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

Overheal

info@williamrua wrote: »

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.

I don't know, but you can check. Do you mean things that opposing sides agree upon like the Geneva Convention? The Insurgency has not complied with that either. Nor the Ottawa Treaty, infamously.

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.

True and I should have added that. But you can see why the idea is to keep the best possible distance from hostile forces. Why get low to the ground and give a sniper a chance to take out your cockpit or take shots at vulnerable points on the apache? The longer you loiter, and the closer you do it, the bigger target you become.

The Prime question is, is the Insurgency completely defenseless against Air Superiority? We could explore that.

My name is URL

This thread is like what happens to cheddar at a cheesestrings factory

Overheal

My name is URL wrote: »

This thread is like what happens to cheddar at a cheesestrings factory

It gets eaten?

Gigiwagga

Overheal wrote: »

I don't know, but you can check. Do you mean things that opposing sides agree upon like the Geneva Convention? The Insurgency has not complied with that either. Nor the Ottawa Treaty, infamously.True and I should have added that. But you can see why the idea is to keep the best possible distance from hostile forces. Why get low to the ground and give a sniper a chance to take out your cockpit or take shots at vulnerable points on the apache? The longer you loiter, and the closer you do it, the bigger target you become.

In case you didn't notice the US are the bad guys here

I'm curious how mouthpieces for American aggression will look back through recent history as old men, like the old SS troops who worked in the concentration camps, that hard to swallow grimace, where they have to believe that what they did was not their fault because they didn't know what was going on. Acknowledging misjudgement of your own country must be hard if not impossible. You're like those old men, I feel sorry for you.

The insurgency don't have to comply with anything, it's their bloody country.

Iraqi = insurgent/terrorist/enemy/threat/hostile forces...only to you.

the_syco

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.

<snip>

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.

An independent free press is great, but going into a zone where you have insurgents shooting the allied forces, telling the military to be aware that they are there may mean that instead of "fire", the person giving the okay says "we have reporters in the area, can you confirm...?".

Addisyn Screeching Sportswear wrote: »

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

F**king hate "to be continued" episodes!

info@williamrua wrote: »

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.

So you fought up North before the ceasefire? Otherwise, STFU.

fluffer wrote: »

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.

You're talking about the terrorists who like to hide in schools, and use human shields? You're talking about the terrorists who have used mentally retarded women as suicide bombers? Yeah, the soldiers will really be able to tell who is who. From a mile away. With a less accurate boom stick pointing at the enemy, maybe?

fluffer wrote: »

The RPG's wouldnt hit, and the ak47's wouldnt hurt.

Wouldn't hit, and not hitting are two different things. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be that one hit out of 500 misses...

fluffer wrote: »

Only for use in an active hostile combat engagement as close air support, under co-ordinated ground guidance.

It's providing air support for an active hostile combat engagement. Should they wait for insurgents to open fire before deeming them hostile?

Overheal wrote: »

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'd say so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJX9alYwIa0

Overheal

the_syco wrote: »

I'd say so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJX9alYwIa0

What was NTM saying about them filming themselves .......

In case you didn't notice the US are the bad guys here

When did that become a justification for using IEDs and taking hostages and beheading them on camera?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_insurgent_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactics_of_the_Iraqi_insurgency

the_syco

Overheal wrote: »

What was NTM saying about them filming themselves .......

I'm unsure what you mean by this? I posted the link as agreement that they (terrorists) have gotten their hands on stingers in the past, and have used them against choppers.

Savage Tyrant

American Armed Forces, Just like the british Armed Forces, are what they claim to be fighting against. They are Terrorists. Plain and Simple.

FlutterinBantam

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

American Armed Forces, Just like the british Armed Forces, are what they claim to be fighting against. They are Terrorists. Plain and Simple.

Good man yourself, that will definitely enhance this debate.

speedboatchase

info@williamrua wrote: »

In case you didn't notice the US are the bad guys here

I'm curious how mouthpieces for American aggression will look back through recent history as old men, like the old SS troops who worked in the concentration camps, that hard to swallow grimace, where they have to believe that what they did was not their fault because they didn't know what was going on. Acknowledging misjudgement of your own country must be hard if not impossible. You're like those old men, I feel sorry for you.

The insurgency don't have to comply with anything, it's their bloody country.

Iraqi = insurgent/terrorist/enemy/threat/hostile forces...only to you.

