# Leaked video of U.S. Military killing civilians and Reuters journalists.



## FreekiN

Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. *It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad.* They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on Collateral Murder






What has this world come to?

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## FreekiN

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.

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.


----------



## shining eyes

how to get the video if it shows ERROR OCCURED?


----------



## FreekiN

Try refreshing the page or something. or restart your browser.


----------



## shining eyes

when a country is attacked and captured then this happens


----------



## shining eyes

> Try refreshing the page or something. or restart your browser.


got the video......crazyhorse


----------



## Kompromat

Same stories told by An Australian Soilder who served in Iraq.


----------



## FreekiN



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Gazzi

WTF, did anyone tell these morons about the civilians homes nearby where bullets ricashay as well as go through walls.

Shot a child and the reply is "OH WELL".

Fire a hell fir missile into a building, not knowing if any other civilians inside, on top of the fact that civilians buildings nearby and a civilian walking past when the missil hits the building. I mean WTF..........careless or what.

Now I can see why these people want to kill Amercian civilians. Fair Do's


----------



## jin

*Brutality at its height.*


----------



## mr42O

I have a video from USA soldater which was leaked on internett but taken down from many sites. I will try to upload it again on youtube just watch how italian and rapporter from al jeezra get killed in there hotel since usa thought they had that video. In the end USA soldater sumgled out that video to USA. When he came home FBI was waiting. I can be wrong cant remeber 100&#37; will upload video soon u will see. Its from killing in faluja where they used gass too.


----------



## jin

Al jazeera aired it


----------



## Ghareeb_Da_Baal

Freekin. I am sure "some" Pakistani member here is going to come along and flame you for posting such inciting news!


----------



## FreekiN

Here is a better version. 

Everything is explained.


----------



## FreekiN

Why aren't any of the big US news sites reporting the Wikileaks release?

CNN: http://i.imgur.com/LQqdI.png
Fox News: http://i.imgur.com/f7UQL.png
MSNBC: http://i.imgur.com/H6sqz.png
New York Times: http://i.imgur.com/SL3rX.png

I guess Tiger Woods and the iPad is more important.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tang0

FreekiN said:


> Why aren't any of the big US news sites reporting the Wikileaks release?
> 
> CNN: http://i.imgur.com/LQqdI.png
> Fox News: http://i.imgur.com/f7UQL.png
> MSNBC: http://i.imgur.com/H6sqz.png
> New York Times: http://i.imgur.com/SL3rX.png
> 
> I guess Tiger Woods and the iPad is more important.



For the organizations you quote... Yes, yes they are. Those organizations exist to make money, they tell the stories that people want to hear. After 9 years of continuous warfare, which include nearly continuous reports of dead civilians, no one cares.

This event happened 2 years ago, it was reported at the time. It is one of hundreds of such events. Stick soldiers with no attachment to the civilian population in a situation with insurgent forces, lots of innocent people are going to die. This event is not particularly egregious or remarkable in that respect. Crowd of people, some of them obviously armed, convoy approaching...Well, you can see the video and reach your own conclusions.

Mistake? Surely. Callous? Of course, it is war. Any different than what has happened in dozens of countries since the end of WW2? No. News? I suppose, but no new news.


----------



## Thomas

The deaths of the news crew and wounding of the child are tragic but the video only shows one aspect of what went on.

U.S. forces had earlier come under fire from insurgents in that area. 

The Reuters crew should never have allowed themselves to be grouped with insurgents. Especially with Apache's overhead. They in fact put themselves in harms way.

The Apache's misidentified a camera battery bag as a weapon. However one of the insurgents there did have a RPG-7. I am very familiar with the RPG-7 and have fired it myself. One of the ground soldiers also identified a RPG round under one of the bodies. 

As far as firing around houses it is called urban warfare. As long as insurgents use an urban area to fight in. There are going to be firefights around houses. it happens in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And as a result innocent civilians will get caught in the crossfire. That is one of the horrible aspects of war. in Iraq there have been around 139 reporters that have died since 2003.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hammy007

they are animals. just hear what they speak like, innocent people are dead because of them and they sound like its nothing


----------



## qsaark

Thomas said:


> The deaths of the news crew and wounding of the child are tragic but the video only shows one aspect of what went on.
> 
> U.S. forces had earlier come under fire from insurgents in that area.
> 
> The Reuters crew should never have allowed themselves to be grouped with insurgents. Especially with Apache's overhead. They in fact put themselves in harms way.
> 
> The Apache's misidentified a camera battery bag as a weapon. However one of the insurgents there did have a RPG-7. I am very familiar with the RPG-7 and have fired it myself. One of the ground soldiers also identified a RPG round under one of the bodies.
> 
> As far as firing around houses it is called urban warfare. As long as insurgents use an urban area to fight in. There are going to be firefights around houses. it happens in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And as a result innocent civilians will get caught in the crossfire. That is one of the horrible aspects of war. in Iraq there have been around 139 reporters that have died since 2003.


*This reminds me of My Lai Massacre when the US occupation forces in Vietnam tried to cover up the war crimes behind the similar arguments which later proved nothing but shameless lies.*

On March 16, 1968, a unit of the US occupation forces in South Vietnam mass murdered at least 347 (other sources mentioned 504) unarmed citizens, a majority of whom were women, children, babies and elderly people. Many of the victims were brutally tortured and sexually abused and later shot dead.

_He fired at it (the baby) with a .45. He missed. We all laughed. He got up three or four feet closer and missed again. We laughed. Then he got up right on top and plugged him_.... Eyewitness testimony, Peers Inquiry.

_I would say that most people in our company didn't consider the Vietnamese human_.... Dennis Bunning

_Soldiers went berserk, gunning down unarmed men, women, children and babies. Families which huddled together for safety in huts or bunkers were shown no mercy. Those who emerged with hands held high were murdered. ... Elsewhere in the village, other atrocities were in progress. Women were gang raped; Vietnamese who had bowed to greet the Americans were beaten with fists and tortured, clubbed with rifle ***** and stabbed with bayonets. Some victims were mutilated with the signature "C Company" carved into the chest. By late morning word had got back to higher authorities and a cease-fire was ordered. My Lai was in a state of carnage. Bodies were strewn through the village_.... BBC News







*Cover-up and investigations*

The first reports claimed that "128 Viet Cong and 22 civilians" were killed in the village during a "fierce fire fight". General William C. Westmoreland, MACV commander, congratulated the unit on the "outstanding job". As related at the time by the Army's Stars and Stripes magazine, "_U.S. infantrymen had killed 128 Communists in a *bloody day-long battle*_."

Initial investigations of the My Lai operation were undertaken by the 11th Light Infantry Brigade's commanding officer, Colonel Henderson, under orders from the Americal Division's executive officer, Brigadier General George H. Young. Henderson interviewed several soldiers involved in the incident, then issued a written report in late April claiming that some 20 civilians were inadvertently killed during the operation. _The army at this time was still describing the events at My Lai as a military victory that had resulted in the *deaths of 128 enemy combatants*_.

Six months later, Tom Glen, a 21-year-old soldier of the 11th Light Infantry Brigade, wrote a letter to General Creighton Abrams, the new overall commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, accusing the Americal Division (and other entire units of the U.S. military) of routine and pervasive brutality against Vietnamese civilians. The letter was detailed and its contents echoed complaints received from other soldiers.

*Colin Powell*, then a 31-year-old Army Major, was charged with investigating the letter, which did not specifically reference My Lai (Glen had limited knowledge of the events there). In his report Powell wrote: "_In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent_." Powell's handling of the assignment was later characterized by some observers as "whitewashing" the atrocities of My Lai. In May 2004, Powell, then United States Secretary of State, told CNN's Larry King, "_I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored_."

The carnage at My Lai might have gone unknown to history if not for another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, a former member of Charlie Company, who, independently of Glen, sent a letter detailing the events at My Lai to President Richard M. Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress. The copies of this letter were sent in March 1969, a full year after the event. Most recipients of Ridenhour's letter ignored it, with the notable exception of Congressman Morris Udall (D-Arizona). Ridenhour learned about the events at My Lai secondhand, by talking to members of Charlie Company while he was still enlisted.

Eventually, Calley was charged with several counts of premeditated murder in September 1969, and 25 other officers and enlisted men were later charged with related crimes. It was another two months before the American public learned about the massacre and trials.

Independent investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, after extensive conversations with Calley, broke the My Lai story on November 12, 1969; on November 20, Time, Life and Newsweek magazines all covered the story, and CBS televised an interview with Paul Meadlo. The Cleveland Plain Dealer published explicit photographs of dead villagers killed at My Lai.

In November 1969, General William R. Peers was appointed to conduct a thorough investigation into the My Lai incident and its subsequent cover-up. Peers' final report, published in March 1970, was highly critical of top officers for participation in a cover-up and the Charlie Company officers for their actions at My Lai 4. *According to Peers's findings*:

[The 1st Battalion] members had killed at least 175&#8211;200 Vietnamese men, women, and children. The evidence indicates that only 3 or 4 were confirmed as Viet Cong although there were undoubtedly several unarmed VC (men, women, and children) among them and many more active supporters and sympathizers. One man from the company was reported as wounded from the accidental discharge of his weapon.

However, critics of the Peers Commission pointed out that it sought to place the real blame on four officers who were already dead, foremost among them being the CO of TF Barker, LTC Frank Barker, who was killed in a mid air collision on June 13, 1968.






*Covering up war crimes: PFC Mauro, PFC Carter, and SP4 Widmer (Carter shot himself in the foot with a .45 pistol during the My Lai Massacre).*

Source: My Lai Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hammy007

^^same thing potrayed in "platoon"?


----------



## qsaark

Hammy007 said:


> ^^same thing potrayed in "platoon"?


I do not know because I choose not to watch Hollywood's propaganda movies depicting American soldiers as some kind of super humans, which of course they are not.


----------



## razgriz19

well we cant just blame US i mean whenever there is a war, doesn't matter if its against terrorist or another country, all this kind of things happens.....
thats why everyone/every country should avoid war....because innocent civilians has to pay the price with their own blood!!!


----------



## gpit

*AP source confirms video of Baghdad firefight*

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer  23 mins ago

WASHINGTON  A gritty war video circulating on the Internet that shows U.S. troops firing repeatedly on a group of men  some of whom were unarmed  walking down a Baghdad street is authentic, a senior U.S. military official confirmed Monday.

The official said the video posted at Wikileaks.org was of a July 12, 2007, firefight involving Army helicopters in the New Baghdad District of eastern Baghdad.

Among those believed to have been killed in that attack was Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his driver Saeed Chmagh, 40. Two children also were wounded.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the video, said the military could not confirm the identities of the Reuters employees in the film.

The Pentagon would not confirm the video's authenticity on the record, despite repeated requests from The Associated Press.

"At this time, we are working to verify the source of the video, its veracity, and when or where it was recorded," a statement from U.S. military headquarters in Iraq said late Monday.

The military also provided redacted copies of portions of its inquiry into the July 2007 incident, again without confirming that the incident described in those documents is the same one posted by Wikileaks.

According to a July 19 summary of the investigation, U.S. troops acted appropriately. Reuters employees were likely "intermixed among the insurgents" and difficult to distinguish because of their equipment, the document states.

"It is worth noting the fact that insurgent groups often video and photograph friendly activity and insurgent attacks against friendly forces for use in training videos and for use as propaganda to exploit or highlight their capabilities," the document concludes.

The incident has been reported before, but the video had not been released.

The video provides a rare, disturbing close-up of modern urban warfare at a time when violence was near its peak in Baghdad and the U.S. death toll was mounting.

In this incident, soldiers flying attack helicopters were called in to assist ground troops who had been pinned down by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

According to U.S. officials, the pilots arrived at the scene to find a group of men approaching the fight with what looked to be AK-47s slung over their shoulders and at least one rocket-propelled grenade.

A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47.

Wikileaks.org posts video and documents passed along by anonymous sources. They posted the video of the July 2007 firefight at "collateralmurder.com."

The shooters can be heard asking for permission to engage, and one says "Light 'em up!"

Some men drop immediately, while at least one can be seen scrambling to get away.

"Ah, yeah, look at those dead bastards. Nice," one shooter says.

The helicopters later destroy a vehicle that arrived on the scene to help a wounded man. When ground forces arrive, the video shows what looks to be a child being carried from the vehicle and U.S. troops saying the child should be sent to a local Iraqi hospital.

"Well, it's their fault bringing their kids into the battle," a cockpit voice can be heard saying.

Navy Capt. Jake Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said U.S. forces in Iraq recognize many of the images in the video posted at Wikileaks.org and have no reason to believe it is a fake. However, he said, they were still comparing the video and audio to see if it matched their own.

Headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., Central Command is responsible for U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Reuters said it couldn't verify that the video was of its employees dying, even though it looks like one of the men killed had a camera slung over his shoulder.

The video is "graphic evidence of the dangers involved in war journalism and the tragedies that can result," said David Schlesinger, editor-in-chief of Reuters news.

AP source confirms video of Baghdad firefight - Yahoo! News


----------



## gpit

Thomas said:


> The deaths of the news crew and wounding of the child are tragic but the video only shows one aspect of what went on.
> 
> U.S. forces had earlier come under fire from insurgents in that area.
> 
> The Reuters crew should never have allowed themselves to be grouped with insurgents. Especially with Apache's overhead. They in fact put themselves in harms way.
> 
> The Apache's misidentified a camera battery bag as a weapon. However one of the insurgents there did have a RPG-7. I am very familiar with the RPG-7 and have fired it myself. One of the ground soldiers also identified a RPG round under one of the bodies.
> 
> As far as firing around houses it is called urban warfare. As long as insurgents use an urban area to fight in. There are going to be firefights around houses. it happens in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And as a result innocent civilians will get caught in the crossfire. That is one of the horrible aspects of war. in Iraq there have been around 139 reporters that have died since 2003.



