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

Overheal

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.

Thats a bit disingenuous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAMwholkV-A

Helicopters have time and again, the world over, proven critical assets.

BluePlanet

Unfortunately for the TeamUSA posters that video consists of more than just the incident regarding the people milling around looking with an SLR camera.

If you observe the attack on the van, there is no doubt it is a War Crime.
I posted this on the politics forum, but will also post it here.

Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Chapter II : Wounded and sick
ARTICLE 18

The military authorities may appeal to the charity of the inhabitants voluntarily to collect and care for, under their direction, the wounded and sick, granting persons who have responded to this appeal the necessary protection and facilities. Should the adverse party take or retake control of the area, he shall likewise grant these persons the same protection and the same facilities.
The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality. The civilian population shall respect these wounded and sick, and in particular abstain from offering them violence.
No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick.
The provisions of the present Article do not relieve the occupying Power of its obligation to give both physical and moral care to the wounded and sick.

That's the Geneva Conventions, the Rules of War.
USA is a signatory.

Clearly by goading that injured journalist to "pick up a weapon", the USA is not caring (phyically or morally) for the wounded .
By firing on the van that was merely attending to the wounded man, the USA have committed a war crime.

FlutterinBantam

BluePlanet wrote: »

Unfortunately for the TeamUSA posters that video consists of more than just the incident regarding the people milling around looking with an SLR camera.

If you observe the attack on the van, there is no doubt it is a War Crime.
I posted this on the politics forum, but will also post it here.




That's the Geneva Conventions, the Rules of War.
USA is a signatory.

Clearly by goading that injured journalist to "pick up a weapon", the USA is not caring (phyically or morally) for the wounded .
By firing on the van that was merely attending to the wounded man, the USA have committed a war crime.

Run that rhetoric over the 3500 dead in the Twin towers horse.

Overheal

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Run that rhetoric over the 3500 dead in the Twin towers horse.

Al Qaeda....Taliban....Afghanistan....Iraq....

You know Im not really sure how tied Baghdad is to the 9/11 attack?

By firing on the van that was merely attending to the wounded man, the USA have committed a war crime.

No doubt. The entirety of the Van incident was the hardest to watch.

I've watched it again - I have no audio at work. Am I correct in that I read them talking to themselves saying "The van was picking up bodies" but when they asked dispatch about it they said the van was 'picking up bodies and weapons'?

twinQuins

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

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

They see me trollin', they hatin', moderatin' and tryna catch me postin' dirty...

Johnny Utah

karma_ wrote: »

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.

Well said there karma.

Andy-Pandy

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Run that rhetoric over the 3500 dead in the Twin towers horse.

I'm only going to say one thing in this thread and that is this. If you can justify these actions due to what happened on September 11th then you are an idiot and anything you say are the words of a fool.

ArphaRima

Nor will I reveal it

Was I there?? Jesus.
Your argument is absolutely pathetic.
You are trying to say that because I was not the pilot of that Apache then I cannot have an opinion on his actions or that the opinion I hold is automatically invalid.

Thats a bit disingenuous. Helicopters have time and again, the world over, proven critical assets.

Now what was the driver holding in his hands? What colour was his t-shirt? What colour was the car?

Not a big point. Not particularly relevant. Nor is that video to this argument. Your argument is similar to saying cars are useful in cities, so why not use tanks?
Yes helicopters are useful. Now. Back to the Apache in Baghdad. It has a 30mm cannon attached to its blurry gun camera.

Klingon Hamlet

Further to many of the points well made in this thread, let me just put my point across:

The soldiers recorded on the audio of this awful, terrifying video seemed gung-ho about spraying bullets down upon figures that they could barely see. They were dismissive about the kids who were injured in the shooting, saying, It's their fault for bringing children to a firefight.

This video highlights the prejudice against anyone on-the-ground. These soldiers were trained to kill, and for good reason. But when we see that they couldn't give a sh1t about injured kids...when you listen to the sense of earnest, bloodthirsty enthusiasm to shoot again...

Remember the bit...the injured cameraman is crawling along the ground,no doubt in absolutely hellish pain, body torn asunder, and the gunman is saying, Go on, just pick up a weapon.

