Wikileaks Collateral Murder Video

[LesserOf2Evils]

Suprised there isn't a topic on this already. Or maybe I just didn't see it.

5rXPrfnU3G0

[flibitijibibo]

... Aren't pilots/gunners supposed to have above-average eyesight? Holy shit. Where's that picture where every gun is an AK47 except an AK47? Looks we can add a *camera* to that jpeg. :facepalm:

This video also implies that, back then at least, they were literally just flying those things around where clearly nothing was happening. I'd rather not have money than pay taxes for that.

Considering >half of my family is in the military/government, this is beyond embarrassing for me.

Also, fuck those guys who were laughing about running that guy over. That was the icing on the cake. :|

[DEElekgolo]

Watch, people are going to start using this against the US to make there country look superior.

[mech]

How so, those were clearly guns.

[Timo]

:\

[thehoodedsmack]

Watch, people are going to start using this against the US to make there country look superior.

People bash the United States of America because lately they've been up to no good. People bash other countries for exactly the same reason. Furthermore, the US isn't the most superior country to begin with, so it's no fault for people to point out America's shortcomings. Intense criticism is the best way to improve anything.

By watching the video, it seems like the command the helicopter was in contact with didn't have access to their video feed. I honestly can't say why they wouldn't want to take the time to double-check the pilots' assessments, because clearly there was little evidence of weapons or insurgency. Really, if you're going to invade a country, be careful what you do. You can come in for all the right reasons, but having constant fuck-ups like this is just going to breed more anti-occupation sentiments.

[Warsaw]

^ No such thing as the most superior country, tbh.

But, this is a pretty bad example of the so-called "checks" that the US military has to prevent civilian casualties.

[DEElekgolo]

To be honest, it is really the gunner's visual that they all relied on. So to isolate the problem, it was really his fault. He was also the only one that laughed and requested permission to engage most of the time. I may be wrong though since there are 2 helicopters.

[CN3089]

death to america

[DEElekgolo]

u wanna fite?

[Limited]

Watch, people are going to start using this against the US to make there country look superior.
Only in America...I kid.

People are already comparing this to video games.

[Good_Apollo]

It's war, shit happens. This isn't news, it's just horrible and another juicy story to fuel all the US hatred floating around.

Sickening.

[thehoodedsmack]

It's war, shit happens. This isn't news, it's just horrible and another juicy story to fuel all the US hatred floating around.

Sickening.

It is news, and it should be discussed, because what's fueling anti-American mindsets is American actions. War doesn't need to have civilian deaths, so the "shit happens" response isn't valid in the least. You should always be looking at your current system and attempting to improve it. It really boggles my mind that people will take such a laid-back, indifferent, "that's just the way it is" response to not only war, but to their systems of government, economic structure, social norms, media trends, all these things that could constantly benefit from reform and refinement.

People, you are allowed to be wrong, don't ever forget it. In fact, hope for it. If something has a problem, solve it, and be prepared for when the solution fails you. People don't look down upon the United States because it's the cool thing to do, they do it because America demonstrates clear and present problems. And ignoring the problem will only make it worse.

[Good_Apollo]

It is news, and it should be discussed, because what's fueling anti-American mindsets is American actions. War doesn't need to have civilian deaths, so the "shit happens" response isn't valid in the least. You should always be looking at your current system and attempting to improve it. It really boggles my mind that people will take such a laid-back, indifferent, "that's just the way it is" response to not only war, but to their systems of government, economic structure, social norms, media trends, all these things that could constantly benefit from reform and refinement.

People, you are allowed to be wrong, don't ever forget it. In fact, hope for it. If something has a problem, solve it, and be prepared for when the solution fails you. People don't look down upon the United States because it's the cool thing to do, they do it because America demonstrates clear and present problems. And ignoring the problem will only make it worse.Who says I support Civilian deaths?

This is just another video showing soldiers following orders with, unfortunately, results that involve unneeded deaths. It's sad and you can discuss it until the end of time, but sad and needless death has always been a part of war, and it always will be. You can discuss to death on ways to improve ROE, and that's fine, but stop using these videos to fuel your anti-War or anti-US arguments.

In the video all I see are a bunch of soldiers (albeit cocky, maybe even assholes) doing what they're supposed to and engaging targets that look like threats. It's easy to sit and home and be an armchair politician and ethics professor in your warm house while watching videos of war, dissecting them to your liking and furthering your viewpoints in comfort.

[Con]

It got even worse when they felt they had to kill unarmed people coming to take the bodies away and aid the wounded. That's really fucking low.

[Bodzilla]

It is news, and it should be discussed, because what's fueling anti-American mindsets is American actions. War doesn't need to have civilian deaths, so the "shit happens" response isn't valid in the least. You should always be looking at your current system and attempting to improve it. It really boggles my mind that people will take such a laid-back, indifferent, "that's just the way it is" response to not only war, but to their systems of government, economic structure, social norms, media trends, all these things that could constantly benefit from reform and refinement.

People, you are allowed to be wrong, don't ever forget it. In fact, hope for it. If something has a problem, solve it, and be prepared for when the solution fails you. People don't look down upon the United States because it's the cool thing to do, they do it because America demonstrates clear and present problems. And ignoring the problem will only make it worse.
best post on this forum... ever.

it was like playing death from above in MW all over again but let me just say this.

"the government LIED TO ME? about the war in Iraq?! who knew!"

[Disaster]

I'm pretty sure it is against the law to willfully harm aid to the wounded on the battlefield.

[thehoodedsmack]

Who says I support Civilian deaths?

Nobody did.


This is just another video showing soldiers following orders with, unfortunately, results that involve uneeded deaths. It's sad and you can discuss it until the end of time, but sad and needless death has always been a part of war, and it always will be. You can discuss to death on ways to improve ROE, and that's fine, but stop using these videos to fuel your anti-War or anti-US arguments.

No, the idea of "this is the way it is, and always will be" is what's sad and needless. Also:


stop using these videos to fuel your anti-War or anti-US arguments.

Do you have any idea what you just said? To shed some light on what this appears as to an impartial (that's me, by the way) reader, you are suggesting that people should not use the incriminating evidence of military misconduct when judging the reliability of the military structure. Please reiterate or explain what you meant, if indeed I have misinterpreted your statement.


In the video all I see are a bunch of soldiers (albeit cocky, maybe even assholes) doing what they're supposed to and engaging targets that look like threats.

That video showcases the bureaucratic murder of civilians, who were of no threat to, may I say, an invading force, who were gunned down because the military supervisors saw fit to give absolute rights of judge, jury, and executioner to trigger-happy soldiers. And people are worried about Obama death-panels...

Edit: Edited in after your edit:


It's easy to sit and home and be an armchair politician and ethics professor in your warm house while watching videos of war, dissecting them to your liking and furthering your viewpoints in comfort.

It's also easy to press a button and take a life when you're miles away in an armored helicopter. What is your point, exactly? You're attacking, I assume, me? I've made no confrontation against you, but rather the views expressed, so to try to attack my character and lifestyle is irrelevant, childish, and nothing but a detriment to the goal of what I am now forced to assume is winning an argument. An argument with only one participant.

[Good_Apollo]

Nobody did.



No, the idea of "this is the way it is, and always will be" is what's sad and needless. Also:



Do you have any idea what you just said? To shed some light on what this appears as to an impartial (that's me, by the way) reader, you are suggesting that people should not use the incriminating evidence of military misconduct when judging the reliability of the military structure. Please reiterate or explain what you meant, if indeed I have misinterpreted your statement.



That video showcases the bureaucratic murder of civilians, who were of no threat to, may I say, an invading force, who were gunned down because the military supervisors saw fit to give absolute rights of judge, jury, and executioner to trigger-happy soldiers. And people are worried about Obama death-panels...And suppose, instead of being two kids in that car, men popped out and blew those helicopters out of the sky? Wonder what you'd say about the deaths of those soldiers, probably good riddance, the war in Iraq is a sham anyway..?

Insurgents have already proven a multitude of times that they care not about the civilians they're trying to 'liberate,' often using them as shields to disrupt ROE for the US/Coalition.

I.E. War is hell, you expect bullets and death from every corner, especially in this campaign where there is no uniformed, regular enemy. I'm not going to try to make these soldier's feel bad about following orders and call the military incompetent. They'll already have to live with the blood of two children on their hands. It's just another notch in the horrors of war, and you can't ever rationalize it.

[Con]

And suppose, instead of being two kids in that car, men popped out and blew those helicopters out of the sky? Wonder what you'd say about the deaths of those soldiers, probably good riddance, the war in Iraq is a sham anyway..?

You can't make those assumptions, and you can't look for excuses to shoot at a bunch of people. I don't see why you're defending them; this was a major fuckup on their part because they shot first and asked questions later.

[Cortexian]

Look around 03m45s in the video, there's an obviously long tube shaped object that could be ID'ed as an RPG from that far away. You need to note that the pilots/gunners in question don't have video that's better quality than what we've got here, this video is also zoomed in, the gunners and pilots would have trouble seeing it any better with the naked eye. Yes I noted the two guys with cameras fairly easily, there were at least three other people with weapon shaped objects on their persons as well.