Please then explain why they shot the rescuers from the van?

Were those from the van bearing any weapon or weapon like equipment?

Was there any shooting coming from the van?

Werent the soldiers knowing those coming out from van were only meant to rescue the wounded?

If the first action had a reason, the second seems like a blatant murder, a heartless butchering. 

Somebody must be court martialed...


----------



## Ghareeb_Da_Baal

FreekiN said:


>



Looking at that flag upside down reminds me a Lebanese pizza delivery guy was arrested by police/FBI because he day the sticker flag upside down on his car in Chicago. This is just after the attack on Iraq.


----------



## IBRIS

An animated gif of an RPG guy. in same video. those men carrying AK's and RPG's

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IBRIS

BIG: http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/2808/rpg1.jpg

Here a guy crouching behind a wall loading either an RPG or rifle:





BIG: http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1021/rpg2.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IBRIS

Guy with AK47, far left. If you watch the clip you can even see the shoulder strap.


----------



## Thomas

gpit said:


> Please then explain why they shot the rescuers from the van?
> 
> Were those from the van bearing any weapon or weapon like equipment?
> 
> Was there any shooting coming from the van?
> 
> Werent the soldiers knowing those coming out from van were only meant to rescue the wounded?
> 
> If the first action had a reason, the second seems like a blatant murder, a heartless butchering.
> 
> Somebody must be court martialed...



The van was the same one that parked about a block away at the mosque. They knew it was still a hot fire zone from the Apache's circling. People who live in war zones know you just don't go rushing up to a situation like that. Most likely they knew some of the insurgents or were part of the it.


----------



## Communist

---------- Post added at 02:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 AM ----------


----------



## Forrest Griffin

Off topic but still....


----------



## Communist

*Its very interesting to see an indian member (not American) is supporting the brutal act of shooting despite knowing the fact that the irresponsible shooting killed two Reuters reporters and wounding two innocent children. 

I hope here Moderators show minimum amount of rationality by banning that member permanently. 

And please don't miss this interview. *


----------



## Ghareeb_Da_Baal

Forrest Griffin said:


> Off topic but still....



Here is another "Off topic but still".............It is not blackwater but some UK security firm.


----------



## Forrest Griffin

FreekiN said:


> Why aren't any of the big US news sites reporting the Wikileaks release?
> 
> CNN: http://i.imgur.com/LQqdI.png
> Fox News: http://i.imgur.com/f7UQL.png
> MSNBC: http://i.imgur.com/H6sqz.png
> New York Times: http://i.imgur.com/SL3rX.png
> 
> I guess Tiger Woods and the iPad is more important.



CNN posted just posted this 18 minutes ago

Video shows deaths of two Reuters journalists in Iraq in 2007 - CNN.com


----------



## IBRIS

Forrest Griffin said:


> CNN posted just posted this 18 minutes ago
> 
> Video shows deaths of two Reuters journalists in Iraq in 2007 - CNN.com



Because of this here. take a real close look about this journalist hanging out with gunmen with AK's and RPG. I'm not taking sides but one can clearly do some research before posting propaganda videos from rest of the world. Even Americans are not angels but truth needs to be told about this latest video. 

Namir the journalist and his crew hanging out with Gunmen in the middle of the streets. 

Sorry people you just can't fool everyone. Some of us actually know how to work with technology. 












BIG: http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/2808/rpg1.jpg

Here a guy crouching behind a wall loading either an RPG or rifle:





BIG: http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1021/rpg2.jpg






Guy with AK47, far left. If you watch the clip you can even see the shoulder strap.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## macnurv

5th April 2010 10:44 EST 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.

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".
Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.
WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.








WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

Sources:

http://wikileaks.org/
www.collateralmurder.com


----------



## Forrest Griffin

.......................


----------



## sparklingway

Disturbing and horrifying. I hope these guys face the severest possible sentences.

Wiki leaks has been the greatest ever whistle blowers ever. They indeed are devoted at what they do.


----------



## gambit

sparklingway said:


> I hope these guys face the severest possible sentences.


For what charge?


----------



## FreekiN

CHEKK OWT MY AR PEE GEE.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FreekiN

Regardless of what happened in this video, the US Government didn't want the truth to come out and tried to cover it up, they held a wikileaks employee hostage for 22 hours in order to make them not publish the video. They followed other employees in order to find out the source. Last month they were trying to shut Wikileaks down, guess why?

*I just rolled over a body. Ha ha!

-Our tax dollars at work.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> Please then explain why they shot the rescuers from the van?


Enemy soldiers can also be rescuers.



gpit said:


> Were those from the van bearing any weapon or weapon like equipment?


Why should a vehicle need to visibly appeared armed? In war, the only vehicle, be it an automobile or an ship or an aircraft, that has protection is when it distinctly display either the Red Cross or the Red Crescent symbol. Everything else in a combat zone is assumed hostile.



gpit said:


> Was there any shooting coming from the van?


No need to. See above.



gpit said:


> Werent the soldiers knowing those coming out from van were only meant to rescue the wounded?


Why is the burden upon them? Even medics understand that the burden of identification in order to have protection rests upon them, not on combatants.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

FreekiN said:


> CHEKK OWT MY AR PEE GEE.


Talk to journalists and find out they understand how dangerous it is for cameramen when they carries their equipments. Talk to policemen and find out how dangerous it can be for *YOU* if you hold something in your hand and point it at an armed officer.


----------



## FreekiN

This is pretty messed up. How many similar cases do we have like this. Helicopters just flying around shooting at gatherings of people. The only reason this one probably stands out is because one of those that died was a reporter. They probably flew missions like this on a daily basis. Living around the biggest infantry base in the U.S. it's pretty obvious that it is an inside secret that Iraq was one big war crime. When the troops first starting coming back from Iraq the local rock station constantly played this one song with a chorus of "Getting away with murder" as the troops were enjoying some play time after their heroic deeds in Iraq. 

At the beginning of the video the person on the radio clearly states that there are no U.S. troops in the vicinity and showed no aggression towards the helicopters flying around them. This is just another Vietnam for the younger generation, no doubt these murderers will come back over here and expect to be called heroes. Far as I can tell these troops haven't done ***** for me but go fight unemployment on the other side of the planet while our media went to ***** to justify it. Which by the way opened the door for the continuation of lies to help prop up the economy and the media spin about the "jobless recovery". Now lies and distortion of the truth have become common place, terrorist attacks are every day events in the places where "terror is being faught" with no end in sight, and the economy is hanging by a thread thanks to government stimulus, also with no end in sight. 

The only people winning this war are those profiting from it and live to keep their mouth shut.

*I feel sorry for all of the exemplary soldiers who risk their lives for this war and come back with a bad reputation because of the actions of a minority. Why are we still there btw? It's been 7 years.*

THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR ISRAEL, NOT AMERICA.


----------



## sparklingway

I for once want to say that wikileaks has little complained about surveillance and harassment and the editors haven't been labeled as traitors or "agents" in their country. This at least goes to show that whistleblowers are respected as noble people in many societies.


----------



## Forrest Griffin

gambit said:


> Talk to journalists and find out they understand how dangerous it is for cameramen when they carries their equipments. Talk to policemen and find out how dangerous it can be for *YOU* if you hold something in your hand and point it at an armed officer.



good argument.


----------



## gambit

sparklingway said:


> I for once want to say that wikileaks has little complained about surveillance and harassment and the editors haven't been labeled as traitors or "agents" in their country. This at least goes to show that *whistleblowers are respected as noble people in many societies.*


Under dictatorships, like the kind so common in the ME, whistleblowers are prosecuted and killed.


----------



## sparklingway

gambit said:


> Under dictatorships, like the kind so common in the ME, whistleblowers are prosecuted and killed.



Not just the ME, in all conservative and old age societies, whistle blowers are labeled as traitors, harassed, prosecuted and killed.


----------



## IBRIS

FreekiN said:


> CHEKK OWT MY AR PEE GEE.




CHEKK OWT DA AK-47 and RPG's. Are you blind. Can't you see the photos i uploaded weapons with militants. You gotta be blind hard headed dude to call this a pure crime. One can see 2 journalists with cameras but bunch others with guns. Now ask yourself who's carrying what?. Then think for a moment and look at the images and video again and again. 











Here a guy crouching behind a wall loading either an RPG or rifle:











Guy with AK47, far left. If you watch the clip you can even see the shoulder strap. 






If you are still having problems with these photos, then let me know.


----------



## Forrest Griffin

gambit said:


> Under dictatorships, like the kind so common in the ME, whistleblowers are prosecuted and killed.



bad argument.

You always compare U.S. to the Middle East it makes no sense.


----------



## sparklingway

gambit said:


> Enemy soldiers can also be rescuers.
> 
> 
> Why should a vehicle need to visibly appeared armed? In war, the only vehicle, be it an automobile or an ship or an aircraft, that has protection is when it distinctly display either the Red Cross or the Red Crescent symbol. Everything else in a combat zone is assumed hostile.
> 
> 
> No need to. See above.
> 
> 
> Why is the burden upon them? Even medics understand that the burden of identification in order to have protection rests upon them, not on combatants.



While you *can legitimately* argue that under battle conditions making a bad decision in favor can be fateful (I mean considering somebody to be unarmed only to be shot at), there is *no* way one can defend the fact that it clearly is visible that the journalists were shot at even after their wasn't a danger to the soldiers. In fact the soldiers did not face any danger throughout. 

*Unprovoked massacre at its best.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Forrest Griffin

IBRIS said:


> If you are still having problems with these photos, then let me know.



You are pointing out isolated photos which obscure the whole story. 

With this post, are you implying the aviators were inattentive or incompetent?


----------



## gambit

sparklingway said:


> While you *can legitimately* argue that under battle conditions making a bad decision in favor can be fateful (I mean considering somebody to be unarmed only to be shot at), there is *no* way one can defend the fact that it clearly is visible that the journalists were shot at even after their wasn't a danger to the soldiers. In fact the soldiers did not face any danger throughout.
> 
> *Unprovoked massacre at its best.*


Utter BS. The reason you *NOW* can say that among killed are journalists is because they were identified as journalists *AFTER THE FACT*. But when soldiers sees groups of armed men, their natural instincts will compel them to assume the worst -- that they are looking at men with hostile intents, not journalists. Like it or not, my young friend, the reality of a combat zone is to shoot first and shoot well. Questions are irrelevant.

I have seen enough in post-Saddam Kuwait to know that if it was possible for US to Youtube just a fraction of what I saw of what happened to Kuwaitis done by the Iraqi Army, it would make this little video pales in comparison. So you go right on and enjoy your little chance at making US look inhuman. For those of us who know the reality of war, the muslims in the ME are no better.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IBRIS

Forrest Griffin said:


> You are pointing out isolated photos which obscure the whole story.
> 
> With this post, are you implying the aviators were inattentive or incompetent?



So what you are implying is that those journalists were out on a picnic with gunmen. Watch the video my friend and then watch my photos. Might ring a bell.


----------



## Abdussamad

Its just a fraction of the war crimes that have been committed in Iraq.


----------



## Forrest Griffin

gambit said:


> Utter BS. The reason you *NOW* can say that among killed are journalists is because they were identified as journalists *AFTER THE FACT*. But when soldiers sees groups of armed men, their natural instincts will compel them to assume the worst -- that they are looking at men with hostile intents, not journalists. Like it or not, my young friend, the reality of a combat zone is to shoot first and shoot well. Questions are irrelevant.
> 
> I have seen enough in post-Saddam Kuwait to know that if it was possible for US to Youtube just a fraction of what I saw of what happened to Kuwaitis done by the Iraqi Army, it would make this little video pales in comparison. So you go right on and enjoy your little chance at making US look inhuman. For those of us who know the reality of war, the muslims in the ME are no better.



Post traumatic stress disorder...


----------



## sparklingway

gambit said:


> Utter BS. The reason you *NOW* can say that among killed are journalists is because they were identified as journalists *AFTER THE FACT*. But when soldiers sees groups of armed men, their natural instincts will compel them to assume the worst -- that they are looking at men with hostile intents, not journalists. Like it or not, my young friend, the reality of a combat zone is to shoot first and shoot well. Questions are irrelevant.
> 
> I have seen enough in post-Saddam Kuwait to know that if it was possible for US to Youtube just a fraction of what I saw of what happened to Kuwaitis done by the Iraqi Army, it would make this little video pales in comparison. So you go right on and enjoy your little chance at making US look inhuman. For those of us who know the reality of war, the muslims in the ME are no better.



Neither did I make a comparison between Saddam's army nor did I claim that they should have known better.

I said that you can legitimately claim but the consequences and the results must force you to wonder what has happened. That introspection is missing from your posts. 

I never argued that any other army has had a better record or that the US is the most evil nation on earth. You are putting words in my mouth and I'm okay with accepting the fact that you must have to deal daily with dozens, if not hundreds, of members shouting at you about what they perceive as US imperialism and injustice. The fact of the matter is that armies from other countries have had worse track records (Imperial Japanese Army in China and many other cases) but you have to accept that *this* specific case clearly demonstrates both the ease with which the soldiers were killing (dare I say with disregard to human life) and error of judgment.