Oh jesus comparing a poster to an SS trooper... :rolleyes:

So since the insurgency don't have to comply with anything because it's their bloody country, what's your opinion on the Rwandan genocide? Technically the Nazi's could've just rounded up as many German jews as they wanted - it's their bloody country right?

FlutterinBantam

You are wasting logic on Red bill sunshine.

He only want to hear what he wants to hear;)

Gigiwagga

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You are wasting logic on Red bill sunshine.

He only want to hear what he wants to hear;)

Yeah you guys are right, the US is right, they're always right. What's a little mistake here and there, hell it wasn't even a mistake, they nearly had RPG after all.
You go on believing what you guys need to, after all how could you live with yourselves if you had to acknowledge the US as the no1 global terrorist.

lol sad

speedboatchase

info@williamrua wrote: »

Yeah you guys are right, the US is right, they're always right. What's a little mistake here and there, hell it wasn't even a mistake, they nearly had RPG after all.
You go on believing what you guys need to, after all how could you live with yourselves if you had to acknowledge the US as the no1 global terrorist.

lol sad

How does that get thanked - read my post, it's directed at you and actually has an argument to make.

"lol sad" - OMG YAW liek death 2 da Infidelz

Gigiwagga

speedboatchase wrote: »

Oh jesus comparing a poster to an SS trooper... :rolleyes:

So since the insurgency don't have to comply with anything because it's their bloody country, what's your opinion on the Rwandan genocide? Technically the Nazi's could've just rounded up as many German jews as they wanted - it's their bloody country right?

Comparing the posters opinion and thought process with former SS troopers.

What happened in Rwanda cannot be compared in any way with US global aggression. Jesus you're getting desperate now.

Yes technically, but also technically murder is murder. Murder is murder always, first and last.
Ethnic issues inside a sovereign country are complex on many levels, and don't compare whatsoever with the current and recent foreign policy of the US.
It's sad when the best comparisons to be made with US aggression is Rwandan genocide, and the bloody Holocaust.

speedboatchase

info@williamrua wrote: »

Comparing the posters opinion and thought process with former SS troopers.

What happened in Rwanda cannot be compared in any way with US global aggression. Jesus you're getting desperate now.

Yes technically, but also technically murder is murder. Murder is murder always, first and last.
Ethnic issues inside a sovereign country are complex on many levels, and don't compare whatsoever with the current and recent foreign policy of the US.
It's sad when the best comparisons to be made with US aggression is Rwandan genocide, and the bloody Holocaust.

I wouldn't compare the two, but you invite comparisons if you make a blanket statement like "...don't have to comply with anything, it's their bloody country". Also the fact you comparing fellow posters to SS guards and on the same page call anyone "desperate" for bringing up the Holocaust is pretty hilarious.

No-one can defend what's on that video clip and I would hope that everyone involved is trialled and punished - the fact the clip was suppressed by the military is also pretty indefensible. However the people that latch onto these events and make crazy blanket statements like the U.S is the no.1 global terrorists come as off, I'm sorry but complete loons. This clip IS bad - but what are the other side doing and why is that behaviour not held to any standard by you? You sarcastically say "we are right. the US is always right" as if I would be 100% pro-USA which is nonsense, but you when you make statements like "no.1 global terrorists" it's pretty obvious you believe the U.S is always wrong. The war and the actions of both sides are not black and white issues, but there doesn't seen any wiggle room in your worldview

ChessHacker

Biggins wrote: »

Steeping back a bit, there is a couple of things.

1. Its a war zone.

No. It's a city in Iraq which has been turned into a war zone.

2. There was [sic]men carrying weapons. Some appeared to be carrying weapons including an RPG:

The men posed no threat. In some militarised countries, carrying weapons is commonplace.

3. The camera men there surely had enough experience to know that if Gunships turn up and see an enemy with guns, they had better get the hell out of there fast and not just walk with the men as if they are on a Sunday stroll!

Apache gunships don't turn up.
They fly a great distance away and were most likely unseen.

4. The men in the gunship were not blood thirsty killers despite in this case unfortunate deaths.
See this later frame alone (safe - not gruesome) that shows the mentality of the soldiers:

In this instance, friendlies refers to US (or allied) troops, certainly not civilians.

