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

karma_

Overheal wrote: »

Cos everyone knows you can win every argument by relating something to the Nazis.

Some of you lads don't win an argument by reasoned debate, you just hang around long enough after everyone else gets fed up and then think you have won some morally righteous victory.

funkyjebus

its a war. someguy pops his head around the corner of the building with a RPG. I would have shot them there and then. kill or be killed. what are these guys doing holding aks and rpg with us chopper gunner not far above. they where looking at it. stupid. although the american attitude towards killing another human as if it was a game is chilling. for more check out the great show generation kill.

karma_

funkyjebus wrote: »

its a war. someguy pops his head around the corner of the building with a RPG. I would have shot them there and then. kill or be killed. what are these guys doing holding aks and rpg with us chopper gunner not far above. they where looking at it. stupid. although the american attitude towards killing another human as if it was a game is chilling. for more check out the great show generation kill.

Typical, pointless to continue even trying in all honesty, the whole thread is like a dog chasing his own tail.

speedboatchase

I dunno what's the problem, the graphics look class

funkyjebus

karma_ wrote: »

Typical, pointless to continue even trying in all honesty, the whole thread is like a dog chasing his own tail.

What do you mean typical?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Terrorist bastards, boycott their produce, kickout their ambassador & his diplomatic staff - oh no, that was the AH knee jerk reaction to a passport scandal... Right well were were we...

This might sound cold hearted, but war is a nasty business and this only reaffirms my belief that civilian media (including embedded journo's) should be kept right out of the conflict until the dirty work is finished.

But since this clip has been released and is in the public domain I sincerely hope a clear and transparent investigation is carried out into the circumstances and those who might be held responsible feel the full weight of the law brough upon their shoulders.

I think its also disgusting that one of the most evil men since WWII, ex-President Bush will never be held accountable on this earth for his crimes.

speedboatchase

Addisyn Screeching Sportswear wrote: »

I think its also disgusting that one of the most evil men since WWII, ex-President Bush Dick Cheney will never be held accountable on this earth for his crimes.

Fixed that for you

karma_

Addisyn Screeching Sportswear wrote: »

Terrorist bastards, boycott their produce, kickout their ambassador & his diplomatic staff - oh no, that was the AH knee jerk reaction to a passport scandal... Right well were were we...

This might sound cold hearted, but war is a nasty business and this only reaffirms my belief that civilian media (including embedded journo's) should be kept right out of the conflict until the dirty work is finished.

But since this clip has been released and is in the public domain I sincerely hope a clear and transparent investigation is carried out into the circumstances and those who might be held responsible feel the full weight of the law brough upon their shoulders.

I think its also disgusting that one of the most evil men since WWII, ex-President Bush will never be held accountable on this earth for his crimes.

I agree with you for the most part. I do think Journalists should be able to travel to war zones, I think they have broken important stories from past conflicts, they should be independant but their welfare should also be respected by all sides. I'm not however keen on teh idea of embedded journalists.

prinz

karma_ wrote: »

...they should be independant but their welfare should also be respected by all sides.

There's a massive difference between respecting their welfare, and guaranteeing it.

Overheal

karma_ wrote: »

Some of you lads don't win an argument by reasoned debate, you just hang around long enough after everyone else gets fed up and then think you have won some morally righteous victory.

Please tell me what hasn't been Reasoned about my responses here?

I have a view that differs from yours. I think I've established it quite rationally. Just because I disagree with you does not make me a quack.

Or if you think I was being Genuine when I said "everyone knows you can win every argument by relating something to the Nazis" please note that was Sarcasm in response to a few arguments flying around that are trying to equate the United States to a race of Blood-Thirsty-Nazis.

the_syco

Addisyn Screeching Sportswear wrote: »

But since this clip has been released and is in the public domain I sincerely hope a clear and transparent investigation is carried out into the circumstances and those who might be held responsible feel the full weight of the law brough upon their shoulders.

Who is responsible? The person who okayed them in their request to go to that zone?

karma_ wrote: »

I do think Journalists should be able to travel to war zones, I think they have broken important stories from past conflicts, they should be independant but their welfare should also be respected by all sides.

Journalists seem to like going to some dangerous spots for a good story. I wonder who okayed for them to go where they wanted to? I wonder did they ask, or tell anyone in the US military where they were going? I wonder did anyone in the US military know that there was reporters there? If they did, they have a lot to answer for. If not, I wonder will change how the reporters go about their businesses? Will they tell the US military that they are in zone, and more importantly, will the US military give a damn?