Firstly, it can be argued that in the war zone, a soldier has less to care for the lives of the enemies for he has to deal with killing humans and has to toughen himself. This is the reality of war and I agree with you almost entirely. *But* the pilots here were cracking half jokes as they were killing in some videogame. That is downright inhumane.

Secondly, the split second decision can indeed lead to error of judgement. In this case though, they had time, ample time, at their hands and the civilians were visible throughout from the helicopter gun sight. Nobody cared trying to verify the "RPG" or the "AK 47s".

There is nothing wrong in accepting the fact that soldiers made a grave mistake and killed civilians and journalists. If found guilty of intentional murder, they should face the music. If on the other hand, they are found to have violated the rules of engagement and killed the civilians while misinterpreting them as armed, they obviously have no sentence to worry about; they should focus on dealing with what they did and coming to terms with their huge mistake.

Defending such an act and hiding the facts was all but natural and expected from the DoD. They won't go public saying that they're soldiers had killed civilians. But as the facts have come out, be boys and accept the mistakes. Review your rules of engagement and be sorry for what you did. Ask forgiveness from the heirs of the dead (and god if somebody believes in one).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Thomas

FreekiN said:


> This is pretty messed up. How many similar cases do we have like this. Helicopters just flying around shooting at gatherings of people.



In a war zone if you are a civilian and carry a weapon. Or you hang out with insurgents who have weapons. you can expect to be fired on with no warning. Even if those insurgents were not firing their weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

sparklingway said:


> Neither did I make a comparison between Saddam's army nor did I claim that they should have known better.


Am always ready to make such comparisons to inject a dose of reality. People like you needed it.



sparklingway said:


> I said that you can legitimately claim but the consequences and the results must force you to wonder what has happened. *That introspection is missing from your posts. *


For anyone who publicly made known his introspection, there are tens of thousands or more who have no problems with their conduct and performance in war. Am one of those who have none.



sparklingway said:


> ...you have to accept that *this* specific case clearly demonstrates both the ease with which the soldiers were killing (dare I say with disregard to human life) and error of judgment.


A soldier is supposed to kill. How much more disregard for the enemy's life, or human life if you prefer, can one has? And yes, like it or not, *ALL* soldiers want to kill with as much ease as possible.



sparklingway said:


> Firstly, it can be argued that in the war zone, a soldier has less to care for the lives of the enemies for he has to deal with killing humans and has to toughen himself. This is the reality of war and I agree with you almost entirely. *But* the pilots here were cracking half jokes as they were killing in some videogame. That is downright inhumane.


No...That is normal. Am going to repeat the same phrase: Like it or not. You can find all sort of psychology discourses on why 'black humor' is necessary but having a disregard for enemy lives is a necessity if a soldier is to survive.



sparklingway said:


> Secondly, the split second decision can indeed lead to error of judgement. In this case though, they had time, ample time, at their hands and the civilians were visible throughout from the helicopter gun sight. Nobody cared trying to verify the "RPG" or the "AK 47s".


Here is where you have been misled. The source presented to you only a part of the entire event -- the shooting. You have no idea of whether or not that part of the city have been declared as secured and safe, meaning free of enemy combatants or not. You have no idea on whether or not US forces have been cleared in anyway that if they see any armed men, those armed men are to be assumed as hostile. The clearance could have come from faulty intel or it could have come from strong sources but that is besides the point.

Soldiers do not like to fight against an uncertain combatant and this is why the Geneva Conventions stresses on having clear distinctions between combatants and noncombatants. A 'civilian' can be a legal combatant and if he made it clear that he is a combatant, he is accorded full Geneva Conventions protection. A 'civilian' who picks up a rifle and shoot then tosses it away to claim 'civilian' immunity is an illegal combatant and any soldier who kill him will not be prosecuted. Like it or not, that is the reality of war as much as we can codify and regulate the conduct of war. In a combat zone where combat have been authorized, no soldier is under the burden of proving to himself and to any authority that he is facing a combatant holding a genuine weapon instead of a farm implement that happen to look like a weapon from a certain angle under certain lighting condition.


----------



## Forrest Griffin

gambit said:


> Am always ready to make such comparisons to inject a dose of reality. People like you needed it.
> 
> 
> For anyone who publicly made known his introspection, there are tens of thousands or more who have no problems with their conduct and performance in war. Am one of those who have none.
> 
> 
> A soldier is supposed to kill. How much more disregard for the enemy's life, or human life if you prefer, can one has? And yes, like it or not, *ALL* soldiers want to kill with as much ease as possible.
> 
> 
> No...That is normal. Am going to repeat the same phrase: Like it or not. You can find all sort of psychology discourses on why 'black humor' is necessary but having a disregard for enemy lives is a necessity if a soldier is to survive.
> 
> 
> Here is where you have been misled. The source presented to you only a part of the entire event -- the shooting. You have no idea of whether or not that part of the city have been declared as secured and safe, meaning free of enemy combatants or not. You have no idea on whether or not US forces have been cleared in anyway that if they see any armed men, those armed men are to be assumed as hostile. The clearance could have come from faulty intel or it could have come from strong sources but that is besides the point.
> 
> Soldiers do not like to fight against an uncertain combatant and this is why the Geneva Conventions stresses on having clear distinctions between combatants and noncombatants. A 'civilian' can be a legal combatant and if he made it clear that he is a combatant, he is accorded full Geneva Conventions protection. A 'civilian' who picks up a rifle and shoot then tosses it away to claim 'civilian' immunity is an illegal combatant and any soldier who kill him will not be prosecuted. Like it or not, that is the reality of war as much as we can codify and regulate the conduct of war. In a combat zone where combat have been authorized, no soldier is under the burden of proving to himself and to any authority that he is facing a combatant holding a genuine weapon instead of a farm implement that happen to look like a weapon from a certain angle under certain lighting condition.



Where do you get your information from? 

You write some ridiculous stuff.


----------



## macnurv

Yes it is not the fault of American pilots shooting indiscriminately on targets which did not pose any threat at the moment, but who cares the only good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi. So as far as they are concerned shoot first ask questions later is a great policy.
Those apologists who are trying to justify this murderous act have there moral compass so messed up I will be surprised if they find their way out of toilets. At that moment those people posed no threat other then to the trigger happy red necks who were in Iraq to shoot innocent civillians cause to them it is nothing more then a video game. The cold logical conclusion reached by those crewmen was not a shock and goes to show the underline mentality of a US soldier serving in US imperial wars. The dehumanization of your enemy is all a part of US war machine, where it provides a rational for all the atrocities committed. The eagerness shown to shoot is quite evident and there is no way that you can justify this act. 
This is not the first mass murdering incident being covered up Pentagon, the conclusion that soldiers were following the code of enemy engagement. A sprat of recent events have proven this.
I really wish that one day US is invaded and these red necks get a taste of their own medicine, then I will come and justify that hideous act. Of course I do not want the Americans to suffer the very same treatment they have been dolling out to the rest of the world.


----------



## gambit

macnurv said:


> I really wish that one day US is invaded...


Make sure you get a good director. I recommend someone as capable as Spielberg or Eastwood. But if your emphasis is on stylized action, get some of China's martial arts directors. Do not forget other factors like decent script and financing. The viewing public is pretty fickle nowadays. With the advent of 3D the financing part will be difficult. Good luck and I do look forward to your production.


----------



## mjnaushad

Another bunch of people died for Oil. Even if they were armed they got killed for fighting for their country and the murderers killed them for OIL. People think by such videos they'll able to open the eyes of people. We forgot these people are blind. 

They talk about dictatorship and its murders but forget they support such dictators when they need them. 

For all those who wish something will happen with this video heres the shocker. When the UN and the world was unable to anything on US INVASION on iraq do you guys really expect something from this single video. *These civilian dont worth anything to the world because they are not US civilians*. They are civilians of a third world country which got invaded by US. Who gives a damn. Only a human who is US citizen value in UN and in the rest of the world. All the human rights are for the US citizens only. So stop living in a dream. 

We all know even if they stand all the civilians of Iraq in line and execute them nothing will happen. Because again they are not US citizens.

Forget those who were crying AK and RPG. You can see a civilian when first Hellfire hit the building. More civilian when 3rd Hellfire hit the building. But again who gives a damn. They aint civilians. Because they ain't US citizens.


----------



## gambit

mjnaushad said:


> Another bunch of people died for Oil. Even if they were armed they got killed for fighting for their country and the murderers killed them for OIL.


You mean for Russia's and China's oil...

Russia's Lukoil Big Winner At 2nd Iraq Oil Auction - Forbes.com


> Russian oil giant Lukoil was a big winner from the 2nd round of Iraq oil license auctions concluded Saturday.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html


> BAGHDAD  In the first major oil deal Iraq has made with a foreign country since 2003, the Iraqi government and the China National Petroleum Corporation have signed a contract in Beijing that could be worth up to $3 billion, Iraqi officials said Thursday.


And to think neither Russia nor China have sent US a 'Thank you' note. Ingrates.


----------



## mjnaushad

gambit said:


> You mean for Russia's and China's oil...
> 
> Russia's Lukoil Big Winner At 2nd Iraq Oil Auction - Forbes.com
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html
> 
> And to think neither Russia nor China have sent US a 'Thank you' note. Ingrates.


No the oil which is being stolen and NY times will never report it.

And anyway. Why you care about the civilians. They aint american. Let em die.


----------



## gambit

mjnaushad said:


> No the oil which is being stolen and NY times will never report it.


Ahhh...The old 'stolen oil' line.



mjnaushad said:


> And anyway. Why you care about the civilians. They aint american. Let em die.


I do care about civilians. All civilians. We made more efforts at avoiding noncombatant deaths than the Iraqi Army or al-Qaeda did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mjnaushad

gambit said:


> Ahhh...The old 'stolen oil' line.
> 
> 
> *I do care about civilians. All civilians. We made more efforts at avoiding noncombatant deaths than the Iraqi Army or al-Qaeda did.*


Yeah.....i just saw that.

Shooting a hell fire even know there are civlians outside teh building. And then another hellfire and then another hellfire looking at the civilians who are gathered.

But again no one gave a damn when their country was Invaded. who cares not. they are just small bunch of animals getting slaughters for someones fun.


----------



## gambit

mjnaushad said:


> Yeah.....i just saw that.
> 
> Shooting a hell fire even know there are civlians outside teh building. And then another hellfire and then another hellfire looking at the civilians who are gathered.


Civilians can be combatants. May be you are unable to understand the difference but I have no such problems. Talk to any soldier and find out for yourself.


----------



## mjnaushad

gambit said:


> Civilians can be combatants. May be you are unable to understand the difference but I have no such problems. Talk to any soldier and find out for yourself.


Thats what i am saying. American defination of civilian. 

US civilian. He is a US citizen and human. He have human rights. We should not be voilated in any circumtances

Civilians in rest of the world.: These are just some animals by definition of science. Dont worth any right even the right to live.They can be combatant. So no need to take risk. Shoot anyone you see. Even a little girl. blow them up into pieces by firing hellfire.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

mjnaushad said:


> Thats what i am saying. American defination of civilian.
> 
> US civilian. He is a US citizen and human. He have human rights. We should not be voilated in any circumtances
> 
> Civilians in rest of the world.: These are just some animals by definition of science. Dont worth any right even the right to live.They can be combatant. So no need to take risk. Shoot anyone you see. Even a little girl. blow them up into pieces by firing hellfire.


OK...You are now a 12yr old. Dismissed.


----------



## ptldM3

Crazyhorse needs to take an eye exam.

Edit: after a closer look at the video it does appear that there could have been weapons but of course it's open to interpretation, so i'll stay neutral.


----------



## Forrest Griffin

ptldM3 said:


> Crazyhorse needs to take an eye exam.


----------



## mjnaushad

gambit said:


> OK...You are now a 12yr old. Dismissed.


Call me 5. Wont change the facts. 

You ever thought those combatants. What made them combatants. I can bet they were ordinary civilians before war. Something terrible happend to them which made them "combatant". They dont want talibanization. Ever thought what made them took an AK in their hands. what they want. A country which attacked you on 9/11 had 80000 US troops and a country which did not attacked had 200000 troops....


----------



## qsaark

sparklingway said:


> Not just the ME, in all conservative and old age societies, whistle blowers are labeled as traitors, harassed, prosecuted and killed.


Even in most 'civilized' and 'tolerable' USA... If I start posting links on how the far right evangelicals (who are in majority in the armed forces and pretty much control the republican party) think about the rest of the moderate Americans, this 'naturalized US citizen' would not find a place to hide with all his shamelessness.


----------



## Gazzi

IBRIS said:


> Because of this here. take a real close look about this journalist hanging out with gunmen with AK's and RPG. I'm not taking sides but one can clearly do some research before posting propaganda videos from rest of the world. Even Americans are not angels but truth needs to be told about this latest video.
> 
> Namir the journalist and his crew hanging out with Gunmen in the middle of the streets.
> 
> Sorry people you just can't fool everyone. Some of us actually know how to work with technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BIG: http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/2808/rpg1.jpg
> 
> Here a guy crouching behind a wall loading either an RPG or rifle:
> 
> 
> BIG: http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1021/rpg2.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> Guy with AK47, far left. If you watch the clip you can even see the shoulder strap.



