws governing military conduct during war.
I think it is quite clear that a war crime has been committed here. It’s a pretty strait forwards sort of thing!! If people are engaged in helping the wounded then they are non combatants. If while engaged in this humanitarian act they are deliberately cut to pieces by machine gun fire then it is a war crime.
It might need more evidence to be produced in an enquire to prove beyond doubt like all the relevant com feeds and sworn testimony of those involved but I think this is a prima facia case of a war crime being committed.
To be seen to cover up incidents like this with denial and excuses like its not in the national interest is to expose is not on. Every time this sort of thing is exposed and bypassed, excused or ignored cuts the moral ground from under our feet and ultimately puts our forces in even more danger. Its not civil servants in the pentagon that will pay the price for this it’s the men and woman on the front line who will pay with their blood.
northener
08-Apr-10, 10:23
I'll agree 100% with not trying to hide incidents like this. It certainly does more harm in the long run, no doubt in my mind at all.
Would I have fired on the van? No. Not until I had a clearer picture in my mind of what was happening, but that's easy for me to say sat in front of my PC safe in my house. Circling an armed incident over Iraq I maybe persuaded to change my stance on that issue.....
Is it a war crime? Not in my book - not unless you label every killing of a hapless civilain in armed conflict a war crime - which I suppose it is, really.
(edit)
Bear in mind my previous comment about the 'removal' of fighters from an area. The aircrew believed they were dealing with 'fighters', an unmarked van pulls up and begins lugging a 'fighter' away. Patched up to fight another day? No chance, pal.
Had the van been marked up as an ambulance - then all well and good. It wasn't.
The lesson to be learned here is don't get involved in something you shouldn't. Humanitarian doesn't come into it. This is war - it's not nice and the rule book doesn't work when people start shooting.
I am not a trained observer but i can recognise an AK 47 and an RPG at a glance and it was pretty obvious that none were on show at any point...and the victims were under observation for long enough to be seen carrying weapons and the fact to be established beyond doubt.
I think the rules do apply and should be applied…that’s what should be separating us form this criminal insurgency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik&feature=player_embedded
This film is not nice and shouldnt be viewed if you have any qualms about watching sutch things!!
John Little
08-Apr-10, 11:20
The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility."
-- John Arbuthnot Fisher
"If you rub (http://www.answers.com/topic/rub) it in, both at home and abroad, that you are ready for instant war, with every unit of your strength in the first line and waiting to be first in, and hit your enemy in the belly and kick him when he is down … then people will keep clear of you." In a letter to German Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz in March 1916, Fisher barked, "You're the sailor who understands war. Kill your enemy or be killed yourself."
The Drunken Duck
08-Apr-10, 11:27
Watching a video of a heart operation doesn't make me an expert on heart surgery.
Watching a video of an Apache engagment doesn't make others an expert on warfare.
Warfare is a dirty, brutal, nasty, visceral, primitve buisness. It cant be fully explained unless you see it for yourself. It brings out the worst in people. The rules allow extreme force, thats what warfare is. The application of violence. Obviously thats unpaletable to the unwashed masses on the rare occasion they get a glimpse of it when they look up from X Factor so they start chirping away about something they know sod all about. But the one thing I REALLY dont get is that the enemy is painted as whiter than white while every opportunity is taken to paint our guys in the worst possible light. Some of these people need to go live in Iraq or Afghanistan for a while to see the reality for themselves, not that they would.
I am just glad I dont have to put my neck on the line for them anymore.
Watching a video of a heart operation doesn't make me an expert on heart surgery.
Watching a video of an Apache engagment doesn't make others an expert on warfare.
Warfare is a dirty, brutal, nasty, visceral, primitve buisness. It cant be fully explained unless you see it for yourself. It brings out the worst in people. The rules allow extreme force, thats what warfare is. The application of violence. Obviously thats unpaletable to the unwashed masses on the rare occasion they get a glimpse of it when they look up from X Factor so they start chirping away about something they know sod all about. But the one thing I REALLY dont get is that the enemy is painted as whiter than white while every opportunity is taken to paint our guys in the worst possible light. Some of these people need to go live in Iraq or Afghanistan for a while to see the reality for themselves, not that they would.
