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

Sheeps

19:23 of the long video, you have confirmation of the weapons.

"Six; This is Four. I got one individual looks like he's got an rpg round laying underneath him. Break."

MaybeLogic

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Thanks Sheep, yea Bonito if you could remove them it would be better please. Most ppl when they see a vid click on it then after that read the info before and after it

I saw the main bits on Al Jazeera earlier. I just wanted to see the build up to the actual shootings.
It's hardly that gruesome.

gbee

Disturbing and I think I'll have nightmares over this. Am shaking now.

MaybeLogic

MaybeLogic wrote: »

It's hardly that gruesome.

gbee wrote: »

Disturbing and I think I'll have nightmares over this. Am shaking now.

I'm wrong apparently.

Mark200

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

So, that's legitimate in your opinion Mark?

What the hell? No of course not. How did you reach that conclusion?

I was simply pointing out that the Taliban are fighting for a reason. They are people.

It's the concept that the 'enemy' is inherently evil with nothing but murder on their minds that causes so many wars, and ****s up so many lives.

You can be damned sure that the Taliban are pointing every time American forces kills innocents and says "look, they're evil. They don't care about us" in the same way that people attempt to portray the Taliban.

The Taliban are disgusting in the way they go on, and it's obviously wrong. But it's shocking how often people seem to forget that they are in fact actually fighting for a reason.

Bonito

MaybeLogic wrote: »

I'm wrong apparently.

It's not gruesome. The most sickening part is the attitude of the pilot and gunner. Not as if you see body parts soaring through the air.

karma_

I'm sorry, but this isn't collateral damage, or a tragic mistake, it's murder. There was no real attempt to identify the those people in the video as insurgents, and a little care could have identified there were no weapons. From the very start no one acted in a suspicious manner, and it was clear that there was no RPG present, trained military personnel, especially those who operate this technology should know the difference.


I think these guys just wanted some action, they wanted to pull that trigger.

the sheer callousness when the operator was informed of the wounded child got me too. "oh well"

Sheeps

karma_ wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this isn't collateral damage, or a tragic mistake, it's murder. There was no real attempt to identify the those people in the video as insurgents, and a little care could have identified there were no weapons. From the very start no one acted in a suspicious manner, and it was clear that there was no RPG present, trained military personnel, especially those who operate this technology should know the difference.


I think these guys just wanted some action, they wanted to pull that trigger.

Eh, if it was so clear there was no RPG present, why was there an RPG warhead found at the scene under one of the guys bodies?

Also, crouching around a corner when there are US troops being fired upon and attack helicopters in the sky probably isn't acting suspicious at all.

karma_

Sheeps wrote: »

Eh, if it was so clear there was no RPG present, why was there an RPG warhead found at the scene under one of the guys bodies?

Also, crouching around a corner when there are US troops being fired upon and attack helicopters in the sky probably isn't acting suspicious at all.

can you cite the source for this information?

I find it hard to believe a cameraman would find it necessary to haul an RPG warhead round with him, cameras see generally don't need them.

Biggins

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

1. Its a war zone.
2. There was men carrying weapons. Some appeared to be carrying weapons including an RPG:
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!
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:

Sheeps

karma_ wrote: »

can you cite the source for this information?

I find it hard to believe a cameraman would find it necessary to haul an RPG warhead round with him, cameras see generally don't need them.

Try one of my previous posts where I cite the bloody time reference for the full length video where one of the soldiers on the ground confirms the weapon.

I understand that you didn't read the thread, but did you at least watch the video?

karma_

Biggins wrote: »

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

1. Its a war zone.
2. There was men carrying weapons. Some appeared top be carrying weapons including an RPG:
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!
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:

just in regards to point 2, i think it was later established there wasn't?

I believe the whole reason this happened was that the camera & the tripod the journos were carrying were 'misidentified' as being weapons.

oneintotwo

Biggins wrote: »

Deeply disappointing that accidental deaths should happen but there is one thing to remember:

When the modern forces kill innocents, they see it as a unforgivable sad mistake (irrespective of how their agencies handle it later)
When the Taliban kill innocents, they see it as an immediate murdering victory!

Its all about perspective!

* I am NOT justifying what the Americans might have done or did later.

What are some examples of the Taliban killing innocent civilians and celebrating it?

Biggins

karma_ wrote: »

just in regards to point 2, i think it was later established there wasn't?

I believe the whole reason this happened was that the camera & the tripod the journos were carrying were 'misidentified' as being weapons.