These Apaches were well within their rights to initiate the attack, it's easy for us to sit here and pick their shit apart from behind our computer monitors, but when you're over there it's either you or them. I don't know about you guys but I'd rather take the safe side and attack anyone that could possibly be threatening to me or my allies now or in the future.

[Good_Apollo]

You can't make those assumptions, and you can't look for excuses to shoot at a bunch of people. I don't see why you're defending them; this was a major fuckup on their part because they shot first and asked questions later.I'm just saying it's easier for you to argue after the fact than it possibly was for them at the time.

Major fuckup, nobody is disagreeing with you but soldier's can't be burdened with hindsight. I wish someone here had actually seen combat, the rest of the people here might stop trying to pass their righteous judgments from their computer chairs.

[thehoodedsmack]

And suppose, instead of being two kids in that car, men popped out and blew those helicopters out of the sky? Wonder what you'd say about the deaths of those soldiers, probably good riddance, the war in Iraq is a sham anyway..?

Don't try to estimate my emotional views on the subject. I haven't done so to you, it would be gracious of you to return the courtesy.


Insurgents have already proven a multitude of times that they care not about the civilians they're trying to 'liberate,' often using them as shields to disrupt ROE for the US/Coalition.

Yes they have, of what importance is this? If you mean to say that the killings were justified because insurgents also do terrible things, that argument holds no water. If the military stoops to their level, their entire campaign is a hypocrisy, and the US becomes the same terrorists they went in to remove.


I.E. War is hell, you expect bullets and death from every corner, especially in this campaign where there is no uniformed, regular enemy. I'm not going to try to make these soldier's feel bad about following orders and call the military incompetent. They'll already have to live with the blood of two children on their hands. It's just another notch in the horrors of war, and you can't ever rationalize it.

Except they didn't follow orders, they asked permission, lined them up, and took the shot. It isn't right to paint them up as though their commanders were screaming down their necks. It was their call.

[Good_Apollo]

Don't try to estimate my emotional views on the subject. I haven't done so to you, it would be gracious of you to return the courtesy.



Yes they have, of what importance is this? If you mean to say that the killings were justified because insurgents also do terrible things, that argument holds no water. If the military stoops to their level, their entire campaign is a hypocrisy, and the US becomes the same terrorists they went in to remove.



Except they didn't follow orders, they asked permission, lined them up, and took the shot. It isn't right to paint them up as though their commanders were screaming down their necks. It was their call.If you didn't understand the meaning of why I mentioned insurgents being around civilians, then I'll just stop posting. Another circlejerk thread of naive young men, (myself included) pretending they know everything on an internet forum.

[thehoodedsmack]

If you didn't understand the meaning of why I mentioned insurgents being around civilians, then I'll just stop posting. Another circlejerk thread of naive young men, (myself included) pretending they know everything on an internet forum.

Again, attack people's character, please do. Nobody has claimed to know everything. With the amount of straw-man arguments you're tossing around you'd think you were a god-damn scarecrow.

You'll stop posting because I didn't get it? That's a terrible way to spread observation and understanding. You are deliberately holding up the debate of a critical issue and you should be ashamed of yourself. Enough of your "arm chair politician" bullshit. The great thing about a democracy is that everyone gets a say. From the most brain-dead hick to the most well-groomed sophisticate, everyone is entitled to contribute to the way their world works. You don't have to be a soldier to comment on war, because sometimes soldiers are the worst people to be commenting about it. To say that people should hold their tongue because what, they've never been under fire? Get out of town. Fun fact: everyone is different and necessary to the betterment of society, so please do us all a favor, and hold out on this idea that because people come from comfy, middle class homes, their views and ideas are irrelevant.

[PenGuin1362]

collateral murder collateral damage. its war, deal with it.

[Spartan094]

War. So sad.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sDkhzHQO7jY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sDkhzHQO7jY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I will leave it to him.

[thehoodedsmack]

collateral murder collateral damage. its war, deal with it.

Urgg... Again people, needless death should never be viewed as "welp, what can you do".

[Cojafoji]

Been following this since I saw it break on reddit this morning. Pretty good post there from ex military...
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/bmu2d/saw_the_video_wikileaks_posted_heres_a_measured/


TL;DR: I'm military and been right over that neighborhood at a different time; the video may be disturbing but doesn't strike me as unjustifiable. The coverup is what we should save our real vitriol for. I know some of you will immediately dismiss this as you view everyone in the military as inherently evil. I find that silly. (There are also people who think I can do no wrong because I AM and I find that dangerous). Give it a read anyway.
War is an ugly, atrocious action. Bad things happen every day; good things only rarely. It's a waste of money, time, potential, and especially lives. What's in this video is distasteful to say the least, but it's also intentionally inflammatory (presumably so WL gets more clicks, and we all obliged them). This video is from a period of increasing, and increasingly violent, action by insurgents. Mortar and rocket attacks, IEDs/EFPs, executions in the most grotesque manner, were all becoming the norm.
The men you hear are reacting to stress from a variety of sources: lack of sleep because of indirect fire attacks, stress from friends being WIA/KIA, stress from feeling little support from the Iraqis at that time, from being away from home and family. In all that stress, they still behaved according to the rules of engagement. They positively identified small arms (which are a threat) and misidentified an RPG. Had I not known, I would also have called out RPG. It unfortunately looks like it, and that was amplified by the pose he took. WL added in captions to let you know there were cameras to amplify outrage, but having flown around Baghdad in helos everything looks like a threat after they shoot at you.
Shooting the van was also justifiable because the "insurgents" were going to collect their wounded and weapons. Clearly the aircrew were wrong, but not unjustifiably and probably only in hindsight. They followed the ROEs, received approval to fire, and did so efficiently. Further, the initial statements that said they were engaged with a violent group also does not strike me as "cover up." If you've ever been involved with an emergency situation you know the first reports out are usually wrong. The later reports, however, I find repugnant. Events like this make me want to stay in the military because I don't want the bastards trying to cover up what was a horrific mistake thinking I won't be right over their shoulder next time.
I have found virtually all the military members I was with in Iraq serious, professional (at least on duty!), and genuinely concerned for civilians. You saw the soldiers running out with the kids. Genuine concern there, from fathers, older brothers, cousins that know kids like that back home. The amount of work we did to keep civilians out of harms way was breathtaking sometimes because it put us in much more vulnerable situations. I'm good with that. I signed up, they didn't. As for the attitude and demeanor of the aircrew, yep, it's stomach-turning. I did see this on occasion, and it's not something I've seen many redditors say they teach you in training. It's a defense mechanism to deal with the privations and violence you see. Dehumanizing the enemy makes it easier to deal with it. If you've never read or seen a synopsis of On Killing (http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270504046&sr=1-1) you absolutely should. That's why running over a body was seemingly funny. I'm ashamed to say I've had similar gut reactions of really terrible things, and like those guys I feel awful about it when I reflect.
This post isn't to justify the killings, but hopefully to tone down some of the hyperbole. It's a terrible tragedy; it's a waste; I'd love to see us out of Iraq as soon as feasible. It's not a war crime. It's not 18-year-old kids just wanting to kill people for the fun of it. Now, let's all be pissed together that it took this long to get the real story out. OK, too long of a ramble but I needed to get it off my chest.




I pretty much agree with him on all counts. While I am upset that this even happened in the first place, along with the dehumanizing of the targets by the pilots, I'm even more upset that it was covered up.

[thehoodedsmack]

He's pretty on-the-ball there. While it's a terrible thing that occurred, it never should have been covered up, no matter how atrocious, considering it was an accident. By covering it up, they remove the possibility for military techs and strategists to come up with better ways to approach these scenarios.

[Phopojijo]

Look around 03m45s in the video, there's an obviously long tube shaped object that could be ID'ed as an RPG from that far away. You need to note that the pilots/gunners in question don't have video that's better quality than what we've got here, this video is also zoomed in, the gunners and pilots would have trouble seeing it any better with the naked eye. Yes I noted the two guys with cameras fairly easily, there were at least three other people with weapon shaped objects on their persons as well.

These Apaches were well within their rights to initiate the attack, it's easy for us to sit here and pick their shit apart from behind our computer monitors, but when you're over there it's either you or them. I don't know about you guys but I'd rather take the safe side and attack anyone that could possibly be threatening to me or my allies now or in the future.There was one disturbing quote just after that, though --

"Yeah we had a guy shooting -- and now he's behind the building"

No-one fired a shot... since they didn't have any guns. What was he talking about?

[mech]

Was a huge fan of the cloaked rpg's they had.

