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

Overheal

karma_ wrote: »

Common sense tells me also, that if those guys really were insurgents then they were fairly poor ones because it looked like a few lads walking down a street.

You realise that Guerrilla Warfare (of which the Irish are sometimes considered the Fathers of) relies heavily on the Guerrilla force blending in with the local population?

MaybeLogic

Overheal wrote: »

You realise that Guerrilla Warfare (of which the Irish are sometimes considered the Fathers of) relies heavily on the Guerrilla force blending in with the local population?

In a group like that? With a chopper overhead?

karma_

Overheal wrote: »

You realise that Guerrilla Warfare (of which the Irish are sometimes considered the Fathers of) relies heavily on the Guerrilla force blending in with the local population?

You saw my last post yea? That should answer this question for you also.

prinz

karma_ wrote: »

Nice effort Prinz but this has already been covered a few pages back.

Saying that you 'expect better from the americans' doesn't really cover anything. In wars innocent people are killed, nobody is perfect. Yes it certainly looks like the US forces screwed up here, but there is a reason that the deaths of 11 Iraqis gets a thread of it's own here, and it isn't due to the deaths of 11 Iraqis, it is solely due to the nationality of the perpetrators.

60+ people were killed by Maoist Naxal rebels in India today too if what you are interested in is the sanctity of human life. Where's the crocodile tears for them?

karma_

prinz wrote: »

Saying that you 'expect better from the americans' doesn't really cover anything. In wars innocent people are killed, nobody is perfect. Yes it certainly looks like the US forces screwed up here, but there is a reason that the deaths of 11 Iraqis gets a thread of it's own here, and it isn't due to the deaths of 11 Iraqis, it is solely due to the nationality of the perpetrators.

60+ people were killed by Maoist Naxal rebels in India today too if what you are interested in is the sanctity of human life. Where's the crocodile tears for them?

Thats because we now have something quantifiable to make an informed judgement on this action, do you have video footage of Taleban attacks or those Maoist rebels? If so, I'm sure we can get a discussion going.

And yes, because that we expect 'terrorists' to be douchebags and the US forces or any Governmental force not to be, is because the bar is and should be set higher for them, and no matter how you feel about that, it is a salient point.

In saying that don't let me stop you being a broken record.

Overheal

MaybeLogic wrote: »

In a group like that? With a chopper overhead?

We've been in circles about this. One version of events argues that a) The Apache was as much as 3km distant and that b) The Cameraman was not trying to photograph the Apache, but a Hummvee Wreck further down the Road that he was looking around the corner to.

Therefore the group would have not been paying heed to the Apache Longbow and therefore would have been acting more casually than if they were in direct contact with a hostile.

Or you can choose to believe they saw the Apache but much like drunk Teenagers on O'Connel Street they "Acted Cool" in front of a Superior.

karma_ wrote: »

I think you have misunderstood, which is a shame given the length of your post, but there was no insurgents in that video, no one was 'running with the enemy' and there was no RPG.

In teh time it took you to type all that out you could have easily found this information by yourself.

Whether there was or not, made no difference in those 3 minutes. As this thread has proven, the Evidence available is seriously debatable.

karma_

Overheal wrote: »

We've been in circles about this. One version of events argues that a) The Apache was as much as 3km distant and that b) The Cameraman was not trying to photograph the Apache, but a Hummvee Wreck further down the Road that he was looking around the corner to.

Therefore the group would have not been paying heed to the Apache Longbow and therefore would have been acting more casually than if they were in direct contact with a hostile.

Or you can choose to believe they saw the Apache but much like drunk Teenagers on O'Connel Street they "Acted Cool" in front of a Superior.
Whether there was or not, made no difference in those 3 minutes. As this thread has proven, the Evidence available is seriously debatable.

Chances are they knew a chopper was in the area, they are a noisy beast and you can hear them from a good distance away, there was footage posted earlier which shoes that there were 2 or 3 hovering over the city that day.