It's terrifying. Absolutely terrifying. They're Nazis over there, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, with the smiling face of democracy, whilst they suck the lifeblood of the country away. It's sick. Anyone who thinks this is a War on Terror is a fool. And I chalenge that person to explain one thing:

What's the difference between Terror...and Shock and Awe?

Overheal

Now what was the driver holding in his hands? What colour was his t-shirt? What colour was the car?

Not a big point. Not particularly relevant. Nor is that video to this argument. Your argument is similar to saying cars are useful in cities, so why not use tanks?
Yes helicopters are useful. Now. Back to the Apache in Baghdad. It has a 30mm cannon attached to its blurry gun camera.

Actually as far as Baghdad is concerned the Hummvee is a Death Trap. Force Protection (I live 2 miles from the Plant) now manufactures the Cougar ISS, as its simply a much safer tool for the job. The Stryker Line of vehicles is developed elsewhere in the country in direct reflection to the last 10 years. During the initial invasion of Baghdad We used tanks, and lots of them. Im not sure what the current status of Tank operations is at present however. The typical development cycle of a military Aircraft is about 20 years, by comparison. The only other aircraft I am aware of that is used by the military that would even come close to fitting the role of the Apache for that day's mission was the Black Hawk - which has limited range capabilities and would be poorly suited for the role, imho. Even if they had started developing an intermediate level helicopter in 2001, it would be about 2020 before it came into service. The First F-35 is to be delivered 15 years after the first signature on the JSF program.

FlutterinBantam

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Further to many of the points well made in this thread, let me just put my point across:

The soldiers recorded on the audio of this awful, terrifying video seemed gung-ho about spraying bullets down upon figures that they could barely see. They were dismissive about the kids who were injured in the shooting, saying, It's their fault for bringing children to a firefight.

This video highlights the prejudice against anyone on-the-ground. These soldiers were trained to kill, and for good reason. But when we see that they couldn't give a sh1t about injured kids...when you listen to the sense of earnest, bloodthirsty enthusiasm to shoot again...

Remember the bit...the injured cameraman is crawling along the ground,no doubt in absolutely hellish pain, body torn asunder, and the gunman is saying, Go on, just pick up a weapon.

It's terrifying. Absolutely terrifying. They're Nazis over there, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, with the smiling face of democracy, whilst they suck the lifeblood of the country away. It's sick. Anyone who thinks this is a War on Terror is a fool. And I chalenge that person to explain one thing:

What's the difference between Terror...and Shock and Awe?

Man ... I'm all broke up... bent outa shape like...:cool:

Overheal

Specific to Whether or not the Insurgency poses a threat to the Longbow Apache:

"The U.S. Apaches have been serving in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan from 2001.[63] American AH-64Ds are flying in Iraq and Afghanistan without the Longbow Fire Control Radar as there are no armored threats to be dealt with.[64] The majority of Apache helicopters that have taken heavy combat damage have been able to continue their assigned missions and return safely.[58] In 2006, an Apache helicopter was downed by a Soviet-made Strela 2 (SA-7) in Iraq. The Apache is able to typically withstand such hits, however in this instance it did not.[65] As of 2009, 12 Apache helicopters were shot down by enemy fire during the Iraq War."

Gigiwagga

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

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.

Were YOU there, No ? then STFU yourself

Gigiwagga

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Run that rhetoric over the 3500 dead in the Twin towers horse.

Jesus you're pretty sad, at this stage the best you can do is drag out your dead of 2001, killed by Saudis, an ally of your own country.


*face palm


Horse seems like a pretty cool put down, is it new, I've not heard it used much before. Except maybe by John Wayne, hey wait...you couldn't be...nah...wow...so that explains it.

nice1franko

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Run that rhetoric over the 3500 dead in the Twin towers horse.

Is this a troll?!?!

Nick_oliveri

Dont feed it.

pirelli

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

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.

Nope! But even from the grainy camera images you can see they were just civilians. The people who came to carry away the injured should be by all accounts considered as neutral & were clearly innocent to the eye.

This attack violated the rules of engagement.
The USA version of the geneva convention.