[Cortexian]

There was one disturbing quote just after that, though --

"Yeah we had a guy shooting -- and now he's behind the building"

No-one fired a shot... since they didn't have any guns. What was he talking about?
A pilot and gunner inside an Apache cannot hear ground-based gunfire, all they can rely on is what they see through their various digital imagery devices and their own eyes. They could have mistaken sun glinting off a camera lens or other reflective object for gunfire and as the previous soldier that was quoted noted, these guys were most-definitely under lots of stress at the time. For the people taking offense to the comments made by the Apache crew and/or ground column, YOU need to realize that soldiers need to say things about situations you'll never experience in order to keep themselves sane. The joking and congratulations on killing other people isn't because they enjoy it, it's so that they don't consciously acknowledge what they're doing, killing another human for whatever reason. It's a coping mechanism.


Was a huge fan of the cloaked rpg's they had.
Shut your mouth until you go to war and do a better job. Thanks!

[mech]

I'm at war everyday, constantly having guns pointed at me and taking direct fire. Too bad I can't see them.

[CN3089]

hey guys let's justify blatant war crimes because SUPPORT ARE TROOPS


heh, remember in the video when the gunner is literally begging for permission to murder the father carrying his kids to school who stopped to help a wounded journalist who was just strafed by a gunship for no reason at all?




good times, good times

[paladin]

You guys think that this is some random act. The apaches came after the ground forces came under fire.


The U.S. military said the helicopter attack, in which nine other people were killed, occurred after security forces came under fire.
article (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL05399965)
They had permission to fire. It sucks that innocent people die. Collateral damage. Also, people shouldn't bring their kids into active military zones. Yeah 'its their country' blah blah blah, but if shit was going down in Seattle, I wouldn't gop strolling down the street with my nephew. iirc, this happened in 2007 get over it.
July 12, 2007.

On a side note. The journalist know full well that going into an active military zone is risking their life. Regardless who killed them, they knew the risks.

[Cortexian]

You guys still aren't getting it, and it's a damn shame that you won't get it unless you become an actual member of your Forces... When you're in a helo like that you have to rely on sub-par visuals to identify threats unless you're right the hell on top of them, when you're in an active combat zone you do everything you can to protect yourself and your friendlies. I would still take this stance if I personally saw some soldiers engage targets at range that appeared to be armed, only to have been holding other objects. It's no different than Police firing at and killing kids wielding toy guns that look realistic.

Here's an example of what I mean when I say "you do what you can to protect yourself and your friendlies/allies": I was talking to an active member of the CF that had recently come back from Afghanistan, we ended up talking about roadblocks and the procedures involved. He stated that the CF standard operating procedure dictated that if a person or vehicle keeps coming towards the roadblock, you shoot a warning shot in front of them, and if they STILL continue towards you you shoot THEM. However he said that when they were in a known military "hot zone" or combat area, they would simply shoot whoever or whatever was coming towards them if they didn't stop after the initial warnings and then shoot another shot off just so that "two shots are heard and cover our ass if any questions are brought up". Why do they do this? Well you tell me if you'd rather get blown up or ripped apart by shrapnel because you listened to the SOP in a known hot zone.



In regards to journalists knowing what they're going into, that's absolutely correct, and these guys were native to the area from my understanding so they knew better than anyone. However, lots of Forces have been pushing to outlaw civilian journalists into active combat areas for quite a few years now. The Canadian Forces have Imagery Technicians for a reason, it's so that we can send in properly trained SOLDIERS that are primarily there to capture photos or record video that the media can use. They're not some off-hand trained group of soldiers either, they go through Basic Military Qualification just like the majority of the rest of the Canadian Forces.

All the members in our Forces are "Soldiers First" and then specialize in whatever else after the fact.



@InnerGoat: Blatant war crimes? If it were a blatant war crime this thread, the Collateral Murder website, and all related material wouldn't be under debate right now. This is OBVIOUSLY not a blatant war crime.



Oh by the way guys, the media organization in question has had history with embedding their reporters, journalists, and photographers in with insurgent groups in order to get the "true story". There are also a couple of people that DO appear to be carrying some type of assault rifles, these were one of two things, insurgents or private security forces. Private security forces are always at risk of coming under fire from troops in a situation like this.

[CN3089]

actually it is and you're a sociopath who justifies mass murder and casual violations of international law because ARE TROOPS

07:36 Picking up the wounded?
07:38 Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage.
07:41 Come on, let us shoot!

" :ohdear: why do they hate us what did we ever do to them :ohdear: "



well, cya

[SiriusTexra]

Haha wow. Just when the Pentagon was trying to take out wikileaks, they unleash this gem.

Actually, they were probably saving this one for a rainy day.

:realsmug:

[Cortexian]

InnerGoat, if you're trolling a situation like this I'm just sorry for you.

You don't have all the information on this situation, neither do I. However these Apaches were called in because the ground column that shows up later in the video was taking fire from insurgents. The Apaches arrive on station and note people that definitely have weapons (I'm 100% positive that I saw at least one rifle and one RPG) and are moving in the direction of the ground column that called for support.

I guess you'd just rather sit in your chopper and wait for some possible insurgents to kill another brother in arms on the ground before you engage and ensure their safety? You make me sick. SOP dictates that anyone entering a combat zone like the van and its occupants to assist potential hostile forces are hostile themselves, you're telling me that you'd rather let insurgents run in, collect more firearms that could be used to kill you and yours, and run off again with a potential wounded insurgent who's only going to be patched up to possible kill you in the future? Get out.



I'm sure that if we had all the information, and not just the biased and censored information from BOTH sides (the Military and WikiLeaks) we'd find that the situation called for the Apaches to engage. If I were a gunner in that Apache, I would have engaged, as would you, or any one else on this forum. Stop picking this shit apart when you have no fucking idea what was going down, or what state of mind the involved servicemen were in.



P.S. You guys are sitting here saying "don't pilots/gunners need good vision", and you're telling me you didn't see ANY potential weapons? Pay attention to the guys around the photographers and journalists.

[paladin]

I didnt know any were journalist at first.

[Cortexian]

It might just be the two photographers, that's what I meant. There are still clearly other people with weapon shaped objects on their persons.

[Good_Apollo]

He's pretty on-the-ball there. While it's a terrible thing that occurred, it never should have been covered up, no matter how atrocious, considering it was an accident. By covering it up, they remove the possibility for military techs and strategists to come up with better ways to approach these scenarios.They cover things up because the media consists of a bunch of retards who stop at nothing to get some juicy yellow press.

Not because they're evil incarnate trying to cover their murderous tracks. I mean seriously, you guys are acting like they're the fucking SS.

[Bodzilla]

they killed civilians and tried to cover it up, and your instead attacking the press?


??????

your insane.

[Good_Apollo]

they killed civilians and tried to cover it up, and your instead attacking the press?


??????

your insane.I'm sorry I see the world for what it is, not with a bleeding heart and conspiracy theories.

[Bodzilla]

no your insane.

[Good_Apollo]

no your insane.K.



:tinfoil:

[paladin]

they killed civilians and tried to cover it up, and your instead attacking the press?
??????
your insane.

at the time of confrontation, it was believed that they were part of the group that was firing upon the convoy. Learn to read and/or listen. It wasn't until after and an investigation that some tuned out to be civilians. Your insane for making such idiotic assumptions.


On a side note, I and anyone else would find it hard to distinguish a civilian from insurgent, since they hide among the population and use them as human shields.

[Good_Apollo]

at the time of confrontation, it was believed that they were part of the group that was firing upon the convoy. Learn to read and/or listen. It wasn't until after and an investigation that some tuned out to be civilians. Your insane for making such idiotic assumptions.


On a side note, I and anyone else would find it hard to distinguish a civilian from insurgent, since they hide among the population and use them as human shields.I already mentioned this, nobody seems to understand, or care.

[p0lar_bear]

Yeah, think about it some. It's unfortunate and sad that those two photographers were killed and the children were wounded. However, these soldiers are under constant stress. They're in a situation where they need to keep a keen eye all the time and think/act fast based on what they perceive happening. If they hesitate, there's an often good chance that they'll die. Through that gunner camera, they saw AK47s in the hands of some of those people, and two big, black blobs in the hands of two others that didn't look like cameras. So they asked for permission to engage. Based on what was seen there, they were given permission, as it looked like a group of armed individuals positioned to attack. A van appears unannounced and attempts to move what the soldiers thought were an enemy. The children weren't visible in the van, and I can bet that none of you could tell that there were even indistinguishable blobs, let alone indistinguishable blobs that were children, in that front window until it was pointed out towards the end of the video.

So the bottom line is, war is hell, and there will undoubtedly be collateral damage and loss of life in any engagement, despite what you see in video games and movies. All soldiers aren't informed of everything and who is or isn't an enemy isn't always clear. War journalism is a very risky business, and those journalists put their lives on the line daily to capture what's going on. Some are killed, some are captured, and some don't have anything bad happen to them.

I will admit, though, that the thing that isn't right at all is the gunner's commentary while this is all going down. It's understandable that he's antsy while waiting for permission to engage (remember, nobody knows that there are two journalists down there), as if it was an attack, they could have been shot down. However, his attitude while watching that man crawl around wasn't cool in the slightest. Keeping the crosshair on him wasn't bad in itself, but egging the guy on to grab a weapon just so he could open fire again was disgusting.