That might account for two. Not five:

karma_

Sheeps wrote: »

Try one of my previous posts where I cite the bloody time reference for the full length video where one of the soldiers on the ground confirms the weapon.

I understand that you didn't read the thread, but did you at least watch the video?

No sheeps, you are seeing what you want to see, he clearly says 'what looks like an RPG warhead' at no time was that ever confirmed. In fact soon after that there is part of a conversation where an op. says 'maybe it was just a visual illusion but it looked like it' to which someone else replies 'well thy are dead, so.'

this implies to me that the mistake was recognised fairly soon after the incident.

Sheeps

karma_ wrote: »

No sheeps, you are seeing what you want to see, he clearly says 'what looks like an RPG warhead' at no time was that ever confirmed. In fact soon after that there is part of a conversation where an op. says 'maybe it was just a visual illusion but it looked like it' to which someone else replies 'well thy are dead, so.'

this implies to me that the mistake was recognised fairly soon after the incident.

Ahaha, you actually didn't even watch the video. The driver in the one of the Humvees broadcast that he thought one of the bodies was a visual illusion because the drove over it. That was nothing to do with the weapons at all.

18:29 I think they just drove over a body.
18:31 Hey hey!
18:32 Yeah!
18:37 Maybe it was just a visual illusion, but it looked like it.
18:41 Well, they're dead, so.

One of the soldiers then confirms that there's an RPG warhead underneath one of the corpses. Watch the video and then form an opinion instead of doing it the other way around.

Biggins

oneintotwo wrote: »

What are some examples of the Taliban killing innocent civilians and celebrating it?

Don't be ridiculous. They don't go out and start letting off party poppers for fcuks sake - and I'm not saying it either.
Every time they release propaganda garbage they try to justify the killing of civilians many times too.

If your head is still turned one way and thats just to bash Americans, I suggest you read at least one of the following examples (there's enough out there!) and get a wider education:

* http://www.siasat.com/english/news/taliban-killing-thousands-civilians
* http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/taliban-bombs-kill-afghan-civilians-20100301-pbdu.html
* http://en.trend.az/regions/world/afghanistan/1581794.html
* http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/15/taliban-cause-most-civilian-deaths-but-u-s-gets-the-blame/

Its probably a waste of time though.

karma_

Sheeps wrote: »

Ahaha, you actually didn't even watch the video. The driver in the one of the Humvees broadcast that he thought one of the bodies was a visual illusion because the drove over it. That was nothing to do with the weapons at all.

One of the soldiers then confirms that there's an RPG warhead underneath one of the corpses. Watch the video and then form an opinion instead of doing it the other way around.

well it's possible I picked that up wrong, I would have to watch it again but in truth I really don't have the heart to. Unlike yourself, I don't enjoy things like this.

Sheeps

karma_ wrote: »

well it's possible I picked that up wrong, I would have to watch it again but in truth I really don't have the heart to. Unlike yourself, I don't enjoy things like this.

You just love jumping to conclusions, don't you?

karma_

Sheeps wrote: »

You just love jumping to conclusions, don't you?

Maybe the truth hurts just a little? Your first post in this thread told me all I needed to know about what you thought about the whole thing.

Dara Robinson

Mark200 wrote: »

The Taliban are disgusting in the way they go on, and it's obviously wrong. But it's shocking how often people seem to forget that they are in fact actually fighting for a reason.

Actually Afghanistan had been used as a political football between the US and USSR for years. The Taliban were funded and trained by the US (something they admitted to and the French Intelligence agencies have confirmed) so its not like US are running in here like the White Knights they like to think they are. More like cleaning up their own mess.
But we are getting off point tbh, this is about Bagdad, civilians and Reuters Staff and not about the Taliban

Sheeps wrote: »

Also, crouching around a corner when there are US troops being fired upon and attack helicopters in the sky probably isn't acting suspicious at all.

Can you tell me how you think they even know that there was some guys some place maybe receiving fire (I did not notice that on the vids, any warning of guys under attack before they started firing but open to correction). Plus these Apache Helicopters can attack from 3km away. You probably cant even hear them from that far away and even if you did they are 3k away ffs.
Oh and come on man, a Photographer in a war zone peaking out from around a corner.... Maybe trying to not get shot and me think its standard practice man. Come on ffs

Sheeps

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Can you tell me how you think they even know that there was some guys some place maybe receiving fire (I did not notice that on the vids, any warning of guys under attack before they started firing but open to correction). Plus these Apache Helicopters can attack from 3km away. You probably cant even hear them from that far away and even if you did they are 3k away ffs.
Oh and come on man, a Photographer in a war zone peaking out from around a corner.... Maybe trying to not get shot and me think its standard practice man. Come on ffs

If there were nearby troops being shot at (which there were, we know this from the radio transcripts), they would have heard the gun fire and considering we know from the video that there was an RPG head found at the scene, then creeping around a corner like that is very suspicious when you have members of your group who are armed and dangerous.