I am just glad I dont have to put my neck on the line for them anymore.
Nah, it's so much safer from behind a PC..
Watching a video of a heart operation doesn't make me an expert on heart surgery.
Watching a video of an Apache engagment doesn't make others an expert on warfare.
Warfare is a dirty, brutal, nasty, visceral, primitve buisness. It cant be fully explained unless you see it for yourself. It brings out the worst in people. The rules allow extreme force, thats what warfare is. The application of violence. Obviously thats unpaletable to the unwashed masses on the rare occasion they get a glimpse of it when they look up from X Factor so they start chirping away about something they know sod all about. But the one thing I REALLY dont get is that the enemy is painted as whiter than white while every opportunity is taken to paint our guys in the worst possible light. Some of these people need to go live in Iraq or Afghanistan for a while to see the reality for themselves, not that they would.
I am just glad I dont have to put my neck on the line for them anymore.
I can't give you rep for that as I apparently need to spread it around some more!
Having now had chance to watch the un-edited version of this video it is clearly very different from the original clipped/edited version I saw.
The situation is very different from what some factions want to paint it as, the difference between the two videos is quite amazing.
The first one is spin & propaganda.
I'm still at odds with the transcription though, do we know if this has been done by the Wikileaks people, is this what they refer to as decrypted or is that a DoD transcription (which I doubt)?
Watching a video of a heart operation doesn't make me an expert on heart surgery.
Watching a video of an Apache engagment doesn't make others an expert on warfare.
Warfare is a dirty, brutal, nasty, visceral, primitve buisness. It cant be fully explained unless you see it for yourself. It brings out the worst in people. The rules allow extreme force, thats what warfare is. The application of violence. Obviously thats unpaletable to the unwashed masses on the rare occasion they get a glimpse of it when they look up from X Factor so they start chirping away about something they know sod all about. But the one thing I REALLY dont get is that the enemy is painted as whiter than white while every opportunity is taken to paint our guys in the worst possible light. Some of these people need to go live in Iraq or Afghanistan for a while to see the reality for themselves, not that they would.
I am just glad I dont have to put my neck on the line for them anymore.
Well you see the war didn't look too horrible for the American soldiers sat up there out of harm's reach in their helicopters, they were having a whale of a time laughing and joking. It was those two young children who had just been shot up with 30mm machine gun fire right after being orphaned for whom the war was dirty, brutal and nasty.
Well you see the war didn't look too horrible for the American soldiers sat up there out of harm's reach in their helicopters, they were having a whale of a time laughing and joking. It was those two young children who had just been shot up with 30mm machine gun fire right after being orphaned for whom the war was dirty, brutal and nasty.
The ones that the soldiers were seen carrying and trying to get medical assistance for..........its all about persective, and unfortunately we dont have all the facts, it would be nice to see and know what occurred before the start of the video.
The ones that the soldiers were seen carrying and trying to get medical assistance for..........its all about persective, and unfortunately we dont have all the facts, it would be nice to see and know what occurred before the start of the video.
Yes, the ones which were turned away from an American military hospital and handed over to Iraqi police who were told to take them to an Iraqi civil hospital.
northener
08-Apr-10, 13:26
Well you see the war didn't look too horrible for the American soldiers sat up there out of harm's reach in their helicopters, they were having a whale of a time laughing and joking. .......
You've just lost credibility with that comment, Fred. Tabloid-style fist shaking and hand wringing really should be below you.
If you want to discuss - then fine, I'll be happy to oblige. I respect much of what you say although I disagree.
But if you're going to go off on one of your tiresome emotive slagging excercises then you'll hear no more from me.
onecalledk
08-Apr-10, 14:00
war has no winners. This post screams justification for what is going on in that country.
Of course there is spin, spin from this country into what the other side are doing to get everyone hating the other side and vice versa.
So at the end of the day who wins ? no one . The soldiers sent out from this country put their lives on the line. The people living in that country face death every time they venture out.
We are all human beings. War brings out the very worst in humans, there is no doubt about that. Years from now the atrocities that were carried out by BOTH sides will come out just like it has done from previous wars.