[PenGuin1362]

Urgg... Again people, needless death should never be viewed as "welp, what can you do".

No really what can you do. We are firing the most lethal and effective weapons known to man that have ranges varying from 800 yards to 4 miles, not to mnetion artillery and air support. You can't always control who gets hit and who doesn't. Polar said tbis perfectly. You guys crtisize their actions now being able to take the time to evalute the situation but you weren't there in their shoes trying make a decision with only moments to act. This is war guys, this is what happens. What the fuck do you think happened during ww2. You think innocent deaths are high now? Think back to the days of carpet bombing, random artillery strikes, IN CENTRAL EUROPE. We should be happy how low the civilian casualties have gotten. However, this is war, decisions need to be made under pressure none of us will ever understand and in such short timing. Accidents happen. We can't control everything

[=sw=warlord]

No really what can you do. We are firing the most lethal and effective weapons known to man that have ranges varying from 800 yards to 4 miles, not to mnetion artillery and air support.
We also have the most advanced computing equipment and software ever to increase the accuracy.
Funny how we can create machines to build electronic systems on a nano scale and yet we still cannot aim lumps of lead in the correct direction with greater accuracy.
You can't always control who gets hit and who doesn't. Polar said tbis perfectly. You guys crtisize their actions now being able to take the time to evalute the situation but you weren't there in their shoes trying make a decision with only moments to act. This is war guys, this is what happens.
These people are supposed to be trained for exactly these scenarios, it would be very unwise to try and compare your average person to those who are supposed to be experts on using the very equipment their using.
What the fuck do you think happened during ww2. You think innocent deaths are high now? Think back to the days of carpet bombing, random artillery strikes, IN CENTRAL EUROPE.
Are you honestly trying to compare the warfare of WW2 to current warfare?
That has got to be the most fucked up retort anyone could possibly make.
Just because it was worse in the past doe's not excuse the fucks ups of the present.
In WW2, aircrew were lucky to hit targets with appreciable accuracy where as these days we have fucking missiles that can hit a target within a few inches.
We should be happy how low the civilian casualties have gotten. However, this is war, decisions need to be made under pressure none of us will ever understand and in such short timing. Accidents happen. We can't control everything
Maybe true, but there is nothing wrong with anyone wanting a greater standard of practice.
.

[thehoodedsmack]

Why are people in this thread defending the soldiers? Their actions, that is, point and click murder, was not justified, and pretending it was does no favor to their credibility.

Firstly, to address the "they were in a combat zone, they were stressed out and needed to act fast" statement:

This is just one more reason why they shouldn't have been making the call. With rampant military spending going down, it would be nice to see something practical being done: better cameras and a video feed back to base. If they haven't made that change by now I'd be very disappointed. If indeed there was a threat, their commanders may have made the same call, or, the second opinion could have noticed there were no weapons, and lives could have been saved. I'm sure this would inconvenience the pilots temporarily, especially if they were in a situation where there was a hidden threat, but always remember that a soldier's job involves dieing, and they should be prepared for that when enlisting. A civilian's job is not.

Now of course, you have to examine this from both sides as well. It is their country, but it also is a war-zone. So anyone who wasn't a war photographer or reporter shouldn't have been in the area. And journalists who cover combat should also be expectant of death, as it's a very real part of their job as well. Both parties involves can learn something from this, and I hope to God they implemented change after they realized what a mess had been made.

But you can't defend the military for this, and you can't defend the civilians, because they're both to blame. You can call them out, that's for sure, and that's best thing you can do. Because recognizing faults is the best way to improve on them. Never defend your actions. Instead, recognize that you aren't perfect, and that if someone has a problem with what you've done, address it, and see what can be done. You aren't perfect, and neither is anyone else.

The same thing goes for defending others. Don't take sides. This is a discussion, not a debate.

[sleepy1212]

If you have never had someone try to kill you...stop posting.

You might have the right, but you don't have the experience to judge a soldier.

[=sw=warlord]

If you have never had someone try to kill you...stop posting.

You might have the right, but you don't have the experience to judge a soldier.

You ever had someone try to kill you?

[Limited]

Disgusting, shocking and appauling. Yes, this was a terrible thing to happen, and it is questionable whether they should have shot on them originally. I did not see any guns, or anything that could have been a gun. What sickens me, is after they are shot down, clearly some of them are dead, some are alive and crawling away. This is where the crimes (imo) occured, if someone is clearly disarmed, crawling away. Then you cannot 'finish them off'. Its illegal to shoot on them. This is a war, wars have international laws that have to be followed, yes insurgents dont follow them, they use these laws AGAINST us. Yet we cant stoop to their level, we have to follow them.

The fact the chopper gunner was saying "All you gotta do is pickup a weapon". Hes looking for a fight, hes looking for a reason to kill.

Now with shooting the van, to me they should have notified whoever they are talking to, that a vehicle has stopped. They should not have fired upon them, it was clear they were trying to pickup the body/help the guy survive. If they had weapons, or poked one out the window then yes shoot it. But you cannot assume its bad. You have to have proof.

Pilots and soldiers are trained to recognise weapons, they are trained to look at photos and videos and spot who is legit and who are suspicious people. In my opinon, this training failed with these two pilots and gunners.

We are all looking through the window, we dont know exactly what happened, we don't know what happened the day before to these soldiers, we dont know if they lose any of their friends.

Its shit like this, that makes blue on blue attacks happen, I'm not surprised its the US involved, considering all the friendly fire they cause.

Hindsight, is 20/20 vision...

[sleepy1212]

You ever had someone try to kill you?

Yes. and still i wouldn't compare those experiences with warfare.

[=sw=warlord]

Yes. and still i wouldn't compare those experiences with warfare.

Then why did you say those who have not experienced life threatening scenarios to leave the thread if you know already even if you have your life threatened it is not anywhere near the same?

[Good_Apollo]

Disgusting, shocking and appauling. Yes, this was a terrible thing to happen, and it is questionable whether they should have shot on them originally. I did not see any guns, or anything that could have been a gun. What sickens me, is after they are shot down, clearly some of them are dead, some are alive and crawling away. This is where the crimes (imo) occured, if someone is clearly disarmed, crawling away. Then you cannot 'finish them off'. Its illegal to shoot on them. This is a war, wars have international laws that have to be followed, yes insurgents dont follow them, they use these laws AGAINST us. Yet we cant stoop to their level, we have to follow them.

The fact the chopper gunner was saying "All you gotta do is pickup a weapon". Hes looking for a fight, hes looking for a reason to kill.

Now with shooting the van, to me they should have notified whoever they are talking to, that a vehicle has stopped. They should not have fired upon them, it was clear they were trying to pickup the body/help the guy survive. If they had weapons, or poked one out the window then yes shoot it. But you cannot assume its bad. You have to have proof.

Pilots and soldiers are trained to recognise weapons, they are trained to look at photos and videos and spot who is legit and who are suspicious people. In my opinon, this training failed with these two pilots and gunners.

We are all looking through the window, we dont know exactly what happened, we don't know what happened the day before to these soldiers, we dont know if they lose any of their friends.

Its shit like this, that makes blue on blue attacks happen, I'm not surprised its the US involved, considering all the friendly fire they cause.

Hindsight, is 20/20 vision...Lawl, yes in war you should never assume anything: you need to take the time to analyze the situation, draw maps, ask the locals around for information, gather some informants and even perhaps get some fingerprints and IDs *BLAM* Oops your dead, I guess that teenager behind the fruit stand had an AK under his cloak and just killed 4 civilians and 3 soldiers while wounding two others. Also, that guy next to him that was holding that baby also had an RPG under the table and just blew up your Humvee killing the driver and 2 others inside.

In a war against a guerrilla force that has no regards for civilian casualties, the ROE are pretty much shoot first ask questions later unless there's some obvious red flags saying otherwise. This threads borderline funny now.

[thehoodedsmack]

If you have never had someone try to kill you...stop posting.

You might have the right, but you don't have the experience to judge a soldier.

You are hindering discussion, and restricting the development of new ideas and theories. Understand that you are slowing down the advancement of the discussion, and please try to contribute.

[Bodzilla]

No really what can you do. We are firing the most lethal and effective weapons known to man that have ranges varying from 800 yards to 4 miles, not to mnetion artillery and air support. You can't always control who gets hit and who doesn't. Polar said tbis perfectly. You guys crtisize their actions now being able to take the time to evalute the situation but you weren't there in their shoes trying make a decision with only moments to act. This is war guys, this is what happens. What the fuck do you think happened during ww2. You think innocent deaths are high now? Think back to the days of carpet bombing, random artillery strikes, IN CENTRAL EUROPE. We should be happy how low the civilian casualties have gotten. However, this is war, decisions need to be made under pressure none of us will ever understand and in such short timing. Accidents happen. We can't control everything
i'm not critising the soldiers, i'm criting the military bureau that tried to cover up what actually happened.
THAT IS THE ISSUE HERE.