I appreciate you want to defend the honour of your countries armed forces, but somethings transcend national pride, were this the Irish army, I'd be equally outraged.

Overheal

karma_ wrote: »

Chances are they knew a chopper was in the area, they are a noisy beast and you can hear them from a good distance away, there was footage posted earlier which shoes that there were 2 or 3 hovering over the city that day.

I appreciate you want to defend the honour of your countries armed forces, but somethings transcend national pride, were this the Irish army, I'd be equally outraged.

Chances are.

If I'm defending my country of anything its the Internet Brigade who takes a Hypothesis (Chances are...) calls it a fact, and runs with it.

Nowhere in this thread have I upheld that a) We are Right to be there in the first place b) That they were properly trained to handle the situation or c) that they acted appropriately, if legally. And that d) We Don't Know Everything. We are Not the Judge or the Jury. This is the sad circus of Public Opinion.

So Im not sure what pre-conception you have of my Stance: But its time to drop it.

Sheeps

Actually the velocity of the rounds it was firing is about 800m/s, and it took a good 3 seconds for them to actually hit their target which puts the helicopter about a mile and a half away.

They probably didn't know it was there.

karma_

Time to finish up here and go bang my head against the nearest brick wall. I'd say it's been fun but it hasn't.

Sheeps

eoindamann wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri4wwXTXRQs

Get bent.

Overheal

karma_ wrote: »

Time to finish up here and go bang my head against the nearest brick wall. I'd say it's been fun but it hasn't.

Wear a Helmet; Have a Nice Day!

Sheeps wrote: »

Get bent.

Spam or no spam: no Sheeps. Just no..

AlmightyCushion

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Wow, more personal attacks. Aren't we all getting web balls, very mature...


There is no evidence that the video is out of sync. In fact if you watch it carefully they are interacting, voice wise, with whats happening on the ground in real time. I have seen the video 3 or 4 times now and I have seen no evidence to suggest that. Have you?

And as for the full video.... speak for yourself mate. I linked it so if you did not watch it thats up to you. But the full video is almost 40 mins long. and thats the one I have watched over and over.

Also, if anyone is interested in reading the American Presses reaction WikiLeaks is posting most of the articles out there on their Twitter page

I've seen no evidence to suggest it isn't perfectly synced either. Videos can go out of sync and regain sync all the time. Especially if they've had scenes cut which the version I seen had. I'm not saying the helicopter was definitely on top of them, what I'm saying is that we can't say for definite how close they were.

The video I seen was linked to on facebook, I watched that before seeing this thread and I don't fancy watching a 40 minute video when I seen half of it already.

Gigiwagga

Jake says "The two journalists took a big risk, it’s hard for the US troops to offer them protection once they run with the enemy."

That's it really isn't it, it's all about the enemy, in this case innocent Iraqis civilians. The stark reality of the video is it shows how everything that moves and is not American IS the enemy, of course this doesn't include the thousands of US troops killed in friendly fire. And the reason everybody else is the enemy is because the US troops are somewhere they shouldn't be, they are the invaders, the aggressors, the raper and pillagers. And that fact just doesn't sit well with a lot of the posters here because the support the US position and must (stupidly) support US butchery.

The squirming is funny, the reality is very sad.

Overheal

All we know For Sure is the Gunner on the Apache was operating the Camera Pod on a Zoom Setting of however much Powers of Magnification. And we can't be sure what we see at the start of the clip is Zoom x1. He could have been in zoom x1 or zoom x10 or zoom xyz at the start of the clip before zooming in farther.

But, I will theorize that they must have been quite a ways out because in order to inspect the people on the ground They would have had to have gone to the Maximum level of Zoom to inspect what they believed were Ak-47s and RPGs.

Im not sure where the Zoom capacity of the AH-64 is listed (or if its Classified) But you could be damn sure its Good. If they were a Few Hundred feet away - as Opposed to a couple Kilometers - I suspect they would have been able to get a much closer look at the suspects on the ground. But Im willing to be proven wrong if anyone has any experience with the Apache or a similar Optics setup.