No sh*t, I tend to work with CCTV extensively also, and in none of those shots does it appear to be an RPG or AK47s, none of them. The images of blurry at best and not conclusive enough to take action.

You pointed out being able to see the shoulder strap, what F***ing shoulder strap, the image is taken from hundreds of feet up and is not clear at all. 

The soldier says he may have an RPG under the guy, MAY, not that he has seen one, he MAY, why, because he was told by Bushmaster from the eyes in the sky, who too are not clear of the facts.

You cannot zoom in further using tech available on the net as it will only pixelate the image and distort it further.

Please don't look at the video from a concordist view, as this will only cloud ones judgement


----------



## amoverlord

can only say that this is murder............few here will say that it happens in war(n it sure does).....but ,look at the attitude of these murderers,they r not perturbed a bit,n justify it(even after knowing that they shot at children)....there is no humanity left in them.....


----------



## Thomas

Gazzi said:


> No sh*t, I tend to work with CCTV extensively also, and in none of those shots does it appear to be an RPG or AK47s, none of them. The images of blurry at best and not conclusive enough to take action.



You can hear the soldiers report on the RPG round under the body at time code 19:18. he doesn't say "may" he says "looks like he's got an RPG round laying underneath him." Big difference.


----------



## amoverlord

Thomas said:


> You can hear the soldiers report on the RPG round under the body at time code 19:18. he doesn\'t say \"may\" he says \"looks like he\'s got an RPG round laying underneath him.\" Big difference.



ok...ok..he doesn\'t say \"may\".....ok big difference...
what about he saying..there own fault for bringing children in war......
even after that u defend them.....don\'t know who is more apathetic u or those cold blooded killers.........


----------



## Forrest Griffin

Thomas said:


> You can hear the soldiers report on the RPG round under the body at time code 19:18. he doesn't say "may" he says "looks like he's got an RPG round laying underneath him." Big difference.



No big difference. If we are watching the same images the aviator was watching, he should not have have fired. A comptent aviator would not have done this. IMO he seemed a little bit trigger happy. 

Those who defend the aviator's actions make the U.S. military appear as if they are not held to highest standards.


----------



## Thomas

Forrest Griffin said:


> No big difference. *If we are watching the same images the aviator was watching, he should not have have fired. A comptent aviator would not have done this.* IMO he seemed a little bit trigger happy.
> 
> Those who defend the aviator's actions make the U.S. military appear as if they are not held to highest standards.



Not true....The insurgents were legit targets. they were identified as having an RPG and did. The journalists equipment was misidentified. However they should *NEVER* have been embedded with insurgents. It is a dangerous practice that some journalists in Afghanistan still do.


----------



## Forrest Griffin

Thomas said:


> Not true....The insurgents were legit targets. they were identified as having an RPG and did. The journalists equipment was misidentified. *However they should NEVER have been embedded with insurgents. It is a dangerous practice that some journalists in Afghanistan still do.*



Good point. 

I still believe the aviators could have exercised better judgement. 

An experienced veteran aviator would not have done this.


----------



## gambit

Thomas said:


> Not true....The insurgents were legit targets. they were identified as having an RPG and did. The journalists equipment was misidentified. However they should *NEVER* have been embedded with insurgents. It is a dangerous practice that some journalists in Afghanistan still do.


We learned from Desert Storm how journalists protested when their freedom to travel as they please were restricted by the US military and allies.

CNN.com - Transcripts


> KING: What was your skepticism about the embedded factor, and what changed? What did it do you didn't expect it to do?
> 
> RATHER: Well, my skepticism was -- well, given our experience in Afghanistan, when -- and I'll go ahead and say it, that the Defense Department made a big mistake in Afghanistan. They didn't even meet their own standards of maximum access and maximum information consistent with national security. So because they had been, frankly, so hard-walled about that in Afghanistan, had not let the press see some of the tremendous accomplishments of our fighting men and women in Afghanistan, I just thought, well, when it comes to this war in Iraq, they're going talk about the embeds having access and having information, but when it comes down to it, they won't. And about that, I was wrong because they did.
> 
> *But my concern was -- and I stated it, was that it's a very fine line between being embedded and being entombed.* And by that I meant that they could get in with these military outfits but not really get access and get information. But that did didn't turn out to be the case. And I think Torie Clarke and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and anybody else who was involved in that turnaround decision to give the kind of access they did, for whatever their motivation may have been, deserves applause for it. And I'll be surprised if the next time the American military goes to war that they don't try some version of it.
> 
> I repeat for emphasis, it wasn't perfect, Larry, that in some cases, you know, they put people -- they embedded people, but they didn't let them up with the far forward units. But overall and in the main, there's nothing to complain about, and there's a lot to applaud.


Dan Rather was being diplomatic with the highlighted phrase, but his sentiments were common. Some on the 'left' side of the ideological divide practically howled Constitutional violations.

The way it works with these people is that while it is wrong for journalists to embed with US forces, at the very least it gives the impression that journalists are in the pay of the US military, none will dare to criticize journalists who either embed with Iraqi insurgents and/or wander around areas they know or highly suspected to be 'hot zones'. Journalists like the late Steven Vincent, for example...

Amazon.com: In the Red Zone: A Journey into the Soul of Iraq (9781890626570): Steven Vincent: Books


> Steven Vincent journeyed twice to Iraq, paying his own way, *traveling without security or official connections, living by his wits.* His four months in the war zone included a foray into the infamous Mosque of Ali in Najaf, a confrontation with Ayatollah Sistanis bodyguards, a brush with death in a Karbala bombing, meetings with assorted Western "peace activists," and run-ins with Iraqi "authorities" who alternately suspected him of being a CIA agent or a terrorist.


For them to criticize these journalists would take the wind out of their rhetoric. If someone like Vincent was killed by insurgents, the people here would rally around the 'CIA agent' argument. If he was killed by US forces, like the tragic deaths we see in this discussion, he was 'murdered', as if the soldiers knew who they were killing in order to qualify the killing as 'murder'.


----------



## gambit

Forrest Griffin said:


> Good point.
> 
> I still believe the aviators could have exercised better judgement.
> 
> *An experienced veteran aviator would not have done this.*


I take it you speak from considerable combat experience or even as a civilian rescue pilot on finding and identifying people from several hundreds ft altitude?


----------



## H2O3C4Nitrogen

Kudos , they did restored democracy and found a dozen of WMDs hidden beneath tons of gallons of OIL....!


----------



## FreekiN

*I think this is what my friends here are trying to say:*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Vassnti

In the mean time, April 5, 2010 | 


> At least forty-one people were killed and 237 wounded Sunday in three coordinated suicide car bombings targeting the Iranian and German embassies and the Egyptian consulate in Iraq. Theres been no claim of responsibility for the attacks, but Iraqi government officials have suggested that the extremist Sunni group al-Qaeda in Iraq could be responsible





> Some of the recent attacks in Iraq
> (AP)  50 minutes ago
> 
> A look at recent major attacks in Iraq:
> 
> _ April 6  Bombs rip through apartment buildings and a market in Baghdad, killing at least 50 people.
> 
> _ April 4  Suicide attackers detonate car bombs near embassies in Baghdad, killing 42.
> 
> _ April 2  Gunmen kill 24 villagers execution-style in a Sunni area south of Baghdad.
> 
> _ March 26  Twin bombings strike a restaurant in Khalis, north of Baghdad, killing 57.
> 
> _ March 7  Series of bombings and rocket and mortar attacks kill 36 in Baghdad on Election Day.
> 
> _ March 3  Suicide bombers strike in quick succession in Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad, killing 32.
> 
> _ Feb. 18  Suicide car bomb explodes outside the main government compound in Ramadi, killing 13.
> 
> _ Feb. 5  Coordinated blasts targeting Shiite pilgrims in the holy city of Karbala kill 40.
> 
> _ Feb. 1  Female suicide bomber strikes Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad, killing 54.
> 
> _ Jan. 26  Suicide car bomber strikes a police crime lab in Baghdad, killing 22.
> 
> _ Jan. 25  Suicide attacks hit several Baghdad hotels in well-planned assaults that kill 37.




Thats rougly 450 killed, deliberatley targeted as opposed to 2 journalists who chose to be in a combat zone with people firing on US troops yet teh outrage is over something from two years ago?


----------



## gambit

Vassnti said:


> In the mean time, April 5, 2010 |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats rougly *450 killed, deliberatley targeted* as opposed to 2 journalists who chose to be in a combat zone with people firing on US troops yet teh outrage is over something from two years ago?


Wait just one damned minute...Sir...!!! How do *YOU* know those 450 killed were not CIA agents?


----------



## gambit

FreekiN said:


> *I think this is what my friends here are trying to say:*


And if you look carefully, you will find the label 'Made In Russia' or 'Made In China' on that oily thingie.


----------



## amoverlord

gambit said:


> I take it you speak from considerable combat experience or even as a civilian rescue pilot on finding and identifying people from several hundreds ft altitude?



gambit,i respect ur knowledge on defense........but how can u justify the behavior of those US aviators(about whom u always have highest of laurels)........ok men they killed because they were trigger happy or nervous but even after knowing that they shot children...they r passing remarks like there fault,not ours......signing it off without giving second thought......


----------



## gambit

amoverlord said:


> gambit,i respect ur knowledge on defense........but how can u justify the behavior of those US aviators(about whom u always have highest of laurels)........ok men they killed because they were trigger happy or nervous but even after knowing that they shot children...they r passing remarks like there fault,not ours......signing it off without giving second thought......


Trigger happy? Did you even watch the entire 40 minutes? I doubt it because if you did watch the entire 40 minutes, you would have seen the pilots were quite deliberate before they fire. So if you chose to use the provocative phrase 'trigger happy', may we inquire as *FROM* what military experience do you draw upon that involve even personal sidearms that you can justify that provocative phrase?

As for the comment made by one pilot about the wounded children...What do you expect him to say when there is no 21st century technology that would endow him the ability to see through obstacles to discern adults from children? There are plenty enough news on how women, even pregnant women, and children were recruited to be human bombs. So should we be surprised that children would be callously used by insurgents precisely for the hope that children being wounded or even killed in combat zones?


----------



## amoverlord

gambit said:


> Trigger happy? Did you even watch the entire 40 minutes? I doubt it because if you did watch the entire 40 minutes, you would have seen the pilots were quite deliberate before they fire. So if you chose to use the provocative phrase \'trigger happy\', may we inquire as *FROM* what military experience do you draw upon that involve even personal sidearms that you can justify that provocative phrase?
> 
> As for the comment made by one pilot about the wounded children...What do you expect him to say when there is no 21st century technology that would endow him the ability to see through obstacles to discern adults from children? There are plenty enough news on how women, even pregnant women, and children were recruited to be human bombs. So should we be surprised that children would be callously used by insurgents precisely for the hope that children being wounded or even killed in combat zones?



well...i have no combat experience,whatsoever.....u found the term trigger happy provocative,well then what about the part when the aviator justifies his action for shooting children(knowingly or unknowingly),n shrugs of by saying \"there fault\".....and as for being plenty of news about woman n children being used as bombs,yes its true......but how does it justifies this particular incident.....n even then if u said they did nothing wrong then tell me whats the difference between terrorists n us armed forces.......


----------



## gambit

amoverlord said:


> well...i have no combat experience,whatsoever.....u found the term trigger happy provocative,well then what about the part when the aviator justifies his action for shooting children(knowingly or unknowingly),n shrugs of by saying \"there fault\".....and as for being plenty of news about woman n children being used as bombs,yes its true......but how does it justifies this particular incident.....n even then if u said they did nothing wrong then tell me whats the difference between terrorists n us armed forces.......


To 'justify' something mean to find a reason and/or cause to say that so-and-so action or words cannot be morally condemned...

Justify | Define Justify at Dictionary.com


> verb (used with object)
> 1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.
> 
> 2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: Don't try to justify his rudeness.
> 
> 3. Theology. to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.
> 
> 5. Law.
> a. to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done.
> b. to qualify as bail or surety.


So in order for me or the pilot to 'justify' shooting children, the pilot and I *MUST* know the nature and characters of the target in the first place, in other words, we *MUST KNOW* that we are shooting at children. Same thing with the provocative word 'murder'. A killing is not 'murder' unless the killer is *FULLY AWARE* of the identity of the victim. Else any use of the word 'murder' constitute nothing more rhetorical convenience.

So no one is trying to 'justify' or make morally acceptable this instance where children were shot at and wounded. No one can 'justify' it precisely because no one knew there were children in the area until either during the fight or after the fight.


----------



## amoverlord

gambit said:


> To \'justify\' something mean to find a reason and/or cause to say that so-and-so action or words cannot be morally condemned...
> 
> Justify | Define Justify at Dictionary.com
> 
> So in order for me or the pilot to \'justify\' shooting children, the pilot and I *MUST* know the nature and characters of the target in the first place, in other words, we *MUST KNOW* that we are shooting at children. Same thing with the provocative word \'murder\'. A killing is not \'murder\' unless the killer is *FULLY AWARE* of the identity of the victim. Else any use of the word \'murder\' constitute nothing more rhetorical convenience.
> 
> So no one is trying to \'justify\' or make morally acceptable this instance where children were shot at and wounded. No one can \'justify\' it precisely because no one knew there were children in the area until either during the fight or after the fight.



yes ,i\'ll not argue with u on that matter,because i have very less knowledge on the situation the aviators were presented with.........
but as u said the pilots were not fully aware of the identity of there targets,even then they were reluctant to shoot......may be this is the case in war,may be such incidents are bound to happen.....even then its wrong n sir,ur stand in this matter is wrong too.....at the end of the day they killed innocents.....
yes u have seen a lot of combat in iraq,germany n other places....n according to u this incident will be a mistake(may be it is).....u said in some thread that u r a product of cold war.......it seems the cold war has made u inappreciable of human life......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Forrest Griffin

gambit said:


> I take it you speak from considerable combat experience or even as a civilian rescue pilot on finding and identifying people from several hundreds ft altitude?