[Cojafoji]

I'm not criticizing the soldiers, I'm criticizing the US Government that tried to cover up what actually happened.
THAT IS THE ISSUE HERE.
Yes. Yes it is. It's a shame that most people can't see that. Things like this happen all of the time, and have happened since the dawn of civilized warfare. There's no justification for people making mistakes, except that they're to be expected. What those men did was wrong; none of us are arguing otherwise. But when the government decided to step in and perform the good ol' cover up, that's when things become morally dicey to the extreme.

[p0lar_bear]

Why are people in this thread defending the soldiers? Their actions, that is, point and click murder, was not justified, and pretending it was does no favor to their credibility.

I'm not necessarily defending these soldiers, I'm more or less putting up an argument as to why people need to stop and think before they go off and post the first thing their bleeding heart demands. Internet commentary, especially on topics such as this, tend to be a shit-flingfest of pure emotion, which is asinine. It's kind of ironic, now that I think about it, that people tend to act on impulse to criticise how other people are acting on impulse.

And you are right to not defend one's actions, and that we should own up to our mistakes. In this case, the army might be smart to invest in better equipment for chopper pilots and gunners, such as a camera that can show things a little clearer, and they'd probably do well to reprimand their gunner for his attitude.


Then why did you say those who have not experienced life threatening scenarios to leave the thread if you know already even if you have your life threatened it is not anywhere near the same?

He's saying that having a single person out to kill you is a summer picnic compared to warfare.


i'm not critising the soldiers, i'm criting the military bureau that tried to cover up what actually happened.
THAT IS THE ISSUE HERE.

It is the issue, and they do it for the purpose of propaganda. As said, if this got out (which it did), the media would have a fucking field day with it and blow it out of proportion. US soldiers are portrayed to be noble and the best of the best our country has to offer. While any sensible person can realize that soldiers are human and as accident prone as any other person, all of the people wrapped up in more trivial bullshit back home fail to realize this, so the media sees a way to capitalize on it; grab the attention of the uninformed and show them something that'll blow their mind so they will (literally) pay attention.

[SiriusTexra]

Uh, saying there was a "mistake" implies that there was actual careful thought involved in this that fucked up somehow. A plan. Discerning thought processes. Genuine good intentions that went south. Remorse for the situation.

They shot a bunch of faceless fucking "brownies" on a screen. That's about as far as the thinking went.

These "terrorisers" have AK's molotovs and RPG's , drugo here and there and clothes with the bullet protection equivalency of a pillow case at the best of times. We have every toy invented, for the purpose of eliminating this "threat".

Who the fuck are the insurgents in this situation? Were killing all these people and assuming all this fear of a people, destroying what used to be culture, albeit extreme in cases, but every culture has it's wacos. We don't go apeshit at the catholics in Ireland. Were killing scores of fucking people, over a group of shady boogeymen who quite literally did fuck all apart from burning CIA poppeyfields, and that Bin Laden fella who they still can't find but had several nose jobs and facial reconstructions.

What would America do, if Russia invaded you after you say, I dunno, appeared to have killed a bunch of people in a moscow airport? Kind of like a staged event. If a whole country went to war at you, threw the kitchen sink at you, based on the actions of a few of your people, because there was an underlying motive to destroy your culture and implant their own.

You'd fight back and you'd be called Patriots, not Terrorists.


I don't know all the info in this story, and I don't trust the way media is buying and selling this, but at base value, the core argument, this is fucking ridiculous to defend. Someone has to stop this shit from happening again, and shifting blame and putting it all up to accidents and mishaps is just pathetic. Reading this thread gives me massive flashbacks from Hot Fuzz.

[CN3089]

hey man that innocent father carrying his kids to work who stopped to assist a wounded journalist was just ASKING for it



look, you just don't understand how much stress this pilot was under being completely safe laughing giddily while raining hot steel death upon civilians


those kids were probably going to grow up to be terrorists anyway we were just being proactive


support are troops 9/11 changed everything freedomland is spreading democracy!!

[sleepy1212]

You are hindering discussion, and restricting the development of new ideas and theories. Understand that you are slowing down the advancement of the discussion, and please try to contribute.

Obviously, you're not going to stop posting, and I don't expect anyone to. I'm trying to give perspective. I'm pointing out that most of the posters in this thread have never had to react to someone trying to kill them. Let alone a whole country trying to kill them...on a daily basis.

I'll tell one of my stories to show you what i mean...

Me and a friend were driving to the beer distributor one night. I stopped my truck at the bottom of a hill where there was a man waving his arms around in the intersection. I asked him if he needed some help. He appeared distraught, something was wrong. His reply: "FUCK YOU!". Then he came up to my window, which was down and spit on me. I tried to get out to beat his ass but he pressed up against the door. I turned around in the seat to kick it open, good thing because it put me just out of reach of the knife in his hand. It barely touched my throat. I grabbed both his wrists and tried slamming them off the roof of my truck. My friend was already on his way around the truck. I shouted several times, "he has a knife, he has a knife!"

He withdrew and threw a hay-maker at my friend..the knife caught him in the back of the neck. He yelled, "he stabbed me!" then punched him and somehow got the knife. the man went down and my friend stomped his head and then i field-goal kicked him across the jaw. This all happened in a few seconds. From the time he went down to the time he was literally snoring from my superb punt was only milliseconds.

But here is my point: I've been in lots of fights and i've always maintained some control. Enough to know not to seriously hurt someone by curb stomping them or using a weapon, or simply knowing when the fight is over and letting the other guy go. This fight was different. The guy was down. He was out. I didn't have to punt him. But there is no instant replay, no rewinding the video, no second guessing, no research and development let's have a vote and see what the consensus says is the best course of action when your life is at stake. Only milliseconds and one chance to react.

I can look back and say that wasn't completely necessary but at the time it most certainly was. I didn't know the knife was too dull to do much damage. I didn't know that this guy was the crack-head son of a fairly influential man in town until he had the police threaten us when we tried to press charges. I didn't know the distraught man in the intersection was really just high on crack. This was not a perfect display of neutralizing a hostile.

Soldiers at war deal with situations like this ten-fold. They do all day it everyday. They cope differently than we do. What I learned from these kind of experiences is not to expect neat and clean and exemplary. If you do you watch too much TV, you're living in a fantasy land. The only new theories and ideas that you could possibly make is not to judge soldiers but to judge war. Anything less is still going to be ugly.

[CN3089]

Soldiers are trained to kill and sometimes in the heat of combat they will engage in killings that are not strictly justified, for example, at Haditha. But this -- all of it -- was simply gratuitous and the killing of the wounded journalist and the shooting up of the minivan trying to pick him up to save his life went beyond gratuitous and was just plain sadistic murder.

Forty years ago, when Charlie Company went into My Lai to inflict some collective punishment, a helicopter pilot watching from above saw the carnage and did something to stop it. Nowadays, helicopter pilots make movies of their killings and beg a wounded man to make a suspect move so they can pump more 1 1/4" rounds into him. How completely depraved.

I served four years in the Armed Forces of the United States and was always proud of my service. Not anymore.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-gbsmith.gif

[Maniac]

This wouldn't have happened if it were Dutch helicopters.
This wouldn't have happened if it were French helicopters.
This wouldn't have happened if it were British helicopters.
This wouldn't have happened if it were German helicopters.
This wouldn't have happened if it were Canadian helicopters.

Stereotypes are there for a reason.
British people have terrible teeth.
French people are arrogant.
Canadians are over polite.
Americans are trigger happy.

Blah blah.

[thehoodedsmack]

Obviously, you're not going to stop posting, and I don't expect anyone to. I'm trying to give perspective. I'm pointing out that most of the posters in this thread have never had to react to someone trying to kill them. Let alone a whole country trying to kill them...on a daily basis.

You don't have to have been shot at/attacked/in a war to comment on it. Nobody's saying they don't have it tough, and we've all pretty well conceded that given the equipment and circumstance, the soldiers themselves are only partly to blame. Adopting the stance that "you don't know what it's like, you don't know what they go through" is just blatant defense of people who have clearly committed unnecessary killings. Move past it, and catch up with the rest of us discussing how future such incidents could be avoided.


I'll tell one of my stories to show you what i mean...

Me and a friend were driving to the beer distributor one night. I stopped my truck at the bottom of a hill where there was a man waving his arms around in the intersection. I asked him if he needed some help. He appeared distraught, something was wrong. His reply: "FUCK YOU!". Then he came up to my window, which was down and spit on me. I tried to get out to beat his ass but he pressed up against the door. I turned around in the seat to kick it open, good thing because it put me just out of reach of the knife in his hand. It barely touched my throat. I grabbed both his wrists and tried slamming them off the roof of my truck. My friend was already on his way around the truck. I shouted several times, "he has a knife, he has a knife!"

He withdrew and threw a hay-maker at my friend..the knife caught him in the back of the neck. He yelled, "he stabbed me!" then punched him and somehow got the knife. the man went down and my friend stomped his head and then i field-goal kicked him across the jaw. This all happened in a few seconds. From the time he went down to the time he was literally snoring from my superb punt was only milliseconds.