The murder of the men in the van was a war crime.
When the US soldiers wanted to bring the two injured children to the US medical facility, they were ordered to bring them to the Iraqi police (IP) instead. All these policies come from the top and are by no means just the actions of a few rogues.

Gigiwagga

speedboatchase wrote: »

I wouldn't compare the two, but you invite comparisons if you make a blanket statement like "...don't have to comply with anything, it's their bloody country". Also the fact you comparing fellow posters to SS guards and on the same page call anyone "desperate" for bringing up the Holocaust is pretty hilarious.

No-one can defend what's on that video clip and I would hope that everyone involved is trialled and punished - the fact the clip was suppressed by the military is also pretty indefensible. However the people that latch onto these events and make crazy blanket statements like the U.S is the no.1 global terrorists come as off, I'm sorry but complete loons. This clip IS bad - but what are the other side doing and why is that behaviour not held to any standard by you? You sarcastically say "we are right. the US is always right" as if I would be 100% pro-USA which is nonsense, but you when you make statements like "no.1 global terrorists" it's pretty obvious you believe the U.S is always wrong. The war and the actions of both sides are not black and white issues, but there doesn't seen any wiggle room in your worldview

I never said the US is ALWAYS wrong, never. I believe their constantly aggressive stance is wrong. This clip is probably one of many, many more, and the only reason it's getting such coverage is because journalists were killed more so than that civilians were. The clip is good in that it shows that US aggression in all it's glory, it can't be debated away by blind US positivity and lame hand wringing. Hopefully we will see more and more of these being released. And the US will be seen by more people for what they are; War Mongers.

Important to note that when I refer to the US I refer to their military and their foreign strategy, and those who support it.

Does that include you ? I can't answer that question and I wouldn't try to, but you can.

karma_

You can equate this to Bloody Sunday.

The people of Derry still hurt about it after nearly 40 years, I can only imagine what the people in Baghdad feel like. How many of their own Bloody Sundays have they had to endure if we accept that hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed in the conflict?

It highlights the flaws in the rules of engagement and teh truth is this video is too late to have any significant impact on those rules.

I think everyone can accept war is a dirty business, but that still cannot excuse the lack of care taken in the decision to erase those 14 people. There can be no justification of it.

Cunny-Funt

I wish people would stop saying the guy was peeking around the corner with an RPG, it was a camera , you can see it in the pics, its a damn CAMERA.

I also love how those defending the actions of these guys ignore the whole incident with the van.

The Americans in this video were indeed trigger happy. He was ITCHING to kill off the wounded man, so much so that he fed bull**** down the comms saying a van had turned up to collect the weapons. It was obvious it was someone trying to help the wounded, and he blew apart the van with kids in it (who survived thank ****) and he was chuffed with the size of the bullet hole in the wind shield.

Its yet another gun cam vid of trigger happy Americans, this time killing iraqi civilians. Theres plenty more of them killing British armed forces, or hell even shooting at themselves, blue on blue. Who knows what we've not been shown.

& no I'm not saying all american solders are trigger happy, way too many of them are however.

ArphaRima

You're talking about the terrorists who like to hide in schools, and use human shields? You're talking about the terrorists who have used mentally retarded women as suicide bombers? Yeah, the soldiers will really be able to tell who is who. From a mile away. With a less accurate boom stick pointing at the enemy, maybe?

I am talking about a helicopter not engaging from miles away at a poorly ID'd and hastily spotted target of opportunity. Too many false positives on enemy contacts as may have been the case here, and almost certainly seems like the case with the van.
The armour and troops were there in minutes. They could have discerned the situation far better than a helicopter can. The injured children and other possible incidents could have been avoided.
Let me be clear. There may have been cause to engage. I just dont believe they could clearly justify it from an attack helicopter.


As for them being regarded as terrorists. Well if I was Iraqi I would be killing Americans, British and anyone else aiding in the occupation of my country. I would see them as legitimate targets. As would most people in this country given our history.

I think your definition of active hostile environment is different to the one I was trying to convey. Live fire or imminent live fire is what I am talking about. Think of the word active.

Wouldn't hit, and not hitting are two different things. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be that one hit out of 500 misses.........To say in the course of 7 years the insurgency hasn't petted one is not out of the realm of possibilities.

As for the men in the video being a threat to the apache, with the possible sighting of an rpg, I dont think that is a valid point at all. Its not even a discussion point in this thread. This was an opportunistic attack. Which I dont mind. If they get it right. In this case I dont believe they did, and I believe there was a high chance of them getting it wrong through their methods and dogma.