I take it you have considerable military knowledge and were a military analyst for the Pentagon, The White House or CIA?


----------



## gambit

Forrest Griffin said:


> I take it you have considerable military knowledge and were a military analyst for the Pentagon, The White House or CIA?


Am going to ask *YOU*, for the readership's benefits, the same question that I asked the other gent.

When you said this...



Forrest Griffin said:


> I still believe the aviators could have exercised better judgement.
> 
> *An experienced veteran aviator would not have done this.*


...The word 'experienced' is important. One cannot speak from 'experience' unless one has: Either the experience of the task in question. Or very similar experience in *RELATED* tasks.

A bus driver have no standing on criticizing the 747 driver. A crop duster pilot is a little closer. An F-15 pilot closer still. And other than another 747 captain, the best candidate to criticize a 747 pilot would be either an AWACS, air refueler or a Fedex-type pilot. Get the picture?

So if you demand that these helo pilots exercise greater deliberation and that they seemed to be 'inexperienced' in terms of identifying *WHAT* type of humans are on the ground, it is only fair that we lay aside your demands for now and inquire as upon what experience do you have that would make you eminently qualify to make that demand and judgment?

News helo pilots would qualify. They often fly in urban environment fraught with physical dangers to their aircrafts and their human charges. Bad weather make their tasks doubly difficult and dangerous. They have to be aware of these dangers and still must make many ground identifications, humans or else, to carry their cameras to newsworthy events. Is this your qualification?

Rescue pilots, fixed or rotary wings, would qualify. They often fly in urban areas after some kind of disasters that require airlift capability. They also fly in mountainous terrain or over the ocean's vastness. Identification under these environment are extremely difficult, even when they are only a few hundreds ft altitude. Why do you think neon glowing orange is the preferred color for these pilots? Is this your qualification?

You opened this 'experience' can of worms and now it is served upon *YOUR* plate. _Bon apetit._


----------



## Forrest Griffin

gambit said:


> Am going to ask *YOU*, for the readership's benefits, the same question that I asked the other gent.
> 
> When you said this...
> 
> 
> ...The word 'experienced' is important. One cannot speak from 'experience' unless one has: Either the experience of the task in question. Or very similar experience in *RELATED* tasks.
> 
> A bus driver have no standing on criticizing the 747 driver. A crop duster pilot is a little closer. An F-15 pilot closer still. And other than another 747 captain, the best candidate to criticize a 747 pilot would be either an AWACS, air refueler or a Fedex-type pilot. Get the picture?
> 
> So if you demand that these helo pilots exercise greater deliberation and that they seemed to be 'inexperienced' in terms of identifying *WHAT* type of humans are on the ground, it is only fair that we lay aside your demands for now and inquire as upon what experience do you have that would make you eminently qualify to make that demand and judgment?
> 
> News helo pilots would qualify. They often fly in urban environment fraught with physical dangers to their aircrafts and their human charges. Bad weather make their tasks doubly difficult and dangerous. They have to be aware of these dangers and still must make many ground identifications, humans or else, to carry their cameras to newsworthy events. Is this your qualification?
> 
> Rescue pilots, fixed or rotary wings, would qualify. They often fly in urban areas after some kind of disasters that require airlift capability. They also fly in mountainous terrain or over the ocean's vastness. Identification under these environment are extremely difficult, even when they are only a few hundreds ft altitude. Why do you think neon glowing orange is the preferred color for these pilots? Is this your qualification?
> 
> You opened this 'experience' can of worms and now it is served upon *YOUR* plate. _Bon apetit._



*A ground soldier has no standing on analyzing a 747 pilot.* A bus driver has no standing on criticizing the 747 driver. A crop duster pilot is a little closer. An F-15 pilot closer still. And other than another 747 captain, the best candidate to criticize a 747 pilot would be either an AWACS, air refueler or a Fedex-type pilot. Get the picture?

Do *you* have experience to analyze the actions of the aviator? According to your argument *you *listed above, the only person in a position to analyze/judge the aviator's actions are those with constant flight experience. 

You constricted this 'experience' can of worms and now it is served upon *YOUR* plate. _Bon apetit._


----------



## gambit

Forrest Griffin said:


> You constricted this 'experience' can of worms and now it is served upon *YOUR* plate. _Bon apetit._


I have, as served 10yrs in the USAF and part of an EC-130 crew, sufficiently related experience to say that I am more qualified than you are and ever will be. It was *YOU* who asserted that based upon 'experience' that those helos pilots were in error. So try not to do anymore tap-dancing and explain to the readers as to how you can make that judgment. If neither a ground soldier nor I can criticize those helo pilots, then who are you to make those criticisms? This is not about the morality of the situation but about the *MECHANICS* of identification. So get to it, tell us what are your qualifications to say that the helo pilots were in the wrong?


----------



## booo

I have few things to say, in my opinion that could've saved few lives. (lets not judge if they were innocent or not) and I am not really sure about the rules of engagement of American military.

Americans always say that they use precision while making a kill, but I could see here that it was just brute force.

1. I can figure out from from the video that one guy was carrying an rpg.
2. may be one guy had an AK.
3. one guy was hiding behind the wall. probably reloading his gun/rpg but cant really say.
4. They did not retaliate or fire any weapon during the entire video.

now what could've been done in a different way.
1. the apache crew could've fired warning shots instead of killing them instantly.
2. They could've directed the ground crew properly to make positive identification before killing anyone.
3. they should've fired some warning shots at the van that came to rescue the injured guy instead of toasting it.
4. by the conversation during the operation, I felt that the apache crew were eager to user their weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

booo said:


> I have few things to say, in my opinion that could've saved few lives. (lets not judge if they were innocent or not) and I *am not really sure about the rules of engagement of American military.*


Every military has rules of engagement. The insurgents have the most liberal.



booo said:


> Americans always say that they use precision while making a kill, but I could see here that it was just brute force.


Every killing is brute force. What you mean as 'precision' is actually discrimination between what is wanted and unwanted and direct the firepower on what is wanted. In this incident, what we wanted and believed we found them, were insurgents. We have no controls if Reuters journalists were among them. 



booo said:


> 1. I can figure out from from the video that one guy was carrying an rpg.
> 2. may be one guy had an AK.
> 3. one guy was hiding behind the wall. probably reloading his gun/rpg but cant really say.
> *4. They did not retaliate or fire any weapon during the entire video.*


Ground troops under fire usually *FIRST* seek cover, unlike what the movies often portrayed. But even after they have cover, they must find the direction of whoever attacked them before they can respond.



booo said:


> now what could've been done in a different way.
> 1. the apache crew could've fired warning shots instead of killing them instantly.
> 2. They could've directed the ground crew properly to make positive identification before killing anyone.
> 3. they should've fired some warning shots at the van that came to rescue the injured guy instead of toasting it.


In a combat zone, warning shots are absurd. The goal is to kill the enemy. To direct friendly ground forces to make positive IDs is an unrealistic demand. As of now I can make the same demand for any military.



booo said:


> 4. by the conversation during the operation, I felt that the apache crew were eager to user their weapons.


Why should they not?


----------



## Forrest Griffin

gambit said:


> I have, as served 10yrs in the USAF and part of an MC-130 crew, sufficiently related experience to say that I am more qualified than you are and ever will be. It is *YOU* who asserted that based upon 'experience' that those helos pilots were in error. So try not to do anymore tap-dancing and explain to the readers as to how you can make that judgment. If neither a ground soldier nor I can criticize those helo pilots, then who are you to make those criticisms? This is not about the morality of the situation but about the *MECHANICS* of identification. So get to it, tell us what are your qualifications to say that the helo pilots were in the wrong?



Well since you failed to qualify to be apart of the MC-130 flight crew, explain how does being apart of the ground maintenance crew make you an "expert" on these matters?


----------



## WAQAS119

shame on USA


----------



## gambit

Forrest Griffin said:


> Well *since you failed to qualify* to be apart of the MC-130 flight crew, explain how does being apart of the ground maintenance crew make you an "expert" on these matters?


Did I say that? Try to read it again. Still...As someone who have to post-Saddam Kuwait and moved among much of the rubble that was part of Kuwait City, I can see how difficult it would have been for airborne humans to have difficulty making positive IDs between terrorists and journalists, especially when they can dress and move alike. The readers can see by now your evasion. Until you can present the readers with some of *YOUR* military experience and explain how that experience related to the problems in this incident, you are now dismissed as irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------




WAQAS119 said:


> shame on USA


Like your opinion mattered...


----------



## forcetrip

gambit said:


> Did I say that? Try to read it again. Still...As someone who have to post-Saddam Kuwait and moved among much of the rubble that was part of Kuwait City, I can see how difficult it would have been for airborne humans to have difficulty making positive IDs between terrorists and journalists, especially when they can dress and move alike. The readers can see by now your evasion. Until you can present the readers with some of *YOUR* military experience and explain how that experience related to the problems in this incident, you are now dismissed as irrelevant.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------
> 
> 
> Like your opinion mattered...



I dont see how you are deciding to have more knowledge of defending the airmen when we just saw the same video feed. The pilots gave information that does not match up with the video in many instances. You are also assuming that they were not getting the same gun feed that we just saw. If you think you were seeing AK47's in that feed and we wernt then there is no argument that can convince you of your blind convictions.They acted irrationally and from what i gather both the pilots and attack controller jumped the gun, not to mention the overkill that ensued after. 

http://www.dodccrp.org/events/10th_ICCRTS/CD/papers/149.pdf


----------



## Forrest Griffin

gambit said:


> Did I say that? Try to read it again. Still...As someone who have to post-Saddam Kuwait and moved among much of the rubble that was part of Kuwait City, I can see how difficult it would have been for airborne humans to have difficulty making positive IDs between terrorists and journalists, especially when they can dress and move alike. The readers can see by now your evasion. Until you can present the readers with some of *YOUR* military experience and explain how that experience related to the problems in this incident, you are now dismissed as irrelevant.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------
> 
> 
> Like your opinion mattered...



Stop trying to act like a Marine. 

I have read your previous posts, you were an enlisted member and not an officer so you were *NOT apart of the flight crew. Most likely you joined USAF right out of high school and never went to college (which is apparent when reading your posts).

You were a USAF personnel on the ground and NOT a combat soldier. You most likely never seen nor engaged in combat. 

So you answer is:



gambit said:



Still...As someone who have to post-Saddam Kuwait and moved among much of the rubble that was part of Kuwait City, I can see how difficult it would have been for airborne humans to have difficulty making positive IDs between terrorists and journalists, especially when they can dress and move alike.

Click to expand...


This is the most absurd justification for your analysis of the Apache pilot's actions. 

You Ground Pounder are now dismissed as irrelevant. *


----------



## Frankenstein

FreekiN said:


> Why aren't any of the big US news sites reporting the Wikileaks release?
> 
> CNN: http://i.imgur.com/LQqdI.png
> Fox News: http://i.imgur.com/f7UQL.png
> MSNBC: http://i.imgur.com/H6sqz.png
> New York Times: http://i.imgur.com/SL3rX.png
> 
> I guess Tiger Woods and the iPad is more important.


, why wud they


----------



## Thomas

Frankenstein said:


> , why wud they



They all have reported on it.


----------



## gambit

Forrest Griffin said:


> Stop trying to act like a Marine.


Nope...Just trying to act sensibly.



Forrest Griffin said:


> I have read your previous posts, you were an enlisted member and not an officer so you were *NOT apart of the flight crew. Most likely you joined USAF right out of high school and never went to college (which is apparent when reading your posts).
> 
> You were a USAF personnel on the ground and NOT a combat soldier. You most likely never seen nor engaged in combat. *


*


Loadmasters are enlisted. Gunners are enlisted. Linguists (SIGINT) are enlisted. There are no shortage of publicly available information as to what enlisted career fields where the person is part of a flight crew.



Forrest Griffin said:



So you answer is:



This is the most absurd justification for your analysis of the Apache pilot's actions. 

You Ground Pounder are now dismissed as irrelevant. 

Click to expand...

Dismissed by someone who are too incompetent to field a credible answer? Like your opinion mattered.*


----------



## gambit

forcetrip said:


> I dont see how you are deciding to have more knowledge of defending the airmen when we just saw the same video feed. The pilots gave information that does not match up with the video in many instances. You are also assuming that they were not getting the same gun feed that we just saw. If you think you were seeing AK47's in that feed and we wernt then there is no argument that can convince you of your blind convictions.They acted irrationally and from what i gather both the pilots and attack controller jumped the gun, not to mention the overkill that ensued after.
> 
> http://www.dodccrp.org/events/10th_ICCRTS/CD/papers/149.pdf


Are you the least curious as to why none of your Pakistani military members are in here? They know experience matter and the lack thereof make any judgment weak on its standing.