But here is my point: I've been in lots of fights and i've always maintained some control. Enough to know not to seriously hurt someone by curb stomping them or using a weapon, or simply knowing when the fight is over and letting the other guy go. This fight was different. The guy was down. He was out. I didn't have to punt him. But there is no instant replay, no rewinding the video, no second guessing, no research and development let's have a vote and see what the consensus says is the best course of action when your life is at stake. Only milliseconds and one chance to react.

I can look back and say that wasn't completely necessary but at the time it most certainly was. I didn't know the knife was too dull to do much damage. I didn't know that this guy was the crack-head son of a fairly influential man in town until he had the police threaten us when we tried to press charges. I didn't know the distraught man in the intersection was really just high on crack. This was not a perfect display of neutralizing a hostile.

The civilians weren't hostiles, so your story doesn't properly relate in the way I know you mean it to.


Soldiers at war deal with situations like this ten-fold. They do all day it everyday. They cope differently than we do. What I learned from these kind of experiences is not to expect neat and clean and exemplary. If you do you watch too much TV, you're living in a fantasy land. The only new theories and ideas that you could possibly make is not to judge soldiers but to judge war. Anything less is still going to be ugly.

The idea of being a "realist" is nothing but being a pessimist. Nobody expects neat and clean and exemplary in regards to war. We expect soldiers to die, and to do so willingly. That's theirjob, and they agreed to it. Civilian casualties, however, are different, and deserve the utmost respect and scrutiny in developing ways to make war safe for those uninvolved.

[StankBacon]

lots of trolls in this thread :|

[PenGuin1362]

yes bod I agree that certainly is an issue. And warlord where did I try to compare modern day to ww2 I was pointing out that fact that we've come a very long way from our once "accurate" methods of warfare during ww2 and how people forget that the amount of civilian casualties during that war were catstrophic, yet no one complains about that. Think before you post nut sack. As for the rwst of yoou, stop being ignorant. None of us can speak from experience and don't even PRETEND that you can. Trying to cover it up was a huge mistake yes, but none of us can ever say we think and act on the level of a soldier. Once again, welcome to war. This shit happens.

Ps sorry for sp, typing on droid >_>

[Rob Oplawar]

.

.

.

.
I agree with you guys.



hey guys let's justify blatant war crimes because SUPPORT ARE TROOPS

actually it is and you're a sociopath who justifies mass murder and casual violations of international law because ARE TROOPS

Why are people in this thread defending the soldiers? Their actions, that is, point and click murder, was not justified
@ you guys:
Nobody is justifying the actions. Some people are justifying the actions, but not me. This was not a war crime, but it was a mistake, and people make mistakes. We're defending the soldiers because this sort of thing happens and it's detrimental to the discussion on the war to cherrypick incidents like this one to skew the debate.


i'm not critising the soldiers, i'm criting the military bureau that tried to cover up what actually happened.
THAT IS THE ISSUE HERE.
You're right, that is the thing to get outraged over. We can condemn the actions of the soldiers; mistake or not people are responsible for their actions. Yes we should hope for ways to keep these mistakes from happening again. But we should not condemn the soldiers themselves, and we should not be outraged at them and call them terrible human beings for making a mistake.
I can understand why the military would want to cover up this sort of thing- this thread is exactly why. People focus on mistakes instead of taking into account the real reasons mistakes are made, without understanding the nature of the situation they are discussing. I don't claim to understand the nature of the situation.

And I'm not saying we shouldn't be having this discussion- far from it. But it's far too easy to look at video like this from the comfort of your home and see it analyzed and broken down after the fact and then dish out condemnation. Like I said- people make mistakes, and mistakes are bad, but that doesn't mean the people who made the mistakes are bad.

[paladin]

lots of trolls in this thread :|

Sir

[=sw=warlord]

And warlord where did I try to compare modern day to ww2 I was pointing out that fact that we've come a very long way from our once "accurate" methods of warfare during ww2 and how people forget that the amount of civilian casualties during that war were catstrophic, yet no one complains about that.
Right here.

This is war guys, this is what happens. What the fuck do you think happened during ww2. You think innocent deaths are high now? Think back to the days of carpet bombing, random artillery strikes, IN CENTRAL EUROPE. We should be happy how low the civilian casualties have gotten.
You're comparing event's that happened before the birth of the modern computer, the technology then and now are severely different in comparison.
Many people hold a day of remembrance each year to honour those lost during the wars, So don't even think about trying to pull that clause.
Accidents imply there was careful thought put into the actions and remorse for the results, the video shows in graphic detail neither of those were present and then the military tried covering it's own back in the hopes of being able to sweep the incident under the carpet without having to own up responsibility.


. Like I said- people make mistakes, and mistakes are bad, but that doesn't mean the people who made the mistakes are bad.By that very logic, someone who intentionally committed a crime and then after everything is done and dusted decided maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all but later had remorse should be considered an accident purely because the act was made in haste and impulse with no accountability.

[thehoodedsmack]

He did compare them, but all he did was say that things have gotten safer.

[Rob Oplawar]

Now hold on, people should be held accountable for their mistakes. Just because it was a mistake doesn't mean we should forgive them for it or excuse them altogether. I'm just saying, there's a difference between judging a person based on a single action and extrapolating that action to their entire character (or the character of the US military, for that matter).
Let me be clear once again in saying I strongly oppose the creation of the war in Iraq. That said, I support our troops, and I understand that we can't just stop it now that it's started.
Also, after discussing it with Snaf a bit, it's crystal clear to me that the soldiers in the video were in the wrong here. It's not a moral grey area as such--morally speaking, they simply should not have opened fire--but it's a confusing situation with practicality, morality, emotion, and a whole set of other issues. It's hard to say I wouldn't have done the same thing in their position.

[PenGuin1362]

He did compare them, but all he did was say that things have gotten safer.

thank you smack. It wasn't hard to comprehend there warlord. derp.

[SnaFuBAR]

Straight from MOUT (Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain)

i. Rules of Engagment (ROE). The nature of the military operation may restrict our use of weapons. The majority of urban batles since 1967 (such as Beirut II, Hue, Jerusalem) have had one or more of the following restrictions imposed on the attacking force:

(1) Minimizing civilian casualties and/or collateral destruction in order to:

-Avoid alienation of the local population.

-Reducing the risk of adverse world or domestic opinion.

-Preserving facilities for future use.

-Preserving cultural facilities and grounds.

(2) Limiting the use of specific ground or air weapons.



Further in under "commander's estimate" in the section "enemy"

(2) Unconventional Forces. Urban areas have become a haven for unconventional forces.
The large noncombatant population provides cover and concealment for unconventional force operations. Conventional forces operating in MOUT will normally be placed under restrictive ROE to minimize collateral damage. Unconventional forces will often use our restrictive ROE and the noncombatant population to their advantage when devising an urban defense.


Simply, this was a complete failure on every level, and practically a direct breach of the ROE. The cover up attempted was for "-Reducing the risk of adverse world or domestic opinion." There you have it.



Insurgents have already proven a multitude of times that they care not about the civilians they're trying to 'liberate,' often using them as shields to disrupt ROE for the US/Coalition.
Please don't try to talk about ROE when you don't know how or why they are implemented :\

Aside from all this, there was no clear and present danger to troop by means of legitimately identified small arms, and no SLAAM/MANPADS (any of a multitude of shoulder fired anti-air guided missiles such as stingers or grails) were ever identified. Location of incoming fire by troops on the ground was not specified, and the conversation of the guys in the helo(s?) hinted at a rather casual demeanor of their "targets" on the ground. "See that group of people just standing there?" There was no soft-contact, much less hard contact from this group of civilians.

Combatants do not act casual when a heavily armed and armored gunship is present, nor are they casual when attacking ground forces. This whole thing is botched and a lot of people in this thread need a pretty thorough head-check.

[PenGuin1362]

I have to say, regardless of the situation, it's always better to just come clean and be like "hey we fucked up big time". Trying to cover it up not only makes the government look bad but all those involved. Retarded choice on their part.

[SnaFuBAR]

Look around 03m45s in the video, there's an obviously long tube shaped object that could be ID'ed as an RPG from that far away. You need to note that the pilots/gunners in question don't have video that's better quality than what we've got here, this video is also zoomed in, the gunners and pilots would have trouble seeing it any better with the naked eye. Yes I noted the two guys with cameras fairly easily, there were at least three other people with weapon shaped objects on their persons as well.

These Apaches were well within their rights to initiate the attack, it's easy for us to sit here and pick their shit apart from behind our computer monitors, but when you're over there it's either you or them. I don't know about you guys but I'd rather take the safe side and attack anyone that could possibly be threatening to me or my allies now or in the future.

The possibility of the presence of weapons does not grant the right to directly engage, so no, they were not well within their rights, what fantasy world do you live in? If anything, they should've been put on observation. God damn, please don't join any military with a thought process like that.