Gigiwagga

Overheal wrote: »

Actually as far as Baghdad is concerned the Hummvee is a Death Trap. Force Protection (I live 2 miles from the Plant) now manufactures the Cougar ISS, as its simply a much safer tool for the job. The Stryker Line of vehicles is developed elsewhere in the country in direct reflection to the last 10 years. During the initial invasion of Baghdad We used tanks, and lots of them. Im not sure what the current status of Tank operations is at present however. The typical development cycle of a military Aircraft is about 20 years, by comparison. The only other aircraft I am aware of that is used by the military that would even come close to fitting the role of the Apache for that day's mission was the Black Hawk - which has limited range capabilities and would be poorly suited for the role, imho. Even if they had started developing an intermediate level helicopter in 2001, it would be about 2020 before it came into service. The First F-35 is to be delivered 15 years after the first signature on the JSF program.

Jesus we're getting a bit anal here aren't we.

Looks like TeamUSA spend too much time playing CoDMW and contemplating the erection inducing power of military hardware.

*vomits quietly into sleeve

Gigiwagga

jackiebaron

Biggins wrote: »

They let off bombs at queues, street markets, etc - what have they got to do with allowing America to do what they do?

So now the justification for riddling to death with bullets certain people is that their "alleged" associates plant bombs. Why not just gas everyone to death and wrap yourself around some rationalisation then. If a bunch of American or British soldiers raped and killed a kid in Haditha (which happened) and a mob of locals did the same to a dipplomat's daughter in revenge, would you say that it was fine?

I don't really care what "pressure" these soldiers are under and how you excuse them committing war crimes, but gleeful gunship pilots begging to kill is something that I can't really reconcile or even condone no matter how poorly trained and mentally deranged they are.

After the event...one of the gunners smugly remarked, when questioned about shooting up a van with children in it: "They shouldn't have brought kids to a firefight".

Beggars belief.

FlutterinBantam

pirelli wrote: »

Nope! But even from the grainy camera images you can see they were just civilians. The people who came to carry away the injured should be by all accounts considered as neutral & were clearly innocent to the eye.

This attack violated the rules of engagement.
The USA version of the geneva convention.

HOW DO YOU KNOW?????


Did they have 'CIVILIAN' stamped on their chests


How do you know?

Overheal

They let off bombs at queues, street markets, etc - what have they got to do with allowing America to do what they do?

I know they don't follow the Geneva convention or anything - the insurgents. But we do. Or we're meant to.

I understand you need to fight unvonventionaly to fight an unconventional adversary but come on.

karma_

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

HOW DO YOU KNOW?????


Did they have 'CIVILIAN' stamped on their chests


How do you know?

You offer zero to this thread, your even rehashing your old posts, this is the 2nd time you used the "stamped on their jackets" line now, just the same tired and boring old material.

Why don't you come up with something useful instead of the tripe your spewing?

FlutterinBantam

Why don't you answer the question instead of attacking the poster?

How do you know?

jackal

I have watched the full length video. There are three incidents.

To start with, the pilots are too eager to open fire, and positively identify the people as targets too quickly and far too carelessly.

In the second incident, with the van, they blatantly lie that the people are picking up weapons to fulfil their desire to shoot up the place. They found out after that there was children in the van. An unfortunate consequence of shooting first and asking questions later.

I found the third incident marginally the worst. Some guys with guns are supposedly hiding out in the under construction building. The pilots stick 3 hellfire missiles into the building as civilians are clearly walking by, entering the killzone of the missiles. The building could have been swept by ground troops, but you know, that would put real lives at risk. American soldiers lives. Its so much easier to just blow the place to smithereens at a standoff distance, and as for those civilians walking by... HELLO its a WARZONE buddy!

Saying that these guys should have known better than to gather in a group in broad daylight in their own city... it sounds eerily familiar to the "Well what did she think would happen, going out with that skirt on" crowd.

To see some pilots actually having some restraint, doing their job and going to every length before taking the irreversible step of opening fire, this video seems to me to be an acceptable way for a civilised army to conduct its operations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mThz_mTNY8s

The actual shooting is in this vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnPw_S_c7U

nice1franko

BluePlanet wrote:

Unfortunately for the TeamUSA posters that video consists of more than just the incident regarding the people milling around looking with an SLR camera.