----------



## Canaan

The guy is holding a camera stand and not an RPG.
No AKs can be identified, and certainly not an RPG round!
The guy crouching behind the corner is one of the camera men taking pictures from behind cover and not an insurgent, you can clearly see him afterwards going back and checking the pictures he just shot.
These people walking around certainly look relaxed and in no way in any kind of combat.
Shooting people evacuating the wounded, whether or not they are insurgents is disgusting. Why is it that an Iraqi sniper during combat with US troops, seizes fire and allows the US troops to evacuate their dead and wounded before continuing combat and US troops will not?
Why do US soldiers insist on killing wounded people who are lying helplessly on the ground. In my book, this is cold blooded execution.
Why the stupid and cold remarks and joking from the US soldiers? are they shooting people who, enemies or not, have families and loved ones or are they shooting animals?
Some say this is war, sure, but at least stop the hypocrisy about democracy, freedom and human rights, and admit that you are no way better than the people you are fighting.


----------



## sherdil76

Bast**** Amercian!


----------



## Forrest Griffin

gambit said:


> Nope...Just trying to act sensibly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loadmasters are enlisted. Gunners are enlisted. Linguists (SIGINT) are enlisted. There are no shortage of publicly available information as to what enlisted career fields where the person is part of a flight crew.
> 
> 
> Dismissed by someone who are too incompetent to field a credible answer? Like your opinion mattered.



Ground Pounder, you have repeatedly failed to substantiate your analysis of the Apache Pilot's actions by means other than what you have seen on the gound. Behavior like a Grunt or other military personnel with direct combat experience by a USAF enlistee on the internet is piteous. I know your type of people and I already have you figured out.


----------



## Thomas

Canaan said:


> *The guy is holding a camera stand and not an RPG.*
> No AKs can be identified, and *certainly not an RPG round!*
> The guy crouching behind the corner is one of the camera men taking pictures from behind cover and not an insurgent, you can clearly see him afterwards going back and checking the pictures he just shot.
> These people walking around certainly look relaxed and in no way in any kind of combat.
> Shooting people evacuating the wounded, whether or not they are insurgents is disgusting. Why is it that an Iraqi sniper during combat with US troops, seizes fire and allows the US troops to evacuate their dead and wounded before continuing combat and US troops will not?
> Why do US soldiers insist on killing wounded people who are lying helplessly on the ground. In my book, this is cold blooded execution.
> Why the stupid and cold remarks and joking from the US soldiers? are they shooting people who, enemies or not, have families and loved ones or are they shooting animals?
> Some say this is war, sure, but at least stop the hypocrisy about democracy, freedom and human rights, and admit that you are no way better than the people you are fighting.



So says you! As I stated before I am very familiar with the RPG-7 and have trained with it. The man does appear to hold one. couple that with what the soldier says on the ground. Who is eye balling the RPG round up close. who by the way would also be familiar with what one would look like. And I believe you have enough evidence that the journalists embedded with insurgents. To be fair though the corner guy does appear to have a camera not an RPG. We however have the benefit of being able to rewind and play back over and over to identify things the pilots did not.

Now admit it 99&#37; of you people railing against the pilots. Are anti U.S. to begin with. Or maybe anti war? You have no idea what normal operating procedures in war zones are like. I can bet you the journalists knew yet still chose to put themselves in harms way. All for the sake of getting a story that would make them stand out from the rest of their journalistic competition.

I recently watched a video of a film crew embedding themselves with the Taliban. I suppose if they had ended up getting killed you would hold the same argument. They where just hanging out with civilians and NATO bombed them for no reason. The murderous bastards!!


----------



## Thomas

Forrest Griffin said:


> Ground Pounder, you have repeatedly failed to substantiate your analysis of the Apache Pilot's actions by means other than what you have seen on the gound. Behavior like a Grunt or other military personal with direct combat experience by a USAF enlistee on the internet is piteous. I know your type of people and I already have you figured out.



No need to personally attack him Forrest. Gambit served his country honorably and does have a great deal of knowledge concerning military operating procedures. And just becuase he may not have been a pilot does not mean he lacks knowledge on rules of engagement in a combat zone.


----------



## FreekiN

*WELL, seems as though the Americans were right:*



*BUT*

I still don't see why they had to go and kill the cleanup crew along with those kids, or run over the body and laugh about it.... :/


----------



## gambit

Forrest Griffin said:


> Ground Pounder, you have repeatedly failed to substantiate your analysis of the Apache Pilot's actions by means other than what you have seen on the gound. Behavior like a Grunt or other military personnel with direct combat experience by a USAF enlistee on the internet is piteous. I know your type of people and I already have you figured out.


Your performance in this discussion is like that of a know-it-all teenager who got caught with his intellectual pants down his ankles. You made this statement...



Forrest Griffin said:


> I still believe the aviators could have exercised better judgement.
> 
> *An experienced veteran aviator would not have done this.*


Therefore you are implying that you speak from experience. It does not matter if I or anyone else here have military experience or not. What matter is that *YOU* present relevant experience to support your charge. I could also say that an experience aviator would have done exactly the same and there is nothing you can do about it, youngster.

Experience and knowledge automatically confer authority to speak about a subject. The greater of both the greater the authority. So if you disqualified me and therefore practically *EVERYONE* else in this forum since no one else claimed to be a helo pilot let alone a combat experienced one, then who/what qualified you to make the above charge?

You are dismissed...Again...And the longer you continued to show yourself in here, the greater the ignorant fool you will appear to everyone...


----------



## gambit

Thomas said:


> *No need to personally attack him Forrest.* Gambit served his country honorably and does have a great deal of knowledge concerning military operating procedures. And just becuase he may not have been a pilot does not mean he lacks knowledge on rules of engagement in a combat zone.


Let him. Say nothing about conduct to his kind. For every one of him there are a silent thousand who are matured enough to see the fool he is.


----------



## gambit

FreekiN said:


> *WELL, seems as though the Americans were right:*
> 
> 
> 
> *BUT*
> 
> I still don't see why they had to go and kill the cleanup crew along with those kids, or run over the body and laugh about it.... :/


Why not? The only 'rescuers' who are immune from attacks in a combat zone are *IDENTIFIABLE* medics. Any attacks on any medical personnel (or vehicle) who *CLEARLY* distinguished himself with the Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol are prosecutable offense. Any use of any vehicle that is marked with the Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol for any purposes *OTHER THAN* medical is a prosecutable offense. Do you see any Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol in the area or on those 'rescuers'?


----------



## Jigs

I would say that the pilots were extremely disrespectful and highly unprofessional. That being sad there really can't be an argument made to say they shouldn't have fired at the van. It was picking up "insurgents" however the part were the guy goes "oh well" after hearing he had wounded a girl there is zero justification for. The guy is a scumbag no doubt. The reporter knew the risks of hanging out with armed guys though.

Also when the hellfire missile was fired there was a person walking across the building. He needed to be confirmed before the missile was fired. The guy had a happy trigger finger.


----------



## FreekiN

The only reason why this video became viral was because of the high-profile deaths caught on camera. They weren't some average Iraq civilians who were caught on camera like these guys:


----------



## gambit

Jigs said:


> I would say that the pilots were extremely disrespectful and highly unprofessional. That being sad there really can't be an argument made to say they shouldn't have fired at the van. It was picking up "insurgents" however the part were the guy goes "oh well" after hearing he had wounded a girl there is zero justification for. The guy is a scumbag no doubt. The reporter knew the risks of hanging out with armed guys though.
> 
> Also when the hellfire missile was fired there was a person walking across the building. He needed to be confirmed before the missile was fired. The guy had a happy trigger finger.


Read previous comments about everything you said.


----------



## Thomas

FreekiN said:


> *WELL, seems as though the Americans were right:*
> 
> 
> 
> *BUT*
> 
> I still don't see why they had to go and kill the cleanup crew along with those kids, or run over the body and laugh about it.... :/



It was common practice in Iraq for insurgents to be dropped off and picked up by other insurgents in vehicles. When this happens the vehicle is considered an instrument of war. and the people in them as combatants. As was pointed out before the van was the same one that was parked about a block away at the mosque. they knew and most likely watched the attack happen. And then rushed to the scene with children.

As far as the cavalier attitude it is most likely the result of extended combat duty. Where you become desensitized to a certain extent.

If they had known there were children present. Or if the press had properly identified themselves by wearing the proper clothing. I am sure the pilots would have held their fire.


----------



## Ingis

I just have few things to say about this video ---

1) What were these two civilian journalists doing in a war zone with armed insurgents?

2) Why will these journalists walk with insurgents especially when a US Apache helicopter was hovering on top?

3) Why were the people in the medevac van carrying children along with themselves? I mean, who brings children to a war zone?

Some of the blame needs to be directed at the US for its "rules of engagement". But, at the same time, most of the blame needs to be directed at those late journalists too for their irresponsible behavior.

At the end of the day, the Apache helicopter was justified to fire at those armed insurgents.


----------



## FreekiN

gambit said:


> Why not? The only 'rescuers' who are immune from attacks in a combat zone are *IDENTIFIABLE* medics. Any attacks on any medical personnel (or vehicle) who *CLEARLY* distinguished himself with the Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol are prosecutable offense. Any use of any vehicle that is marked with the Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol for any purposes *OTHER THAN* medical is a prosecutable offense. Do you see any Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol in the area or on those 'rescuers'?



How could they know it is a prosecutable offense? What if someone got shot in the street across your house and you were pretty sure the attackers left, you would go and help right? You would get him out of the street and take him to your house or a hospital or help his wounds yourself right?

God knows if they could even read English let alone know what the Red Crescent sign means.


----------



## gambit

Thomas said:


> *It was common practice in Iraq for insurgents to be dropped off and picked up by other insurgents in vehicles.* When this happens the vehicle is considered an instrument of war. and the people in them as combatants. As was pointed out before the van was the same one that was parked about a block away at the mosque. they knew and most likely watched the attack happen. And then rushed to the scene with children.
> 
> As far as the cavalier attitude it is most likely the result of extended combat duty. Where you become desensitized to a certain extent.
> 
> If they had known there were children present. Or if the press had properly identified themselves by wearing the proper clothing. I am sure the pilots would have held their fire.


It is also common in Iraq and Afghanistan for a man to pick up a rifle, shoot off a few rounds as an 'insurgent', toss the rifle away and become a 'civilian'. If he was killed by return fire, he was counted as a 'civilian', his death became a 'murder', he became a 'martyr' and the entire event became fodder for anti-Americanism as seen here.


----------



## Jigs

gambit said:


> Read previous comments about everything you said.



My comments regarding what exactly ?


----------



## gambit

FreekiN said:


> How could they know it is a prosecutable offense?


With the same kind of intelligence that tell them to send suicide bombers to a marketplace instead of to a troop garrison.

---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------




Jigs said:


> My comments regarding what exactly ?


Everything.


----------



## Forrest Griffin

gambit said:


> Your performance in this discussion is like that of a know-it-all teenager who got caught with his intellectual pants down his ankles. You made this statement...
> 
> 
> Therefore you are implying that you speak from experience. It does not matter if I or anyone else here have military experience or not. What matter is that *YOU* present relevant experience to support your charge. I could also say that an experience aviator would have done exactly the same and there is nothing you can do about it, youngster.
> 
> Experience and knowledge automatically confer authority to speak about a subject. The greater of both the greater the authority. So if you disqualified me and therefore practically *EVERYONE* else in this forum since no one else claimed to be a helo pilot let alone a combat experienced one, then who/what qualified you to make the above charge?
> 
> You are dismissed...Again...And the longer you continued to show yourself in here, the greater the ignorant fool you will appear to everyone...



You make absurdly incoherent arguments which is expected from a high school graduate.

You rejected my statement, and have not proven otherwise except for this vague statement which I have posted before:



gambit said:


> Still...As someone who have to post-Saddam Kuwait and moved among much of the rubble that was part of Kuwait City, I can see how difficult it would have been for airborne humans to have difficulty making positive IDs between terrorists and journalists, especially when they can dress and move alike.



I wonder why throughout this entire thread you would only post a generally vague statement of how revelant your analysis is in this situation. 

Instead you beat around the bush and go on rambling about how much "experience" you have being a 10 year USAF Ground Pounder. 

I make my point clear?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jigs

gambit said:


> With the same kind of intelligence that tell them to send suicide bombers to a marketplace instead of to a troop garrison.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------
> 
> 
> Everything.



Are you saying i am contradicting myself ? You don't find it morally wrong if someone after hurting a little girl goes "oh well" is that how it works ?


----------



## Forrest Griffin

gambit said:


> *It is also common in Iraq and Afghanistan for a man to pick up a rifle, shoot off a few rounds as an 'insurgent', toss the rifle away and become a 'civilian'. If he was killed by return fire, he was counted as a 'civilian'*, his death became a 'murder', he became a 'martyr' and the entire event became fodder for anti-Americanism as seen here.



You post contradictory statements. Maybe you should use another source besides Wikipedia.

Compare your statement above to your statement in your previous post:



gambit said:


> Soldiers do not like to fight against an uncertain combatant and this is why the Geneva Conventions stresses on having clear distinctions between combatants and noncombatants. *A 'civilian' can be a legal combatant and if he made it clear that he is a combatant, he is accorded full Geneva Conventions protection. A 'civilian' who picks up a rifle and shoot then tosses it away to claim 'civilian' immunity is an illegal combatant and any soldier who kill him will not be prosecuted.* Like it or not, that is the reality of war as much as we can codify and regulate the conduct of war. In a combat zone where combat have been authorized, no soldier is under the burden of proving to himself and to any authority that he is facing a combatant holding a genuine weapon instead of a farm implement that happen to look like a weapon from a certain angle under certain lighting condition.