=-=

IMO, if someone said that they are going to be in X area interviewing my enemy, my advice would be: better hope they don't become a threat to me. If they didn't tell me, I would know they were there, and would see them pick up something.

In a photoshoot, I would see a tool of photography, maybe a tripod, or a camera.

In a war zone, I would see a tool of war, maybe a RPG, or a gun.

karma_

the_syco wrote: »

Who is responsible? The person who okayed them in their request to go to that zone?

Journalists seem to like going to some dangerous spots for a good story. I wonder who okayed for them to go where they wanted to? I wonder did they ask, or tell anyone in the US military where they were going? I wonder did anyone in the US military know that there was reporters there? If they did, they have a lot to answer for. If not, I wonder will change how the reporters go about their businesses? Will they tell the US military that they are in zone, and more importantly, will the US military give a damn?

Syco, the whole point of an independant free press is that they don't and shouldn't need express permission from anyone on where they can find a story or what story they can print.

I'm sure a lot of them don't like it but they know there are important stories that must be reported, and they know the risks. They are extremely brave and deserve respect for disseminating the truth. Many conflicts have been covered and covered well. Just how differently would we look at the Vietnam war or the conflicts in central America, or even the Spanish civil war had there been no war correspondents?

Frankly I find the attitude of not allowing reporters into these zones without express permission worrying and certainly not befitting the actions of a free society.

Overheal

karma_ wrote: »

Syco, the whole point of an independant free press is that they don't and shouldn't need express permission from anyone on where they can find a story or what story they can print.

I'm sure a lot of them don't like it but they know there are important stories that must be reported, and they know the risks. They are extremely brave and deserve respect for disseminating the truth. Many conflicts have been covered and covered well. Just how differently would we look at the Vietnam war or the conflicts in central America, or even the Spanish civil war had there been no war correspondents?

Frankly I find the attitude of not allowing reporters into these zones without express permission worrying and certainly not befitting the actions of a free society.

True. But not so much asking for clearance but phoning the lads at Camp Victory (:rolleyes:) And saying "Yeah lads we got a couple journalists in with one of the crowds Between Wednesday and Friday for an Interview with the Insurgency - So please be on the lookout for us and our Equipment."

Its much the same reason we as a Society of Nations established many, many eclipses ago, that it was a good idea to clearly distinguish a Field Medic from a Soldier on the battlefield. We need to implement a similarly upheld system for Journalists, imo.

arybvtcw0eolkf

the_syco wrote: »

Who is responsible? The person who okayed them in their request to go to that zone?

We'll have to wait until the next episode of JAG for this one.

ArphaRima

There is something far more fundamental than an argument about who had what slung over their shoulders.

My question is this:
What the hell is an Apache Gunship doing on patrol over a populated city!?

It is a helicopter designed for assault on mass formations of soviet tanks. Not policing a city!


Identifying the subtle differences between a gun, a camera, a bag or a tennis racket is not possible from a few miles away from a moving helicopter through an infra red scope.
I have little sympathy for the gunners involved though. Especially when they opened fire on the van. I know I would have been the driver of that van. People crawling and dying I would help.


I for one donated to wikileaks to ensure that content like this keeps making it into the public domain.

Overheal

fluffer wrote: »

There is something far more fundamental than an argument about who had what slung over their shoulders.

My question is this:
What the hell is an Apache Gunship doing on patrol over a populated city!?

It is a helicopter designed for assault on mass formations of soviet tanks. Not policing a city!

Its Iraq, not Galway.

Which configuration of Helicopter exactly do you propose the Military use to patrol a "populated city" populated by armed insurgents, using (aside from this one incident, but at large) RPGs, Ak-47s, and whatever else they can get their hands on? In fact would it really be out of the question to think they might be able to acquire Stinger Missile Systems. Which I understand, are plenty capable of taking down Strike helicopters. We do however have military analysts available on the forum (one in the form of a Veteran Tank Commander) if they would be able to inject some fact to fiction.

Gigiwagga

'Which configuration of Helicopter exactly do you propose the Military use to patrol a "populated city" populated by armed insurgents, using (aside from this one incident, but at large) RPGs, Ak-47s, and whatever else they can get their hands on? '

Yeah right, I mean a desperate invaded population should just lie down and die, not throw anything they've got at the invaders, I know I would. Not that I'd expect the US war machine to invade Ireland anytime soon, but if they did, I know I'd be checking for RPG's on eBay or rocks or anything I could get my hands on.
There seems to be a growing sense that the US seems to have enemies everywhere, insurgents under every bush.

FlutterinBantam

:eek:

Getting a little over agitated are we??