[Jelly]

The possibility of the presence of weapons does not grant the right to directly engage, so no, they were not well within their rights, what fantasy world do you live in? If anything, they should've been put on observation. God damn, please don't join any military with a thought process like that.

Isn't that why they checked with their superiors?

[SnaFuBAR]

Isn't that why they checked with their superiors?

They need to positively identify weapons and threats. Their altitude made distinguishing a pipe from an rpg or ordinary objects from small arms nearly impossible. A superior depends on people on the ground to make the ID, since he's not there. It's the warfighter's responsibility to distinguish threats and weapons, not the superior's, since he is incapable of doing that since he's not in the immediate area of operations.

[paladin]

So, he fucked up. he identified them as weapons.

[SnaFuBAR]

He didn't have enough care about the ROE to get a real positive ID to engage a real threat. He sounded more like he wanted an excuse, especially with begging to be allowed to open fire. Ultimately, for his misconduct, he should be held responsible.

[staticchanger]

I'm pretty sure it is against the law to willfully harm aid to the wounded on the battlefield.

Thats ridiculous your killing the enemy

[=sw=warlord]

Thats ridiculous your killing the enemy
The point of war is not to kill, but to disable your enemy from being a threat.
Medical staff are no direct threat to you as their job is to tend to the wounded, not fight as combatants.

[flibitijibibo]

warlord is correct about the medic part. Or rather, he should be...

http://whythatsdelightful.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/police-medic-and-his-big-stick.jpg?w=337&h=253
:downs:

[Cortexian]

Medics are just as trained and armed as any other soldier, they're just further trained in providing battlefield medicine. Soldier First.

Anyways, some of the comments I've read in here are just completely stupid so I'm out, and before I go I'm going to leave this here:
http://leimg.lancersedge.com/images/69869912943519937201.jpg

[SnaFuBAR]

Medics are just as trained and armed as any other soldier, they're just further trained in providing battlefield medicine. Soldier First.


Lol no, they are medic first and treated as such under the geneva convention. It's a war crime to shoot a medic unless he is shooting at you. The geneva convention also seeks to protect wounded fighters. Either way, opening fire with heavy ordinance was still wrong.

[Disaster]

After further investigation, I believe it is only a war crime to kill a medic who is marked with the proper identification. The man was not marked and thus not protected. However, whether marked or not, its morally wrong in my opinion.

I believe this was a complete accident. I don't think the chopper pilot/gunner in any way wanted to hurt innocent people. However, this should never have been covered up.

[=sw=warlord]

I'm out,


Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Boba]

This wouldn't have happened if it were Dutch helicopters.
This wouldn't have happened if it were French helicopters.
This wouldn't have happened if it were British helicopters.
This wouldn't have happened if it were German helicopters.
This wouldn't have happened if it were Canadian helicopters.

Stereotypes are there for a reason.
British people have terrible teeth.
French people are arrogant.
Canadians are over polite.
Americans are trigger happy.

Blah blah.

haha oh man, i'll remember this one

you know, when i'm putting a hellfire through your window

also 11 less ragheads that we'd have to kill later anyway

[Maniac]

And i would smile with my British teeth and apologize in a polite Canadian manor, for your actions.
What, are you trying to tell me that the french are not arrogant slobs?

[Cojafoji]

I think we've all made our points and argued our last. Maybe it's time to lock the thread?

Or maybe that's just me...

[teh lag]

I've many things to say on the topic of this topic and will probably reopen it once I've got my thoughts and the thread sorted out.

[teh lag]

Thread re-opened.

http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21000

Read that before posting.

In particular,


Some of you reported posts. For that I'm at least grateful, and I'm sorry that lack of action - on my part as well as other staff members - led to this and once again added to the perception that the site is headed by incompetence. I accept blame for this and in the future I will try to handle situations like this better, so that people don't have the opportunity to turn them into this. The thing is, very few posts here would actually be bad on their own. Who can't take a little joke? Who can't spot an obvious troll for humorous effect? Well, evidently we can't. Not when we're all so excited and not when there are so many of them in one place. I seem to have had (and continue to have, no matter how many times I admit this) too much faith that we as a site are capable of handling a touch of bumpiness in arguments.

I've been criticized for locking threads too easily, which is why I'm reopening the Wikileaks thread in hopes that it won't become a nightmare so easily after I've taken the time to write this. There are many infractions and warnings that deserve to be given out here. They will be taken care of in due time - a few users are on the threshold of a stay in Detention and I don't have the time to think those decisions through right now. Until then, I hope that you guys don't make me add to the list I have right now of posts that are getting a visit from the mod fairy in a few hours.

If you have half a brain you'll know what will and won't fly in here. If you can't figure it out, leave.

[Bodzilla]

good post.

back on topic now,


Ok i'll ask you guys a question.
what is the best way to fix a problem?
analyse the cause's and reassess the systems in place behind it...... or sweep it under the rug?

This was a monumental fuck-up that led to the death of civilians, i think we can all agree on this, however as history has shown us if we choose not to acknowledge the mistakes and actions of our past we doom ourselves to repeat them.
You get the world believing that the holocaust never happened, and it will happen again. Simple as that.

The only way to Fix this problem is to do the opposite of what the military did and considering the amount of guns and money these guys have at their disposal, thats a very scary thought.

[Cojafoji]

Now Bod, I have to ask: are you suggesting that the military revamp it's ROE, to possibly include a more definitive requirement for recognizing weapons, or perhaps some sort of recognition software that could be loaded into these cameras which would help to define possible weapons more accurately? Then I have to point out, that if you revamp the former, you potentially endanger the lives of the soldier. Now I know that while some may argue, that in that situation, the civilian has priority over the safety of the soldier, we have to concede that they're both still in an active war zone. I know we shouldn't be there, and that this is their home, but I can't help but see your suggestion as a potential threat/hazard to our soldiers. A life is a life, but if you have to choose between an Iraqi adult male, and an adult male from the US, I'm kind of biased there. I know that this may have come out in the wrong way, but just hear me out on this one.

[thehoodedsmack]

Now Bod, I have to ask: are you suggesting that the military revamp it's ROE, to possibly include a more definitive requirement for recognizing weapons, or perhaps some sort of recognition software that could be loaded into these cameras which would help to define possible weapons more accurately?

That would be excellent, if there were some type of assistance technology. What should have been done immediately, however, is upgrading the camera equipment, and implementing a system to allow for more people to view and assess the action as it unfolded. I should hope they've done that by now.

[Kornman00]

Thats ridiculous your killing the enemy
Right, because it's not ridiculous to kill another fucking human being.

Read the Geneva Conventions.

If I was shooting an enemy combatant, whether they fight under the GC or not, then disengage firing thinking I had terminated them only to later see them struggling to move (read: they're still alive) it would be illegal for me to firing or attack them from then on. We'd be require to give medical aid.

This is why they tell you to Shoot To Kill.

I hate to be associated with this kind of scum. Begging to engage some targets which you're viewing from a very low resolution camera. Saying "their own fault for bringing their children to a battle". Mother fucker, that wasn't a battle, it was a massacre. There was no enemy fire, only your own.

Hell, their attire didn't even look to be that of typical insurgents.

Had that van held a Red Cross (or culture equivalent) symbol...I have to wonder if this fucking prick gunner would still have been begging to engage. Because then we'd know that he was knowingly begging to be a war criminal.

[Good_Apollo]

good post.

back on topic now,


Ok i'll ask you guys a question.
what is the best way to fix a problem?
analyse the cause's and reassess the systems in place behind it...... or sweep it under the rug?

This was a monumental fuck-up that led to the death of civilians, i think we can all agree on this, however as history has shown us if we choose not to acknowledge the mistakes and actions of our past we doom ourselves to repeat them.
You get the world believing that the holocaust never happened, and it will happen again. Simple as that.

The only way to Fix this problem is to do the opposite of what the military did and considering the amount of guns and money these guys have at their disposal, thats a very scary thought.There's a difference between assessing a situation and calling for improvement and what we actually have (addressed in video comments, this site even) which is nothing more than a lynch mob calling for these guys to be tried as war criminals. There's a big difference.

Right, because it's not ridiculous to kill another fucking human being.

Read the Geneva Conventions.

If I was shooting an enemy combatant, whether they fight under the GC or not, then disengage firing thinking I had terminated them only to later see them struggling to move (read: they're still alive) it would be illegal for me to firing or attack them from then on. We'd be require to give medical aid.

This is why they tell you to Shoot To Kill.

I hate to be associated with this kind of scum. Begging to engage some targets which you're viewing from a very low resolution camera. Saying "their own fault for bringing their children to a battle". Mother fucker, that wasn't a battle, it was a massacre. There was no enemy fire, only your own.

Hell, their attire didn't even look to be that of typical insurgents.