Sheeps

Overheal wrote: »

All we know For Sure is the Gunner on the Apache was operating the Camera Pod on a Zoom Setting of however much Powers of Magnification. And we can't be sure what we see at the start of the clip is Zoom x1. He could have been in zoom x1 or zoom x10 or zoom xyz at the start of the clip before zooming in farther.

But, I will theorize that they must have been quite a ways out because in order to inspect the people on the ground They would have had to have gone to the Maximum level of Zoom to inspect what they believed were Ak-47s and RPGs.

Im not sure where the Zoom capacity of the AH-64 is listed (or if its Classified) But you could be damn sure its Good. If they were a Few Hundred feet away - as Opposed to a couple Kilometers - I suspect they would have been able to get a much closer look at the suspects on the ground.

They were far enough away that a projectile the travels at 800m/s took 3 seconds to reach the target. That's pretty far away and probably borders the maximum effective range of the weapon system.

It'd be interesting if all footage was released after the war. Would never happen but how many videos like this would there be..

Prof.Badass

The fact that we can view such videos in the first place is just one reason why internet freedom is so important.

Overheal

Sheeps wrote: »

They were far enough away that a projectile the travels at 800m/s took 3 seconds to hit the target. That's pretty far away.

For the purposes of what I said though I was throwing out the video-noise-sync-timing debacle. In the absence of a stopwatch I just applied common sense logic

Deleted User wrote: »

It'd be interesting if all footage was released after the war. Would never happen bout how many videos like this would there be..

Honestly? I think A lot. War is a filthy thing and we are prone to Power Trips. Whether you just got your Driver's license or the keys to an AH-64.

Gordon

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I've seen no evidence to suggest it isn't perfectly synced either. Videos can go out of sync and regain sync all the time. Especially if they've had scenes cut which the version I seen had. I'm not saying the helicopter was definitely on top of them, what I'm saying is that we can't say for definite how close they were.

The video I seen was linked to on facebook, I watched that before seeing this thread and I don't fancy watching a 40 minute video when I seen half of it already.

Yeah, good point. However, you can see when the machine gun is fired the camera shakes due to the helicopter being shaken by the force of the gun. This correlates with the audio at 4:50 so it looks synced at that precise moment. Meaning the helicopter is at least 2km away, or more.

Hmm, although looking at the display unit 'TADS' (target acquisition designation sight) it seems to be around the 1000 figure which suggests one kilometer? So, it could be as close as 1 kilometer in that case. scratch that, doesn't seem to be consistent so maybe that doesn't mean distance.

Sheeps wrote: »

They were far enough away that a projectile the travels at 800m/s took 3 seconds to reach the target. That's pretty far away and probably borders the maximum effective range of the weapon system.

It didn't take 3 seconds, it took just over 2. I'm getting a consistent 2.15 seconds on my stopwatch!

Glad to see the youtube viewcount limit has been taken off, that was a bit.. ironic!

jake la motta

I think you have misunderstood, which is a shame given the length of your post, but there was no insurgents in that video, no one was 'running with the enemy' and there was no RPG.

In teh time it took you to type all that out you could have easily found this information by yourself.

Its you who has misunderstood or just wont face the facts, all reports on this story run under the banner "Video shows deaths of two Reuters journalists in Iraq in 2007" or something similar, not the banner Video shows deaths of two Reuters journalists and Iraqi civilains in Iraq in 2007".

The other guys in the video are clearly terrorists, from CNN's report

The U.S. investigation into the attack found that the helicopter gunship's crew mistook the journalists' cameras for weapons while seeking out insurgents who had been firing at American troops in the area. The fliers estimated they killed 12 to 15 Iraqis in the attack.

So we have insurgents who had been firing at American troops in the area, you can ignore the facts gathered and I'm sorry they dont support your view of the US as bloodthirsty killers.


Link to the CNN article
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/04/05/iraq.photographers.killed/index.html?iref=allsearch

Dara Robinson

Holy Crapola, the investigation into this video cost Wikileaks around $50k,

The investigation and production of the video cost WikiLeaks almost $50,000.