It's also worth noting that when ground forces arrive on the scene, they are still receiving small arms fire.

Dara Robinson

karma_ wrote: »

No sheeps, you are seeing what you want to see, he clearly says 'what looks like an RPG warhead' at no time was that ever confirmed. In fact soon after that there is part of a conversation where an op. says 'maybe it was just a visual illusion but it looked like it' to which someone else replies 'well thy are dead, so.'

this implies to me that the mistake was recognised fairly soon after the incident.

sorry man. He is right, have a look at my post here I pointed out that Sheep is right and yes you can see an AK47 and what looks to be probably an RPG plus there is a later confirmation of it from ground troops (someone else posted this) and its transcribed for you on the video

karma_

Sheeps wrote: »

If there were nearby troops being shot at, they would have heard the gun fire and considering we know from the video that there was an RPG head found at the scene, then creeping around a corner like that is very suspicious when you have members of your group who are armed and dangerous.

You know, if you keep saying something often enough won't make it true, but hey we can't can't just let the facts get in the way of a good lie can we.

There was no RPG, the whole point of this video is the camera was supposedly mistaken for an RPG.

me-skywalker

Biggins wrote: »

That might account for two. Not five:

Still pretty hard to distinguish whether they are clearly weapons...

As you said yourself, they wouldnt just be out on a sunday stroll with their guns in there hands waving em out in the open with an helicopter flying overhead.

karma_

Dara Robinson wrote: »

sorry man. He is right, have a look at my post here I pointed out that Sheep is right and yes you can see an AK47 and what looks to be probably an RPG plus there is a later confirmation of it from ground troops (someone else posted this) and its transcribed for you on the video

Yes Dara, I've conceded I may have picked that part up wrong already, and the fact there are AK47's at the scece I find less surprising considering everyone in that country seems to carry them, but about the RPG, see my last post.

Dara Robinson

Sheeps wrote: »

It's also worth noting that when ground forces arrive on the scene, they are still receiving small arms fire.

No they are not. Its from another location completely. They later confirm that the guys on the radio got the 2 locations confused as one guy pointed out that they small arms fire was coming from a roof top location and the Apache Pilot confirmed they were attacking ground level only. 2 different locations. In fact I think that this is where the Apache Heli goes to later in the long vid and fires missiles at

And again, I ask you to tell me where in the videos it says that they are receiving fire before the US initially fire. Cause I did not see that

hideous ape

What planet are some of you on, the whole point of releasing this video was that these were journalists carrying camera equipment talking to civilians on a street corner. The Apache mistook them for insurgents with weapons and fired on them.

Taken from: http://wikileaks.org/

"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".

Biggins

me-skywalker wrote: »

Still pretty hard to distinguish whether they are clearly weapons...

As you said yourself, they wouldnt just be out on a sunday stroll with their guns in there hands waving em out in the open with an helicopter flying overhead.

True. That said they are all carrying something and I don't think they were snooker cues and cases.
Why would photo journalists be there if something like that was innocently the case?
Its VERY unfortunate that the camera men were killed but THEY still strolled around with men that were under great suspicion.
Hell, if I saw two gunships circling me and I was standing beside men with guns, I wouldn't be walking, I'd be running like crap out of there or at least moving very fast away from guns!

Bonito

Biggins wrote: »

True. That said they are all carrying something and I don't think they were snooker cues and cases.
Why would photo journalists be there if something like that was innocently the case?
Its VERY unfortunate that the camera men were killed but THEY still strolled around with men that were under great suspicion.
Hell, if I saw two gunships circling me and I was standing beside men with guns, I wouldn't be walking, I'd be running like crap out of there or at least moving very fast away from guns!

TBH If they were ak47's maybe they were free lances hired to protect the Reuters emplyees incase they came in to contact with insurgents. As said earlier there was some shootings from a rooftop. Maybe this is why the camera had such a large lens? To see the roof top for photos?

Then, when the reporters heard gun fire they dived for the corner of the building for cover and the apache thought it was them firing at them.