Make up your mind, is he going to be considered a civilian or an illegal combatant?


----------



## gambit

Jigs said:


> Are you saying i am contradicting myself ?


No...Am saying that just about everything you brought up have been addressed in previous pages. Please take some time and read them. If you have any questions, post them after you cite/quote the comment you want to challenge or seek further clarifications. Refrain from making insults, either against the individual you wish to converse with or against the unknown characters in this video. Refrain from making insults against the US. These are the marks of a matured participant in an anonymous and publicly accessible forum. But if you receive unwarranted insults, feel free to response in kind with all you got.



Jigs said:


> You don't find it morally wrong if someone after hurting a little girl goes "oh well" is that how it works ?


The comment by the pilot may sound callous and even repugnant, but hardly morally offensive in anyway. He was only expressing his frustration at the fact that he is fighting against an enemy that, to his perception, sees nothing wrong with bringing children into a combat zone in anticipating their deaths to use as moral hammers over America's head.

Before we landed in Kuwait City, we were briefed on the possibility of Iraqi special operations units that remained behind to conduct guerrilla warfare against Allied forces in Kuwait and that to expect unwilling civilians as part of their tactics. That never happened but the point were never off the number one on the list of dangers we may faced. Saddam Hussein himself never shied away from using unwilling civilians as 'human shields'.


----------



## gambit

Forrest Griffin said:


> You post contradictory statements. Maybe you should use another source besides Wikipedia.
> 
> Compare your statement above to your statement in your previous post:
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind, is he going to be considered a civilian or an illegal combatant?


Sonny...You have neither the education nor the intellect to debate on the Geneva Conventions, the military and warfare in general. Dismissed.


----------



## Forrest Griffin

gambit said:


> Sonny...You have neither the education nor the intellect to debate on the Geneva Conventions, the military and warfare in general. Dismissed.



I'm sure your GED is going to take you far in life.


----------



## Canaan

why then the cover up from the army? if in fact they didn't do anything wrong they would never have tried to cover up the mess. This alone clearly indicates that they did something they shouldn't have done.


----------



## Thomas

Canaan said:


> why then the cover up from the army? if in fact they didn't do anything wrong they would never have tried to cover up the mess. This alone clearly indicates that they did something they shouldn't have done.



no cover up there was an investigation after it happened.


----------



## Jigs

gambit said:


> No...Am saying that just about everything you brought up have been addressed in previous pages. Please take some time and read them. If you have any questions, post them after you cite/quote the comment you want to challenge or seek further clarifications. Refrain from making insults, either against the individual you wish to converse with or against the unknown characters in this video. Refrain from making insults against the US. These are the marks of a matured participant in an anonymous and publicly accessible forum. But if you receive unwarranted insults, feel free to response in kind with all you got.
> 
> 
> The comment by the pilot may sound callous and even repugnant, but hardly morally offensive in anyway. He was only expressing his frustration at the fact that he is fighting against an enemy that, to his perception, sees nothing wrong with bringing children into a combat zone in anticipating their deaths to use as moral hammers over America's head.
> 
> Before we landed in Kuwait City, we were briefed on the possibility of Iraqi special operations units that remained behind to conduct guerrilla warfare against Allied forces in Kuwait and that to expect unwilling civilians as part of their tactics. That never happened but the point were never off the number one on the list of dangers we may faced. Saddam Hussein himself never shied away from using unwilling civilians as 'human shields'.



My opinions were directly of the video and i shared them. So i do not have to refer to any other post that addressed my thoughts because i don't plan on changing them. Running over dead bodies(then laughing and zooming in on them) and quickly writing off hurt girls isn't something that is acceptable nor professional imo. Just because someone brings children doesn't mean you get to kill them just so you can "get" the militants. Keep defending their actions though if you think they were ok.


----------



## afriend

Freekin..bast**ds. There is no difference between these freekin n insenstive americans and the al-quaida..


----------



## afriend

Thomas said:


> As far as the cavalier attitude it is most likely the result of extended combat duty. Where you become desensitized to a certain extent.
> 
> If they had known there were children present. Or if the press had properly identified themselves by wearing the proper clothing. I am sure the pilots would have held their fire.



Yeah.. people should be running around naked so that americans can enjoy..!!!

I think sane americans should take up this case and bring those illiterate criminals to the book. Really frustrating man.. even a neutral guy like me gets pissed of with this.. i cant blame the people who takes up arms against these bstrds to avenge the killings..!!!

And the sad part of this is that they are creating a generation of people who are going to take up arms aganist america.. and even after 50 years they will be asking the same question.. why does people hates america..???? Unless and until the americans bring these pepole to the law till then more and more people will be joining the hatemaerica bandwagon..!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FreekiN

afriend said:


> Freekin..bast**ds. There is no difference between these freekin n insenstive americans and the al-quaida..



what the heck did i do?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Canaan

Thomas said:


> no cover up there was an investigation after it happened.



yes and their "investigation" only supported their claim that they were killing insurgents, up until the leaking of this video. Had they done a proper objective investigation in the first place and were open about it, things would have been different. Now they even have the nerve to question its authenticity. 
At least the evidence is so clear that they are pressured to conduct a new investigation.
I will look forward to the conclusion then.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## afriend

FreekiN said:


> what the heck did i do?



oh.. iw as talkin.. abt that amrikn fools.. who killd those innocnet pople..


----------



## booo

Leaked U.S. video shows deaths of Reuters' Iraqi staffers | Top News | Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Classified U.S. military video showing a 2007 attack by Apache helicopters that killed a dozen people in Baghdad, including two Reuters news staff, was released on Monday by a group that promotes leaking to fight government and corporate corruption.

The group, WikiLeaks, told a news conference in Washington that it acquired encrypted video of the July 12, 2007, attack from military whistleblowers and had been able to view and investigate it after breaking the encryption code.

A U.S. defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the video and audio were authentic.

Major Shawn Turner, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said an investigation of the incident shortly after it occurred found that U.S. forces were not aware of the presence of the news staffers and thought they were engaging armed insurgents.

"We regret the loss of innocent life, but this incident was promptly investigated and *there was never any attempt to cover up any aspect of this engagement*," Turner said.

The helicopter gunsight video, with an audio track of conversation between the fliers, made public for the first time a stark view of one bloody incident in the seven-year war in Iraq.

It showed an aerial view of a group of men moving about a square in a Baghdad neighbourhood. The fliers identified some of the men as armed.

WikiLeaks said the men in the square included Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, who were killed in the incident.

"The gathering at the corner that is fired up on has about nine people in it," Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks spokesman, told reporters at the National Press Club.

The gunsight tracks two of the men, identified by WikiLeaks as the Reuters news staff, as the fliers identify their cameras as weapons. Military spokesman Turner said that during the engagement, the helicopter mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

The helicopter opened fire on the small group, killing several people and wounding others. Minutes later, when a van approached and began trying to assist the wounded, the fliers became concerned the vehicle was occupied by militants trying to collect weapons and help wounded comrades escape.

The Apache helicopters requested permission to attack the van and waited impatiently.

"Come on, let us shoot," said one voice.

The fliers were granted permission to engage the van and opened fire, apparently killing several people in and around the vehicle.

Two children wounded in the van were evacuated by U.S. ground forces arriving at the scene as the Apache helicopters continued to circle overhead.

"Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle," one of the U.S. fliers said.

David Schlesinger, Reuters' editor-in-chief, said the video released by WikiLeaks showed the deaths of Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh were "tragic and emblematic of the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones."

"The video released today via WikiLeaks is graphic evidence of the dangers involved in war journalism and the tragedies that can result," he said.

Reuters has pressed the U.S. military to conduct a full and objective investigation into the killing of the two staff.

Video of the incident from two U.S. Apache helicopters and photographs taken of the scene were shown to Reuters editors in an off-the-record briefing in Baghdad on July 25, 2007.

U.S. military officers who presented the materials said Reuters had to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get copies. This request was made the same day.

*Turner said the military had released documents to Reuters last year in response to the FOIA request showing the presence of weapons on the scene, including AK-47 rifles and an RPG 7 grenade launcher.*

Assange said he disagreed with a U.S. military assessment that the attack was justified.

"I believe that if those killings were lawful under the rules of engagement, *then the rules of engagement are wrong*, deeply wrong," he said. The fliers in the video act *"like they are playing a computer game and their desire is they want to get high scores"* by killing opponents, he said.

WikiLeaks posted the video at Collateral Murder.

(Reporting by David Alexander and Phillip Stewart, Editing by Frances Kerry)


----------



## Forrest Griffin

*U.S. Iraq Command: No Current Plans to Reopen Attack Probe*

By Adam Entous
April 7, 2010 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military's Central Command said on Wednesday it has no current plans to reopen an investigation into a 2007 helicopter attack that killed a dozen people in Baghdad, including two Reuters news staff, amid rights groups' appeals after graphic video footage was leaked.

Some international law and human rights experts who have watched the video of the incident say the Apache helicopter crew in the footage may have acted illegally.

Lawyers at Central Command have been reviewing the classified video, made public on Monday by a group that promotes leaking to fight government and corporate corruption, two U.S. military officials said on condition of anonymity.

"We're looking at a reinvestigation because of a question of the rules of engagement. Were all the actions that are depicted on that video in parallel with the rules of engagement in effect at the time?" one of the officials said.

But Rear Admiral Hal Pittman, director of communications at Central Command, which oversees the war in Iraq, said in a statement to Reuters: "Central Command has no current plans to reinvestigate or review this combat action."

Other officials said Central Command was seeking to play down its role in determining whether to reopen the case because the unit involved was no longer based in Iraq, shifting the onus to Army and Pentagon leaders to make the decision.

Detailed rules of engagement are generally kept classified to avoid tipping off adversaries about U.S. tactics on the battlefield, Pentagon officials said.

The stark helicopter gunsight video of the July 12, 2007, attack has been widely viewed around the world on the Internet since its release by the group WikiLeaks. The video includes an audio track of the conversation between the helicopter crew and many who have seen it have been shocked at the images and at some of the fliers' comments.

The two Reuters staff killed in the attack were photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40.

David Schlesinger, Reuters' editor-in-chief, said: "I would welcome a thorough new investigation. Reuters from the start has called for transparency and an objective inquiry so that all can learn lessons from this tragedy."

The U.S. military has said an investigation of the incident shortly after it occurred found that U.S. forces were not aware of the presence of the news staffers and thought they were engaging armed insurgents, mistaking a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

WikiLeaks said it obtained the video from military whistleblowers and posted it at Collateral Murder.

The video shows an aerial view of a group of men moving about a square in a Baghdad neighborhood. The fliers identified some of the men as armed. The gunsight tracks two of the men, identified by WikiLeaks as the Reuters news staff, as the fliers identify their cameras as weapons.

*SHOOTING ON A VAN*

Human rights lawyers and other experts who have viewed the footage say they are concerned about how the helicopter fliers operated, particularly in opening fire on a van that arrived on the scene after the initial attack and whose occupants began trying to help the wounded. 

*Chris Cobb-Smith, a former British army officer who has conducted war zone investigations, said knowing what rules of engagement the pilots were operating under was critical to understanding whether they had acted appropriately.

But he said firing on those who came to help the wounded appeared to be a breach of the laws governing military conduct in war. "That is the element that is blatant. That is against all humanitarian law and the rules of conflict -- most definitely and without a doubt," he told Reuters.*

Bibi van Ginkel, an international lawyer and senior fellow at the Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations, said the video was only a fragment of evidence and more investigation was required. But she added:

"My first guess would be that a war crime was committed. Very simply speaking, if people are helping the wounded, they are non-combatants. If force is used against them, then that is a war crime," she said.

Other lawyers and human rights experts pointed out that it would be very difficult to build a case on the video alone.

Anthony Dworkin, the director of the Crimes of War Project, which studies humanitarian law in conflict, said it did not appear that the pilots had intentionally targeted civilians.

"I would be surprised to see, on the basis of this, any sort of military prosecution," he said. "I think, if anything, it's more likely to raise issues about the rules of engagement and how clear they are."

Amnesty International called on Wednesday for an independent, thorough and impartial investigation into the incident shown in the video.

(Additional reporting by Luke Baker in Brussels, Alastair Macdonald in Jerusalem; Editing by Frances Kerry)

U.S. Iraq Command: No Current Plans to Reopen Attack Probe - ABC News


----------



## Forrest Griffin

*Retired U.S. 4 Star General Jack Keane On The Shooting Of The Van*

Starts at 2:43 on video.

"Based on what I saw, I probably would not have pulled the trigger."


----------



## Thomas

Forrest Griffin said:


> Some international law and human rights experts who have watched the video of the incident say the Apache helicopter crew in the footage may have acted illegally.



Not surprising since most human rights people view war itself to be a human rights violation.

if they had known before hand there were kids in the Van. or that there were reporters mixed with the insurgents. Then they might have a case.


----------



## Thomas

Forrest Griffin said:


> *Retired U.S. 4 Star General Jack Keane On The Shooting Of The Van*
> 
> Starts at 2:43 on video.
> 
> "Based on what I saw, I probably would not have pulled the trigger."
> 
> YouTube - Right and Wrong in War: Video Sparks Debate



I have seen other retired officers say they would have acted no differently "knowing the circumstances leading up to the engagement."

That being said I think this thread is going in circles now. Time to move on ..........