Read more here

I think the guys at WikiLeaks hit the nail on the head here...

Lots of people avoiding talking murderous attack on the van/wounded; strawmanning camera/rpg confusion as the issue

And this is something I have been guilty of myself. Regardless of how and why the original attack happened the Van attack is the main issue as there are no circumstances where that can be justified.

The focus on the Iraq massacre response should be the cover-up and the van/missile attack.

AlmightyCushion

Gordon wrote: »

Yeah, good point. However, you can see when the machine gun is fired the camera shakes due to the helicopter being shaken by the force of the gun. This correlates with the audio at 4:50 so it looks synced at that precise moment. Meaning the helicopter is at least 2km away, or more.

Didn't notice the shaking at the time I watched it but if it's there then it would suggest the audio is synced correctly.

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Regardless of how and why the original attack happened the Van attack is the main issue as there are no circumstances where that can be justified.

Yup. I can't see how that attack on the van can be justified. They were helping a wounded man. OK they thought the wounded man was an insurgent but there was nothing to suggest the guys in the van were insurgents. They didn't see weapons and they weren't hostile to the helicopter.

Millicent

The most telling thing about this whole video and the circumstances surrounding it is contained in a video Dara embedded a few pages back.

The US army released a statement when the journalists' deaths emerged saying that the two were with a group of insurgents who had fired on the military. Then, when Reuters requested this video under the Freedom of Information Act, they were denied. Why refuse access if you feel you have nothing to hide?

ETA: Says in the NY Times that Reuters were allowed to view the video but not to make a copy. My point still stands though.

Gordon

There certainly are a few things that occupied lands could learn from this:

1) Play dead.
2) Put an ambulance logo on your vehicle.

Dara Robinson

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Yup. I can't see how that attack on the van can be justified. They were helping a wounded man. OK they thought the wounded man was an insurgent but there was nothing to suggest the guys in the van were insurgents. They didn't see weapons and they weren't hostile to the helicopter.

Actually that was a one of the reporters. Not an insurgent.

Also, from what I have been on MSNBC, read on Fox News website and seen on other vids of interviews and shows it seems to be a given in the US Press community that there was never an RPG. Possibly one man with an AK but thats it. This seems to have been pieced together between the video and accounts of the press that was embedded with the Ground Troops that came in after the initial shooting


Oh and apparently Facebook.com has blocked outgoing links to collateralmurder.org

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Honestly? I think A lot. War is a filthy thing and we are prone to Power Trips. Whether you just got your Driver's license or the keys to an AH-64.

Typing on phone.. Meant ta say"would never happen but how how many". I agree with ya.

Amalgam

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Oh and apparently Facebook.com has blocked outgoing links to collateralmurder.org

Why would they do that?

Dara Robinson

Now this will be interesting. I wonder what the US Military's reaction to this will be

BAGHDAD — The Iraqi Journalists’ Union on Tuesday called on the Iraqi government to investigate the apparent killing of two Reuters employees by U.S. Apache helicopters after a Web site posted classified American military video footage of the shooting.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/middle_east/view.bg?articleid=1245009


Oh, and I also noticed this in the article. Nice to have it confirmed I suppose.

This frame grab image taken from a video shot from a U.S. army Apache helicopter gun-sight, posted at Wikileaks.org and confirmed as authentic by a senior U.S. military official, shows a group of men moments before the attack.

Amalgam wrote: »

Why would they do that?

I have no idea. But according to WikiLeaks they have

Oh, and I cant remember who pointed this out originally but, The view counter on the vid on YouTube seems to have been fixed. Its at 1,993,917 views now. But I noticed it around the same number about an hour ago also so could have been frozen again lol

Also, anyone know if the White House, Pentagon or US Military have responded to the WikiLeaks release?

Overheal

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Also, anyone know if the White House, Pentagon or US Military have responded to the WikiLeaks release?

That'll happen..