Soldiers who are trained to kill and fight do just that. They bypass their human ethics and emotion as if they didnt they would be at greater risk of being killed. That however does not make it right.
War will NEVER solve anything on this planet. It just brings death and destruction to everyone involved.
K
John Little
08-Apr-10, 14:03
"War will NEVER solve anything on this planet." Actually OCK although I can agree with most of your post this ain't so.
War finished the Nazis; it finished Napoleon, gained Scotland independence from Edward ll etc.
"War will NEVER solve anything on this planet." Actually OCK although I can agree with most of your post this ain't so.
War finished the Nazis; it finished Napoleon, gained Scotland independence from Edward ll etc.
It still didn't solve anything, it just replaced one set of psychopaths with another.
John Little
08-Apr-10, 14:20
I do assure you that you would find the present set preferable to the ones who were defeated in 1945.
They did not allow dissent Fred - and you would be on their list.
onecalledk
08-Apr-10, 14:32
"War will NEVER solve anything on this planet." Actually OCK although I can agree with most of your post this ain't so.
War finished the Nazis; it finished Napoleon, gained Scotland independence from Edward ll etc.
It still didnt solve anything because we are still fighting wars in the name of "freedom" today. Wars do not gain freedom from anything, they just change the rules under who "wins".
We all have to inhabit this planet, decades if not centuries of wars bringing nothing but more wars should perhaps enlighten the human race to the futility of war.
We are equal to one another as human beings, we are NOT better than one another. We all need to be loved, to eat, to breathe.
Everything else that seeks to separate us is ego driven and will cause suffering. The human race is akin to a group of toddlers fighting over the most expensive prize toy. Unfortunately the human race will kill each other for that said prize toy.
Money=greed=war=destruction=suffering
K
John Little
08-Apr-10, 14:38
I do not disagree with you. I think we are at odds over words. Perhaps it would be wiser if I said that war solved particular problems. After all a great deal of bad would undoubtedly have followed a victory for the Third Reich in WW2.
But war does not solve the problem of war.
Unfortunately they still happen though.
Maybe they do not 'solve' problems - but they certainly change outcomes one way or another.
I do assure you that you would find the present set preferable to the ones who were defeated in 1945.
They did not allow dissent Fred - and you would be on their list.
They didn't allow dissent eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4291388.stm
John Little
08-Apr-10, 15:07
LOL! Only you Fred would compare that with something like this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose
More information about this incident has come to light, an interview with a journalist who was at the scene next day and eye witness testimony from those who were on the ground at the time and saw what happened.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/8/exclusive_witnesses_describe_deadly_2007_us
Yet more developments.
A US soldier describing the dehumanisation process in basic training which turns decent human beings into killers.
mms://217.218.67.244/presstv/20100418/OUTPUT_09-55-00-FTP-RHONDA-WASHINGTON.wmv
Two US soldiers, one of them at the scene and another who served in the area have written an open letter of reconciliation to the people of Iraq and are inviting other soldiers to sign it.
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5966/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2724
The Drunken Duck
19-Apr-10, 06:51
Yet more developments !!
*Yawn*
Anyone else spot the contradiction in Freds links ??, namely if these soldiers are just "de-humanised killers" where does the compasssion to write a letter of reconcillation come from ??
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/7965/2043failcamera.jpg
Neil Howie
21-Apr-10, 22:25
Interview with McCord at Wired
snip:
McCord: I’ve spoken with one of the medics who was there. He’s no longer in the Army. When this video first came out, there was a lot of outrage by the soldiers, just because it depicted us as being callous, cruel, heartless people, and we’re not that way. The majority of us aren’t. And so he was pretty upset about the whole thing…. He kept saying, we were there, we know the truth, they’re saying there was no weapons, there was.
I’ve spoken with other soldiers who were there. Some of them [say] I don’t care what anybody says … they’re not there. … There’s also some soldiers who joke about it [as a] coping mechanism. They’re like, oh yeah, we’re the “collateral murder” company. I don’t think that [the] big picture is whether or not [the Iraqis who were killed] had weapons. I think that the bigger picture is what are we doing there? We’ve been there for so long now and it seems like nothing is being accomplished whatsoever, except for we’re making more people hate us.
Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/#ixzz0llwIlBMj
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.