Gigiwagga

Chicken

Manic Moran

There seems to be a growing sense that the US seems to have enemies everywhere, insurgents under every bush.

We like to work on the basis that it's better to have the asset and not need it, than find yourself in need of the asset and not have it. A Gunship is not required to shoot at everything it sees, but nothing beats having one around when you find a requirement for it. The Garda Helicopter can't do anything that the Apache can't, except maybe some casualty evacuation.

Syco, the whole point of an independant free press is that they don't and shouldn't need express permission from anyone on where they can find a story or what story they can print.

This is perfectly true. But that doesn't mean they have to be stupid about it. If you decided one day to go hiking in the Rockies, would you not tell anyone where you were going and when to send out the search parties if you don't come back on time? That doesn't mean to say that you have to have Mountain Rescue walking with you to make sure you don't get into trouble. You can still be on your own. There are a number of reporters who would be alive (or free) right now if they had done so.

NTM

ArphaRima

Its Iraq, not Galway.

Its a city of 7-odd million people. Mostly civilians I think you'd agree.

Which configuration of Helicopter exactly do you propose the Military use to patrol a "populated city" populated by armed insurgents, using (aside from this one incident, but at large) RPGs, Ak-47s, and whatever else they can get their hands on? In fact would it really be out of the question to think they might be able to acquire Stinger Missile Systems. Which I understand, are plenty capable of taking down Strike helicopters. We do however have military analysts available on the forum (one in the form of a Veteran Tank Commander) if they would be able to inject some fact to fiction.

In fact would it really be out of the question

Pretty much.

I wish the Iraqis had hundreds of shoulder launched Anti Aircraft Missiles to be honest. Then the troops on the ground would be forced to engage. They can differentiate between toddlers and terrorists in close quarters far better than an Apache gunner.

RPG's and AK-47s are little threat to an apache as I'm sure you well know. The RPG's wouldnt hit, and the ak47's wouldnt hurt.

The use of a gunship in taking out questionable targets of opportunity most certainly should be reviewed. If there was hostile action or there was imminent hostile action on friendly forces I could condone the use of a powerful weapons platform like that. Otherwise its far too blunt a tool.


I think its fair to say that the gunner did not see the 2 kids in the van. He couldnt have. But thats my point. A trooper or apc gunner at least might have had a chance. Given the time required to arrive on scene, the ground based force could easily have engaged them successfully.

That the gunship was easier for the military to use is not an answer I will accept. The American people should hold their political and military leaders to account for incidents like this. Rules of engagement for Apaches should be modified to be on a lower combat stance over cities. Only for use in an active hostile combat engagement as close air support, under co-ordinated ground guidance.
It struck me as strange that they were reluctant to fire with armored friendlies vehicles nearby, but not to fire into a residential neighbourhood.

Johnny Utah

Disgusting.....

And the US shouldn't even be there in the first place seeing as they're conducting an illegal war!

Overheal

fluffer wrote: »

Its a city of 7-odd million people. Mostly civilians I think you'd agree.

But again, we're talking about Iraq; not Galway. Im not talking about the size of the population but rather the situation as a whole. If Galway citizens started taking a disliking to helicopters and carried RPGs, I wouldnt exactly do the traffic report from a Bell-47.

Gigiwagga

Overheal wrote: »

But again, we're talking about Iraq; not Galway. Im not talking about the size of the population but rather the situation as a whole. If Galway citizens started taking a disliking to helicopters and carried RPGs, I wouldnt exactly do the traffic report from a Bell-47.

Yay we've got a helicopter expert and a tank commander, lucky us.

ArphaRima

But again, we're talking about Iraq; not Galway. Im not talking about the size of the population but rather the situation as a whole. If Galway citizens started taking a disliking to helicopters and carried RPGs, I wouldnt exactly do the traffic report from a Bell-47.

You do know RPG stands for Rocket Propelled GRENADE dont you? Its not a SAM/MANPAD. Notwithstanding the lucky shot on a hovering Blackhawk in Somalia.
A Bell-47 straight from skippy would not be appropriate either. Actually my argument is less about the tool but more the task it has been purposed for.

---

I was mostly talking about the rules of engagement for aerial gunships in a primarily civilian urban environment.
Discuss.

MackDeToaster

I've actually been a great fan of Wikileaks and have donated in the past, but I have to say that after seeing their politicized portrayal of this my respect has lessened and I don't think I'll be donating any more.