If you observe the attack on the van, there is no doubt it is a War Crime.
I posted this on the politics forum, but will also post it here.

That's the Geneva Conventions, the Rules of War.
USA is a signatory.

Clearly by goading that injured journalist to "pick up a weapon", the USA is not caring (phyically or morally) for the wounded .
By firing on the van that was merely attending to the wounded man, the USA have committed a war crime.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Run that rhetoric over the 3500 dead in the Twin towers horse.

Flutterin, that post is one of the thickest posts I've ever read.

Thankfully, I'll not be wasting my time with anymore of your shyte.

karma_

jackal wrote: »

I have watched the full length video. There are three incidents.

To start with, the pilots are too eager to open fire, and positively identify the people as targets too quickly and far too carelessly.

In the second incident, with the van, they blatantly lie that the people are picking up weapons to fulfil their desire to shoot up the place. They found out after that there was children in the van. An unfortunate consequence of shooting first and asking questions later.

I found the third incident marginally the worst. Some guys with guns are supposedly hiding out in the under construction building. The pilots stick 3 hellfire missiles into the building as civilians are clearly walking by, entering the killzone of the missiles. The building could have been swept by ground troops, but you know, that would put real lives at risk. American soldiers lives. Its so much easier to just blow the place to smithereens at a standoff distance, and as for those civilians walking by... HELLO its a WARZONE buddy!

Saying that these guys should have known better than to gather in a group in broad daylight in their own city... it sounds eerily familiar to the "Well what did she think would happen, going out with that skirt on" crowd.

To see some pilots actually having some restraint, doing their job and going to every length before taking the irreversible step of opening fire, this video seems to me to be an acceptable way for a civilised army to conduct its operations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mThz_mTNY8s

The actual shooting is in this vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnPw_S_c7U

Although I still don't like that men died in those videos, I don't think there can be any doubt that they were enemy forces, I think the pilots acted in a very professional manner and were sure they had identified just who they were about to fire on.

The stark contrast to the video in this thread is absolutely astounding.

Gigiwagga

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

HOW DO YOU KNOW?????


Did they have 'CIVILIAN' stamped on their chests


How do you know?

Maybe a Star of David on their sleeves type thingy might be more appropriate, except from a muslim perspective obviously. Then the US invader/occupiers would be able to see from a distance which ones to kill straight away, and which ones to just terrorise

Jeez, you're beginning to give me the heebie jeebies.

Manic Moran

Clearly by goading that injured journalist to "pick up a weapon", the USA is not caring (phyically or morally) for the wounded .

The distinction is not between wounded and unwounded, it is between combatant and 'hors de combat.' If he picks up a weapon, he's a valid target even if wounded.

Your argument is similar to saying cars are useful in cities, so why not use tanks?

Tanks have proven surprisingly useful, both in counter-insurgency operations and city fights. Both are contrary to pre-war opinion, though I guess we forgot the lessons of WWII. They do have their limitations, but they provide effects that no other system will. As far as Apaches vs anythingelse are concerned, I can't think of anything that something like the Garda Helicopter can do that an Apache can't. Except maybe transport wounded, or open the door and look straight down.

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

As opposed to a field in Iraq which has been turned into a war zone. Everyplace is something else until the war comes to it.

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

Not so much in Iraq 2007 though, unless authorised by the government. Or a member of the opposition.

A helicopter crew cannot differentiate targets from a distance the same way as a person on the ground.

Ever try identifying a target on the ground at the whopping distance of, say, 100m? Trust me. You're better off with the helicopter from 1km. And there's no denying that in the initial shoot at least, the helicopters correctly identified an armed group. I really need to find the time to view the van bit.

NTM

TMH

Manic Moran wrote: »

The distinction is not between wounded and unwounded, it is between combatant and 'hors de combat.' If he picks up a weapon, he's a valid target even if wounded.

You sling out military jargon as if it's Gospel. Just because the actions of these soldiers might be acceptable within the US military doesn't make it morally right. In fact it's a damning reflection on the state of the army and themselves. These men come a cross as a bunch of heartless, sadistic pricks.

Laughing after the humvee rolls over the dead body of that journalist?

Sick.

And yes, you should watch the second part "with the van", it gets worse.