Accountability. I dont even see the airmen as accountable here. I see their leadership as accountable. They were greenlit far too easily for action by their controller, especially in the environment they were in. Again not his fault. Its the procedure that is too lax.
Civilian control and leadership over their military bulldogs is what I question.

FlutterinBantam

fluffer wrote: »

I am talking about a helicopter not engaging from miles away at a poorly ID'd and hastily spotted target of opportunity. Too many false positives on enemy contacts as may have been the case here, and almost certainly seems like the case with the van.
The armour and troops were there in minutes. They could have discerned the situation far better than a helicopter can. The injured children and other possible incidents could have been avoided.
Let me be clear. There may have been cause to engage. I just dont believe they could clearly justify it from an attack helicopter.


As for them being regarded as terrorists. Well if I was Iraqi I would be killing Americans, British and anyone else aiding in the occupation of my country. I would see them as legitimate targets. As would most people in this country given our history.

I think your definition of active hostile environment is different to the one I was trying to convey. Live fire or imminent live fire is what I am talking about. Think of the word active.



As for the men in the video being a threat to the apache, with the possible sighting of an rpg, I dont think that is a valid point at all. Its not even a discussion point in this thread. This was an opportunistic attack. Which I dont mind. If they get it right. In this case I dont believe they did, and I believe there was a high chance of them getting it wrong through their methods and dogma.

Accountability. I dont even see the airmen as accountable here. I see their leadership as accountable. They were greenlit far too easily for action by their controller, especially in the environment they were in. Again not his fault. Its the procedure that is too lax.
Civilian control and leadership over their military bulldogs is what I question.

:eek: Jeez we have a 5 star armchair general in our midst!!

HUT!!

Snaps to attention................ and turns off computer;)

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

:eek: Jeez we have a 5 star armchair general in our midst!!

HUT!!

Snaps to attention................ and turns off computer;)

The sign of a losing side...

You're wrong. End of...

Again, do you need to be in the military, or have served in the military to use your common sense? A bit of cop on? Anybody can see this tape and spot the obvious. Well anyone who is not biased towards america, or an american citizen.

Sorry overheal

24 pages in and the people defending the apache's actions have clearly lost the argument.

FlutterinBantam

Go back to your 'World of warcraft' and leave the serious discussion to the people who know;)

Overheal

Royalty Future Klutz wrote: »

The sign of a losing side...

You're wrong. End of...

Again, do you need to be in the military, or have served in the military to use your common sense? A bit of cop on? Anybody can see this tape and spot the obvious. Well anyone who is not biased towards america, or an american citizen.

Sorry overheal

What are you sorry about? Im only sorry some posters need to compare me to the SS. I've already said they were in the wrong and I've already made my position on the Iraq War clear on this forum many times.

But I play Devils Advocate because if I don't these things turn into runaway Bashing Threads. Someone needs to represent the other side of the coin. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and everyone else says Its a Duck; you're damn right I will make sure for myself it isn't a Goose first.

I don't approve of aggressive tactics. They get results. And they're a pinch for Video Games but in Reality the consequences don't stop playing out when you turn it off. As this video proves any action you take out there can come back years later and get someone killed - because somewhere, this became a recruiting video.

MackDeToaster

fluffer wrote: »

I am talking about a helicopter not engaging from miles away at a poorly ID'd and hastily spotted target of opportunity. Too many false positives on enemy contacts as may have been the case here, and almost certainly seems like the case with the van.
The armour and troops were there in minutes. They could have discerned the situation far better than a helicopter can. The injured children and other possible incidents could have been avoided.
Let me be clear. There may have been cause to engage. I just dont believe they could clearly justify it from an attack helicopter.

The helicopters were sent up because there had been a firefight in the area, they were supporting ground troops. Here is Reuters own map of what happened. It even shows a humvee which these guys were clearly approaching, the journalists presumably with the intent of taking pics of, or as the helicopter pilots presumably assumed, attacking. I don't know what the other guys were at.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5348/mapwr.jpg

It's a battlefield, everyone has gone to ground but for one group of men apparently holding weapons approaching the troops whom they're supposed to be supporting, what on earth do you think the helicopters are going to do ? Wait until an attack is launched and their men are killed or injured, or attack first ? People comparing this to video games are being ridiculous, in most games the targets are clearly distinguishable, this is reality, and that one camera is but showing only one fraction of what was going on. Ever hear the phrase the fog of war ? War is nasty, people make mistakes and people die, that's the very nature of it, it's certainly not a game, and I very much doubt those pilots consider it a game when they're trying to protect their own side and are in constant danger themselves.