Note the length of the delay from when the apache engages to when the rounds actually hit. This may be because the apache is at it's full engaging distance of 2-3km out. Hence the reporters and (armed guards?) being taken by surprise when they are fired upon by the apache.

IMO the pricks just wanted to squeeze the trigger.

Mark200

Biggins wrote: »

That might account for two. Not five:

That picture is completely irrelevant. The soldier who said that was seeing exactly the same thing that we are seeing.


However, I'm just over half way through the video now and the only problem with it is that the soldiers were obviously too careless in establishing whether or not there were weapons (including those who tried to help the wounded). But besides that, I agree with what you said about it being war. Its these peoples jobs to kill people every day.

karma_

Biggins wrote: »

True. That said they are all carrying something and I don't think they were snooker cues and cases.
Why would photo journalists be there if something like that was innocently the case?
Its VERY unfortunate that the camera men were killed but THEY still strolled around with men that were under great suspicion.
Hell, if I saw two gunships circling me and I was standing beside men with guns, I wouldn't be walking, I'd be running like crap out of there or at least moving very fast away from guns!

That's just a convenient way to justify this Biggins. Do all Journalists in Iraq not have some kind of armed bodyguards? By your logic no journos should be allowed into baghdad because they have to 'carry' their equipment.

Biggins

Bonito wrote: »

TBH If they were ak47's maybe they were free lances hired to protect the Reuters emplyees incase they came in to contact with insurgents. As said earlier there was some shootings from a rooftop. Maybe this is why the camera had such a large lens? To see the roof top for photos?

Then, when the reporters heard gun fire they dived for the corner of the building for cover and the apache thought it was them firing at them.

Note the length of the delay from when the apache engages to when the rounds actually hit. This may be because the apache is at it's full engaging distance of 2-3km out. Hence the reporters and (armed guards?) being taken by surprise when they are fired upon by the apache.

IMO the pricks just wanted to squeeze the trigger.

The soldiers later turned up on the ground and found NO "armed guards" for camera men.
No camera men go around with their own personal protection that I know of.
(The Taliban wouldn't trust them, it would slow them down and would be a logistical nightmare)
You can throw that suggestion out there but there is no evidence to back that claim up and subsequently even from those that oppose the American presence, they neither have made that claim.

As for these so called "out for blood killers", I re-quote myself:

See this later frame alone (safe - not gruesome) that shows the mentality of the soldiers: http://i39.tinypic.com/15mecmt.jpg

...but your entitled to your opinion.

Sheeps

Dara Robinson wrote: »

No they are not. Its from another location completely. They later confirm that the guys on the radio got the 2 locations confused as one guy pointed out that they small arms fire was coming from a roof top location and the Apache Pilot confirmed they were attacking ground level only. 2 different locations. In fact I think that this is where the Apache Heli goes to later in the long vid and fires missiles at

And again, I ask you to tell me where in the videos it says that they are receiving fire before the US initially fire. Cause I did not see that

The fact that the fire is coming from a different location doesn't mean that they're not receiving small arms fire.

You are correct though about receiving small arms fire before this engagement, I must have miss interpreted that part.

Dara Robinson

karma_ wrote: »

Yes Dara, I've conceded I may have picked that part up wrong already, and the fact there are AK47's at the scece I find less surprising considering everyone in that country seems to carry them, but about the RPG, see my last post.

Re the RPG, look at attached and re-watch the vid

sron

Biggins wrote: »

True. That said they are all carrying something and I don't think they were snooker cues and cases.
Why would photo journalists be there if something like that was innocently the case?
Its VERY unfortunate that the camera men were killed but THEY still strolled around with men that were under great suspicion.

I'm sorry, do you think that there's a possibility that armed Iraqi insurgents would walk around with their weapons exposed right underneath a helicopter gunship?

Biggins wrote: »

Hell, if I saw two gunships circling me and I was standing beside men with guns, I wouldn't be walking, I'd be running like crap out of there or at least moving very fast away from guns!

If you did that, they would absolutely shoot you dead.



The Americans think they're playing video games.

Biggins

Some people will see what they want to see at the end of the day - be it wrong or right.

I personally don't think we have a bunch of American "out for blood" killers.
We do have an unfortunate incident where stupid people were doing stupid things at the wrong place and time.
The consequences for this is on video.

naughto

if the iraqi civilian had rps and k47 are where planning on killing people then what where the journalists doing in the middle of it.surley they would have reported if they knew that they was going to an attack

Sheeps

sron wrote: »

I'm sorry, do you think that there's a possibility that armed Iraqi insurgents would walk around with their weapons exposed right underneath a helicopter gunship?

As someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, there's a good chance that they didn't know the helicopters were there.

karma_

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Re the RPG, look at attached and re-watch the vid

but it's a camera tripod, not an RPG.

Sheeps

karma_ wrote: »

but it's a camera tripod, not an RPG.

Clearly the video quality is not good enough to identify it as a quite large weapon, but it's good enough quality to identify it as a smaller camera tripod.

karma_

Sheeps wrote: »

Clearly the video quality is not good enough to identify it as a quite large weapon, but it's good enough quality to identify it as a smaller camera tripod.

so why were the civillians shot if it could not be determined what they were actually carrying?

I'll say this one more time, in the hopes it will sink in.

Cameraman and his crew mistaken for an RPG team, who were then shot and killed. The whole tragedy being that it was not in fact an RPG but a camera man with a camera and tripod. Seriously, this is the essence of the whole story yet you are more interested in babbling about the RPG that never was.

Also, my last word on the whole sorry incident. I am now no longer surprised that there are now over 1 million dead Iraqi civillians, consideing the care in which insurgents have been targeted.

sron

Sheeps wrote: »

As someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, there's a good chance that they didn't know the helicopters were there.

I think that's unlikely. Even if there was cloud cover (which couldn't have been heavy given the video), helicopters are loud and very conspicuous.

Re: Biggins
This is not one of those inevitable accidents of war. This shows the arrogance and contempt of the US armed forces which will prevent them ever winning this war.

Biggins

sron wrote: »

I'm sorry, do you think that there's a possibility that armed Iraqi insurgents would walk around with their weapons exposed right underneath a helicopter gunship? .

Yes - no question. Its been shown many times in this long ongoing conflict and others (Palestine alone!) that they adopt an attitude that "we are in amid civilians and civilian areas, they won't/can't shoot"
Balls the size of brass monkeys but yes, they actually do stupid things like this.

sron wrote: »

If you did that, they would absolutely shoot you dead.

Why? The soldiers in the gun ship WOULD NOT open fire even on the injured man crawling away because they did NOT see a weapon subsequently on him.

I'm sure myself that if anyone started to run away and wasn't carrying a weapon, they wouldn't shoot.
Hell if that was the case, every innocent person running away from a potential sudden scene of a battle, would be gun cannon fodder and we'd be hearing about it hourly, not just daily!

sron wrote: »

The Americans think they're playing video games.

...in your opinion!
I'm sure when they are dodging bullets and rocket launchers, the last thing they are thinking of is video games and pac-man! Jeeze... :rolleyes:

Dara Robinson

karma_ wrote: »

but it's a camera tripod, not an RPG.

http://i40.tinypic.com/wb3zgn.jpg

karma_

Dara Robinson wrote: »

http://i40.tinypic.com/wb3zgn.jpg

Dara seriously, read what it says in that text again! please. ie. 'looks like'

Biggins

Mark200 wrote: »

That picture is completely irrelevant. The soldier who said that was seeing exactly the same thing that we are seeing.

We are seeing from just ONE view.
Maybe those in the gunships had other views also thru binoculars - its not unthinkable is it?
Imagine, a soldier manning the actual gun/pilot/co-pilot with actual binoculars!
Its not too far a stretch to say it a possibility.

Frank Spencer

Here's how it was reported at the time.

Not sure if this version of events tallies.

The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.

Gordon

sron wrote: »

I'm sorry, do you think that there's a possibility that armed Iraqi insurgents would walk around with their weapons exposed right underneath a helicopter gunship?

That's not correct, the gunship seems a long way away with a good zoom. Look and hear how long it takes the bullets to hit the targets to get an idea.

Not quite sure why you are saying 'right underneath' when clearly the helicopter is at an angle, not directly overhead - hence the circling.

Looking at the first shots it seems to take 2 and a quarter seconds from hearing the shots to seeing the bullets hit the ground. Those guns are probably high velocity dealies, but even if they have a velocity of a magnum handgun it would be around 900metres away, nearly a kilometer. If it was a higher powered machine gun it could be 1.5 or 2 KM away maybe? Someone else might be better at the maths.

Sheeps

karma_ wrote: »

Dara seriously, read what it says in that text again! please. ie. 'looks like'

Ugh, stop splitting hairs. The person who is saying that it "looks like" is a bloody soldier standing over the dead body. It's a confirmation of weapons.

Also, my last post was making fun of your whole "it's a tripod" argument, I'm not saying the quality is not good enough to classify weapons.