The video shows just one tiny part of what was going on at the time, the video from the 2nd Apache would be useful, but imo in the context of what I understand to have being going on, i.e. this being a particularly savage year of fighting, a firefight very close by and these helicopters going around as support, the streets deserted of people, but yet a group of men approaching that combat zone, some apparently almost certainly armed and acting suspiciously, i.e. peering around the corner towards the humvee, the Apaches were justified in attacking.

Some people here seem very naive but that is the very nasty reality of war, it's all about killing the enemy until they give up and that maybe utterly horrific but that's what happens. I'm no supporter of the Iraq war, let alone Bush and Cheney, I despise them and they made a complete balls of it when maybe they could have grasped success from disaster, but from a military viewpoint I can't see much wrong with the first action, horrific though it may be.

The van I'm not so certain about, here I'd really like to see the 2nd choppers video as that's what seems to have been doing the shooting, but the van was not marked as a medical vehicle and the very fact that it arrived in when no-one else was stirring, and when any sane person would have been hiding low or gotten the hell out of there immediately makes me wonder what was going on.

Once again, we're only getting a small part of what pilots could see and what was going on, and it's far from clear as to what was happening. Either they were very brave and incredibly heroic for trying to help, but yet insanely stupid, or they were not quite the innocents they seem, the insurgents were fighting a guerilla warfare after all, the dirtiest of the dirty. I just can't make my mind up on the van without more info.

I haven't seen the firing of missiles into the house, but if there were obviously innocent people walking by outside at the time who were killed as a result then the pilots should be charged with murder.

Lab_Mouse

Dont know what to make of this video.Any independent evidence that they did/didnt have weapons with them(one ak 47 doesnt justify the attack.Worked in gaza and was often walked about by a guard carring a ak47 just in case the locals thought we were settlers)

Having said that,if that video is what the gunner seen then I think I probably would of opened fire.Also as for their callousness,soldiers arent trained to value human life so wouldnt read all that much into what they were saying.

Overheal

fluffer wrote: »

You do know RPG stands for Rocket Propelled GRENADE dont you? Its not a SAM/MANPAD. Notwithstanding the lucky shot on a hovering Blackhawk in Somalia.
A Bell-47 straight from skippy would not be appropriate either. Actually my argument is less about the tool but more the task it has been purposed for.

---

I was mostly talking about the rules of engagement for aerial gunships in a primarily civilian urban environment.
Discuss.

A musket's not very accurate either but you still wouldnt dare your friend to shoot it at you from 50 paces.

Further, a trained marksman can make shots that can range in excess of a mile; the record being a couple miles, iirc, in a live combat zone, for a confirmed kill. That was Baghdad.

Im not saying the chances are anything but absurdly remote: but take the chance Why?

Pretty much.

The Iraq Military uses and stocks the Stinger System. So does the US Military. To say in the course of 7 years the insurgency hasn't petted one is not out of the realm of possibilities.

I was mostly talking about the rules of engagement for aerial gunships in a primarily civilian urban environment.
Discuss.

I don't know what those rules would be for an urban environment, or which ones they were operating under, or whether specific rules had been crafted for the Green Zone itself.

Gigiwagga

Overheal wrote: »

A musket's not very accurate either but you still wouldnt dare your friend to shoot it at you from 50 paces.

Further, a trained marksman can make shots that can range in excess of a mile; the record being a couple miles, iirc, in a live combat zone, for a confirmed kill. That was Baghdad.

Im not saying the chances are anything but absurdly remote: but take the chance Why?The Iraq Military uses and stocks the Stinger System. So does the US Military. To say in the course of 7 years the insurgency hasn't petted one is not out of the realm of possibilities.I don't know what those rules would be for an urban environment, or which ones they were operating under, or whether specific rules had been crafted for the Green Zone itself.

Military nerds are funny and sad at the same time, a bit like clowns.

Interesting, 'whether specific rules had been crafted for the Green Zone itself' I always thought rules were a series of measures opposing sides agree to in order to complete some objective, oops I forgot, we're talking about the USA here, they, and only they make the rules. sorry 'craft' the rules. Nice word that 'crafted' sounds a bit like 'theatre of war' almost arty farty.

partyatmygaff

Overheal wrote: »

A musket's not very accurate either but you still wouldnt dare your friend to shoot it at you from 50 paces.

Further, a trained marksman can make shots that can range in excess of a mile; the record being a couple miles, iirc, in a live combat zone.

A trained marksman can do that... Definitley not with an AK 47 though. Think maybe a .50 calibre sniper rifle and even at that it would unlikely do much if any damage to the helicopter unless it was a very well placed shot. Anyways, that's not the point, the apache wasn't under threat by them. The ground forces were; and the apache's job was to assist the ground troops.