----------



## forcetrip

You are right .. It is time to move on. I know for a fact that not all americans see this case as you do and thats all that matters. You and your opinion will not change what those animals did. When the house comes falling down I just hope that people like you see what they did and defended.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

I have to admit after watching the video I had bad sleeping nights ...
its quite inhumane 



Worse of all Pentagon thinks this was completely fine what the soliders did ...

What sucks the most is just plan barbarism by the soliders who killed 10-20 people just for sake of launching missiles and shooting people and the degrading comments for victims and driving over the bodies of dead people etc 

Its no wonder so many US soliders are coming back with mental psychalogical problems who witness this abuse and who are genuinely good people but there are these idiots as well in US armed froces .. and worse of all they get all the immunity from anything they do

Very scary ...


----------



## ---RequieM

This is disgusting, I spent 22 years as a Royal Marine, and a hazy approximation of what might be a weapon of some description is no reason to fire, furthermore WHY are they firing on UNARMED people collecting wounded/bodies?

I am absolutely appaled, the RoE must've been incredibly relaxed for this to be "OK" to the Americans, if that was a British Apache I'd have been ashamed to have served in a force so unprofessional and gung-ho

Cameras as guns that's almost as poor as ANG A-10 pilots mistaking British IFVs as Iraqi flatbeds and even more stupidly mistaking Orange combat idenfitcation panels as "Orange rockets"...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

---RequieM said:


> This is disgusting, I spent 22 years as a Royal Marine, and a hazy approximation of what might be a weapon of some description is no reason to fire, furthermore WHY are they firing on UNARMED people collecting wounded/bodies?
> 
> I am absolutely appaled, the RoE must've been incredibly relaxed for this to be "OK" to the Americans, if that was a British Apache I'd have been ashamed to have served in a force so unprofessional and gung-ho
> 
> Cameras as guns that's almost as poor as ANG A-10 pilots mistaking British IFVs as Iraqi flatbeds and even more stupidly mistaking Orange combat idenfitcation panels as "Orange rockets"...



There you go at least you know right and wrong its common sense 101, which we don't see in video


----------



## gubbi

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> There you go at least you know right and wrong its common sense 101, which we don't see in video



There's much more to the video than just the images. You all might want to read the account of the soldier who was there on that day, the one seen in the video carrying the small girl.
Read up and decide before jumping to conclusions.

*U.S. Soldier on 2007 Apache Attack: What I Saw*

Ethan McCord had just returned from dropping his children at school earlier this month, when he turned on the TV news to see grainy black-and-white video footage of a soldier running from a bombed-out van with a child in his arms. It was a scene that had played repeatedly in his mind the last three years, and he knew exactly who the soldier was.

In July 2007, McCord, a 33-year-old Army specialist, was engaged in a firefight with insurgents in an Iraqi suburb when his platoon, part of Bravo Company, 2-16 Infantry, got orders to investigate a nearby street. When they arrived, they found a scene of fresh carnage  the scattered remains of a group of men, believed to be armed, who had just been gunned down by Apache attack helicopters. They also found 10-year-old Sajad Mutashar and his five-year-old sister Doaha covered in blood in a van. Their 43-year-old father, Saleh, had been driving them to a class when he spotted one of the wounded men moving in the street and drove over to help him, only to become a victim of the Apache guns.

McCord was captured in a video shot from one helicopter as he ran frantically to a military vehicle with Sajad in his arms seeking medical care. That classified video created its own firestorm when the whistleblower site Wikileaks posted it April 5 on a website titled Collateral Murder and asserted that the attack was unprovoked. More than a dozen people were killed in three attacks captured in the video, including two Reuters journalists, one carrying a camera that was apparently mistaken for a weapon.

McCord, who served seven years in the military before leaving in the summer of 2009 due to injuries, recently posted an apologetic letter online with fellow soldier Josh Steiber supporting the release of the video and asking the familys forgiveness. McCord is the father of three children.

Wireds Kim Zetter reached McCord at his home in Kansas. This is his account of what he saw.

Wired.com: At the time you arrived on the scene, you didnt know what had happened, is that right?

Ethan McCord: Right. We were engaged in our own conflict roughly about three or four blocks away. We heard the gunships open up. [Then] we were just told  to move to this [other] location. It was pretty much a shock when we got there to see what had happened, the carnage and everything else.

Wired.com: But you had been in combat before. It shouldnt have surprised you what you saw.

McCord: I have never seen anybody being shot by a 30-millimeter round before. It didnt seem real, in the sense that it didnt look like human beings. They were destroyed.

Wired.com: Was anyone moving when you got there other than the two children?

McCord: There were approximately two to three other people who were moving who were still somewhat alive, and the medics were attending to them.

Wired.com: The first thing you saw was the little girl in the van. She had a stomach wound?

McCord: She had a stomach wound and she had glass in her eyes and in her hair. She was crying. In fact, thats one of the reasons I went to the van immediately, because I could hear her crying. It wasnt like a cry of pain really. It was more of a child who was frightened out of her mind. And the next thing I saw was the boy. He was kind of sitting on the floorboard of the van, but with his head laying on the bench seat in the front. And then the father, who Im assuming was the father, in the drivers seat slumped over on his side. Just from looking into the van, and the amount of blood that was on the boy and the father, I immediately figured they were dead.

So, the first thing I did was grab the girl. I grabbed the medic and we went into the back. Theres houses behind where the van was. We took her in there and were checking to see if there were any other wounds. You can hear the medic saying on the video, Theres nothing I can do here, she needs to be evacd. He runs the girl to the Bradley. I went back outside to the van, and thats when the boy took, like, a labored, breath. Thats when I started screaming, The boys alive! The boys alive! And I picked him up and started running with him over to the Bradley. He opened his eyes when I was carrying him. I just kept telling him, Dont die; dont die. He looked at me, then his eyes rolled back into this head.

Then I got yelled at by my platoon leader that I needed to stop trying to save these mfn kids and go pull security. I was told to go pull security on a rooftop. When we were on that roof, we were still taking fire. There were some people taking pot shots, sniper shots, at us on the rooftop. We were probably there on the roof for another four to five hours.

Wired.com: How much sniper fire were you getting?

McCord: It was random sporadic spurts. I did see a guy  moving from a rooftop from one position to another with an AK-47, who was firing at us. He was shot and killed.

After the incident, we went back to the FOB [forward operating base] and thats when I was in my room. I had blood all down the front of me from the children. I was trying to wash it off in my room. I was pretty distraught over the whole situation with the children. So I went to a sergeant and asked to see [the mental health person], because I was having a hard time dealing with it. I was called a pussy and that I needed to suck it up and a lot of other horrible things. I was also told that there would be repercussions if I was to go to mental health.

Wired.com: What did you understand that to mean?

McCord: I would be smoked. Smoked is basically like youre doing pushups a lot, youre doing sit-ups  crunches and flutter kicks. Theyre smoking you, theyre making you tired. I was told that I needed to get the sand out of my vagina. So I just sucked it up and tried to move on with everything.

Ive lived with seeing the children that way since the incident happened. Ive had nightmares. I was diagnosed with chronic, severe PTSD. [But] I was actually starting to get kind of better.  I wasnt thinking about it as much. [Then I] took my children to school one day and I came home and sat down on the couch and turned on the TV with my coffee, and on the news Im running across the screen with a child. The flood of emotions came back. I know the scene by heart; its burned into my head. I know the van, I know the faces of everybody that was there that day.

Wired.com: Did you try to get information about the two children after the shooting?

McCord: My platoon sergeant knew that I was having a hard time with it and that same night  he came into the room and he told me, hey, just so you know, both of the children survived, so you can suck it up now. I didnt know if he was telling me that just to get me to shut up and to do my job or if he really found something out. I always questioned it in the back of my mind.

I did see a video on YouTube after the Wikileaks [video] came out, of the children being interviewed.  When I saw their faces, I was relieved, but I was just heartbroken. I have a huge place in my heart for children, having some of my own. Knowing that I was part of the system that took their father away from them and made them lose their house  its heartbreaking. And that in turn is what helped me and Josh write the letter, hoping that it would find its way to them to let them know that were sorry. Were sorry for the system that we were involved in that took their fathers life and injured them. If theres anything I can to do help, I would be more than happy to.

Wired.com: Wikileaks presented the incident as though there was no engagement from insurgents. But you guys did have a firefight a couple of blocks away. Was it reasonable for the Apache soldiers to think that maybe the people they attacked were part of that insurgent firefight?

McCord: I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there. You just dont walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I dont feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary.

Now, as far as rules of engagement, [Iraqis] are not supposed to pick up the wounded. But they could have been easily deterred from doing what they were doing by just firing simply a few warning shots in the direction. Instead, the Apaches decided to completely obliterate everybody in the van. Thats the hard part to swallow.

And where the soldier said [in the video], Well, you shouldnt take your kids to battle. Well in all actuality, we brought the battle to your kids. Theres no front lines here. This is urban combat and were taking the war to children and women and innocents.

There were plenty of times in the past where other insurgents would come by and pick up the bodies, and then wed have no evidence or anything to what happened, so in looking at it from the Apaches point of view, they were thinking that [someone was] picking up the weapons and bodies; when, in hindsight, clearly they were picking up the wounded man. But youre not supposed to do that in Iraq.

Wired.com: Civilians are supposed to know that theyre not supposed to pick up a wounded person crawling in the road?

McCord: Yeah. This is the problem that were speaking out on as far as the rules of engagement. How is this guy supposed to [decide] should I stop and pick them up, or is the military going to shoot me? If you or I saw someone wounded on the ground what is your first inkling? Im going to help that person.

Wired.com: There was another attack depicted in the video that has received little attention, involving a Hellfire and a building that was fired on.

McCord: I wasnt around that building when it happened. I was up on a rooftop at that time. However, I do know some soldiers went in to clear that building afterwards and there were some people with weapons in there, but there was also a family of four that was killed.

I think that a Hellfire missile is a little much to put into a building. Theyre trained as soldiers to go into a building and clear a building. I do know that there was a teenage girl [in there], just because I saw the pictures when I was there, that one of the soldiers took.

Wired.com: Have you heard from any other soldiers since the video came out?

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.

Wired.com: Do you support Wikileaks in releasing this video?

McCord: When it was first released I dont think it was done in the best manner that it could have been. They were stating that these people had no weapons whatsoever, that they were just carrying cameras. In the video, you can clearly see that they did have weapons  to the trained eye. You can make out in the video [someone] carrying an AK-47, swinging it down by his legs.

And as far as the way that the soldiers are speaking in the video, which is pretty callous and joking about whats happened  thats a coping mechanism. Im guilty of it, too, myself. You joke about the situations and whats happened to push away your true feelings of the matter.

Theres no easy way to kill somebody. You dont just take somebodys life and then go on about your business for the rest of the day. That stays with you. And cracking jokes is a way of pushing that stuff down. Thats why so many soldiers come back home and theyre no longer in the situations where they have other things to think about or other people to joke about what happened  and they explode.

I dont say that Wikileaks did a bad thing, because they didnt. I think it is good that theyre putting this stuff out there. I dont think that people really want to see this, though, because this is war. Its very disturbing.


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

*U.S. soldier charged with leaking classified information​*
By the CNN Wire Staff
July 6, 2010 1:19 p.m. EDT



*STORY HIGHLIGHTS*
-Pfc. Bradley Manning detained in Kuwait
-Manning faces several charges of illegally transferring classified information
-He is believed to be the soldier who leaked video of Apache attack
-Attack killed two Reuters journalists, drew global attention

Baghdad, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military has charged a soldier in Iraq who is suspected of leaking a helicopter attack video that shows civilian deaths, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, 22, of Potomac, Maryland, is being detained in Kuwait and faces charges on eight violations of the U.S. Criminal Code for allegedly illegally transferring classified data, according to a charge sheet released by the military.

It accuses Manning of "wrongfully introducing a classified video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12 July 2007, onto his personal computer, a non-secure information system."

The footage shows an Apache helicopter gunship attack that killed a dozen civilians, including two journalists from the Reuters news service. Their deaths gained the incident international notoriety.

Reuters photographer Saeed Cmagh survived an initial strafing by the Apache gunship's 30 mm machine gun, but he apparently died when the gunship opened fire on people attempting to get him off the sidewalk where he lay, according to the video.

The aerial footage was posted in April by the Web site WikiLeaks, which said the video remains classified and "clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers."

WikiLeaks is a site that publishes anonymously submitted documents, video and other sensitive materials.

The military said it detained Manning, a U.S. Army intelligence analyst deployed with the 10th Mountain Division's 2nd Brigade, in June. The website Wired.com identified Manning as the one who had leaked the video of the helicopter assault.

Wired.com reported that Manning confessed to the leak in a series of online chats with a former computer hacker. He allegedly owned up to leaking other items to WikiLeaks, including the classified Army document assessing the threat level of the website, as well as State Department cables, according to the article.

Public airing of the video forced the Pentagon to defend the actions of its troops in a report that concluded the Apache crew had no way of knowing the Reuters journalists were among suspected insurgents on the street.

The military said Tuesday that it will appoint an officer to preside over Manning's Article 32 investigation, which is similar to a civilian grand jury hearing. The military will then decide whether Manning should be court-martialed.


U.S. soldier charged with leaking classified information - CNN.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Bringing forth the bad practices of an armed unit , is a good thing it allows for future improvements 

The solider if any should be promoted for wistleblowing on bad practices ...


----------