These guys were trying to fly a helicopter a mile away, keep track of the other chopper and whatever other aircraft are around, keep track of the soldiers on the ground, all the time probably worried about getting shot at, then they see these guys approaching - they don't have the luxury of replaying back a video over and over, they have only seconds to make a decision, whether that be the right one or the wrong one. IMO they were right to open fire on the first group and they followed the rules, right there and then that was the right thing for them to do. When I'm looking at the video they look like weapons to me too, and I'm just sitting on a sofa, not juggling ten dozen things at once like those pilots were. It's only with hindsight that the truth might be discovered.

It's sad the two journalists died but what they were doing was utterly reckless and naive. They contributed hugely to their own deaths by their very own actions. Call that heartless or whatever you want but it's fact. Once again, look at the overall context, you're only seeing a tiny fraction of what went on there.

Gigiwagga

Sorry Overheal but I likened your reasoning to that of the former SS officers speaking 60 years after the war, refusing to believe there were gross crimes committed by them, because to acknowledge such would be an unsurmountable acknowledgement of failure, a failure to speak out against such things and a failure to see the truth for what it is. And, as I'm sure you know, we can't change the past.

The weight of these crimes rest on the shoulders of all Americans, as the actions were carried out in their name. Likewise the responsibility for all acts of violence lie with those in whose name the act was carried out. The concept of self defence colours this somewhat and I believe citizens of a sovereign state have a right to self defence and to defend their property ie their homeland. Both Iraqis and Americans have this right equally, the problem in this instance is that the apache gunship was in Iraq as part of an invading/occupying force. The Americans weren't invited to Iraq by the Iraqi people, if I recall correctly. I'd imagine they are not welcome there now, but that's just a hunch.
I'm pretty certain this video will compell many more Iraqis to take up arms against the American Forces, this is a no-brainer. Throughout the middle east extremist groups will use footage like this to embolden their position.
Despite this global recession the one thing the US seems to be amazingly adept at is creating new enemies, hundreds made every day.

On the souls of all the dead insurgents/hostile forces/terrorists might be the small, faint words that read "Made in the USA"

KevinVonSpiel

Deleted User wrote: »

24 pages in and the people defending the apache's actions have clearly lost the argument.

The Iraqis will sleep a lot better tonight then.

ArphaRima

These guys were trying to fly a helicopter a mile away, keep track of the other chopper and whatever other aircraft are around, keep track of the soldiers on the ground, all the time probably worried about getting shot at, then they see these guys approaching - they don't have the luxury of replaying back a video over and over, they have only seconds to make a decision, whether that be the right one or the wrong one.

My point exactly. A helicopter crew cannot differentiate targets from a distance the same way as a person on the ground. It is not the right tool. And there seems to be little restriction in its use in a residential area.

Go back to your 'World of warcraft' and leave the serious discussion to the people who know

And you are one of these people in the know are you?!

Jeez we have a 5 star armchair general in our midst!!

HUT!!

Snaps to attention................ and turns off computer

Ha!
Mind you this is the internet and you dont know what I do, nor I you. Nor will I reveal it. I will however debate the issue and the merits of your argument. Your last post had no merit and no argument.

If you would like to address the points I make then please do.

FlutterinBantam

fluffer wrote: »

My point exactly. A helicopter crew cannot differentiate targets from a distance the same way as a person on the ground. It is not the right tool. And there seems to be little restriction in its use in a residential area.


And you are one of these people in the know are you?!


Ha!
Mind you this is the internet and you dont know what I do, nor I you. Nor will I reveal it. I will however debate the issue and the merits of your argument. Your last post had no merit and no argument.

If you would like to address the points I make then please do.

Very very simple question


Were you there

And were you aware of everything which was going on and the total context of the operation?

Those are the salient points.Nothing to do with the points you made.

What are your qualifications to interpret the action which occurred?

Are you a trained military operative?

What combat experience do you have?

What experience do you have in rotary assault techniques?

What are your qualifications in modern artificery?


Over to you horse.