Had that van held a Red Cross (or culture equivalent) symbol...I have to wonder if this fucking prick gunner would still have been begging to engage. Because then we'd know that he was knowingly begging to be a war criminal.I was going to post and say I agreed with you about the 'shoot to kill' bit but the bolded just made me grimace in disbelief. :raise:


I remember from some training event that (I forget where exactly, I think in something like that of GC, but GC itself doesn't govern weapons. Or it could just be under UCMJ) it's illegal to use more force than needed to take out a target. IE, you wouldn't drop a bomb on a single enemy combatant.No, however you would use every advantage you have when even a single man is a threat to you and your squad. This wasn't quite analogous to dropping a nuke on a few people.

[Kornman00]

Either way, opening fire with heavy ordinance was still wrong.
I remember from some training event that (I forget where exactly, I think in something like that of GC, but GC itself doesn't govern weapons. Or it could just be under UCMJ) it's illegal to use more force than needed to take out a target. IE, you wouldn't drop a bomb on a single enemy combatant.

[thehoodedsmack]

There's a difference between assessing a situation and calling for improvement and what we actually have (addressed in video comments, this site even) which is nothing more than a lynch mob calling for these guys to be tried as war criminals. There's a big difference.

And we're past that. Pretty well everyone realizes by this point that both parties hold their own faults, so instead of backtracking, get with the current discussion.

[Roostervier]

is there a scale or something that tells you when you're using too much force?

[thehoodedsmack]

Had that van held a Red Cross (or culture equivalent) symbol...I have to wonder if this fucking prick gunner would still have been begging to engage. Because then we'd know that he was knowingly begging to be a war criminal.I was going to post and say I agreed with you about the 'shoot to kill' bit but the bolded just made me grimace in disbelief. :raise:

Need I remind you that you are also guilty of hypothetical demonizing and emotional preying?


And suppose, instead of being two kids in that car, men popped out and blew those helicopters out of the sky? Wonder what you'd say about the deaths of those soldiers, probably good riddance, the war in Iraq is a sham anyway..?

You are honestly so biased, it hurts. You could have easily passed over that bit and moved on. Learn to ignore comments that offend you personally. Remove yourself from all equations. Focus instead on what offends the basic human spirit: in this case, the preventable deaths of civilians.

[Amit]

God damn, please don't join any military with a thought process like that.

Too late for that :/

Ha, this is really getting juicy. I've got my own opinions on the matter, but they have been voiced in many ways already so I'll take a backseat to this one. To be honest, I like to see the various points of view on the topic and attacking another person's statement negatively stifles the thought process. The root cause of the problem is what must be identified and it has been already. The rest is open to what you interpret from the video. I haven't been glued to a thread like this in many a month.

[Good_Apollo]

Need I remind you that you are also guilty of hypothetical demonizing and emotional preying?



You are honestly so biased, it hurts. You could have easily passed over that bit and moved on. Learn to ignore comments that offend you personally. Remove yourself from all equations. Focus instead on what offends the basic human spirit: in this case, the preventable deaths of civilians.Except I'm preying on the posting habits that I see everyday from individuals here, not some soldier I don't even know aside from a few minutes of audio.

[Kornman00]

is there a scale or something that tells you when you're using too much force?
Why yes, yes there is. It's called The Scale of Snafubar. We page Snaf everytime we're about to drop a bomb or something. He replies with an animated image of himself. If he's smiling, we're G2G. If he's stone faced, abort-abort.

(so, no, there isn't a scale that I know of)


I was going to post and say I agreed with you about the 'shoot to kill' bit but the bolded just made me grimace in disbelief. :raise:

No, however you would use every advantage you have when even a single man is a threat to you and your squad. This wasn't quite analogous to dropping a nuke on a few people.
I was referring to "shooting to kill" (almost sarasticlly) the enemy so that they're taken down the first time. If you fail to take them down, you're then also using medical resources in order to aid a wonded soldiers instead of just bullets. Also, it's illegal to attack red cross labeled transports.

In an unbounded war maybe. However, the US military is bounded by GC, UCMJ and the Theater's RoE. This isn't a free-for-all game. Your tactics are goverened. Our military isn't based on Guerilla Warfare.

e: Also, I think it's rather bullshit that they diverted the medical attention of those children to a lower-quality local hospital. We as a military have to face our action's consequences. If go in and destroy cities to only rebuild them, yet when he damage the lives of those cities we don't use our same resources to aid them. We fired upon a van which had no sign of returning fire. Instead if was acting as an aid litter, picking up wounded. Cheap.

[Bodzilla]

Now Bod, I have to ask: are you suggesting that the military revamp it's ROE, to possibly include a more definitive requirement for recognizing weapons, or perhaps some sort of recognition software that could be loaded into these cameras which would help to define possible weapons more accurately? Then I have to point out, that if you revamp the former, you potentially endanger the lives of the soldier. Now I know that while some may argue, that in that situation, the civilian has priority over the safety of the soldier, we have to concede that they're both still in an active war zone. I know we shouldn't be there, and that this is their home, but I can't help but see your suggestion as a potential threat/hazard to our soldiers. A life is a life, but if you have to choose between an Iraqi adult male, and an adult male from the US, I'm kind of biased there. I know that this may have come out in the wrong way, but just hear me out on this one.
while thats a good idea in itself (camera enhancements ect) why i'm saying is that when the shit hits the fan with whatever your doing you need to do a review on it and reassess if what your doing is the right way to do it.
have to do it all the time in cabinet making, from the way we make cupboards, and tops, the orders we do it in, how we do it... everything is up to scrutiny or atleast should be.
if you take the approach "well thats the way we do things 'round 'ere, been doing it since dickity two, so therefore we cant even think about changing anything" well thats just a crazy way of denying and ignoring the evidence in front of you that suggests that, yes things could be done better and yes we should always try to do better.

[Kornman00]

I'm not sure of how this unit conducts itself, but typically there is an After-Action-Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Action_Review)/Report done when it comes to training exercises and actual missions.

[p0lar_bear]

:roe101:

Then that changes a good few things about my argument, as I didn't know the specifics of ROE. That chopper gunner should probably be dishonorably discharged for his actions, hell, maybe even the superior that gave him permission to engage, unless he was solely going by what the gunner was telling him (i.e. no video fed to him). Despite what I said about impulsive actions, if he broke the rules for an excuse to shoot something (which that scenario is becoming more and more apparent), it's inexcusable. The fact that this was covered up is equally as disgusting.


Why yes, yes there is. It's called The Scale of Snafubar. We page Snaf everytime we're about to drop a bomb or something. He replies with an animated image of himself. If he's smiling, we're G2G. If he's stone faced, abort-abort.

Why don't we have this system in place in our military?

[Bodzilla]

I'm not sure of how this unit conducts itself, but typically there is an After-Action-Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Action_Review)/Report done when it comes to training exercises and actual missions.
Thats all well and good but they arn't allowing external reviews or information on sensitive matters so they can fill the propaganda metre for another week by saying they did everything they could to not attack civs... or run over bodies... or care for kids they just wounded...

Which is all kinds of wrong.

[Kornman00]

Not everything the military does is meant for the public and thus external review. However, this excuse gets thrown around and abused so it loses its value when actually used.

[Bodzilla]

looking at the comments from soldiers though none of them knew anything about it.

it looks like big brother said, "look you fucked up, but let us take care of it. we'll fix it so nobody knows"
and when none of the solys on the ground know, its gunna happen again.

[Kornman00]

One thing that I don't get is why, if they were seriously photographers, there was no chatter from those ground units remarking "uhhhh, crazy horse, I don't see any weapons down here...uhhh, only cameras...lots and lots of cameras"

I mean, someone in that patrol had to realize "these bodies don't have any weapons, and we shot them dead... whats goin' on here eh?".

[Cojafoji]

while thats a good idea in itself (camera enhancements ect) why i'm saying is that when the shit hits the fan with whatever your doing you need to do a review on it and reassess if what your doing is the right way to do it.
have to do it all the time in cabinet making, from the way we make cupboards, and tops, the orders we do it in, how we do it... everything is up to scrutiny or atleast should be.
if you take the approach "well thats the way we do things 'round 'ere, been doing it since dickity two, so therefore we cant even think about changing anything" well thats just a crazy way of denying and ignoring the evidence in front of you that suggests that, yes things could be done better and yes we should always try to do better.
Those re-evaluations would come with a pretty hefty price tag. You'd be asking the people making those assessments to increase their risk of being killed. While I'm sure that it would net a few lives, namely innocents, I think that it'd inevitably bind the hands of soldiers in the field. If they wait to make a positive ID, they could be killed. Remember, all of these things happen within a span of minutes. At this point, I'm taking on the role of devils advocate, so feel free to berate me with eager questions of "why."

[paladin]

One thing that I don't get is why, if they were seriously photographers, there was no chatter from those ground units remarking "uhhhh, crazy horse, I don't see any weapons down here...uhhh, only cameras...lots and lots of cameras"

I mean, someone in that patrol had to realize "these bodies don't have any weapons, and we shot them dead... whats goin' on here eh?".

Their cameras were in the shapes of ak47s and the telephoto lenses where rpgs. They wanted the most authentic situations. Looks like they got it :/

[Cagerrin]

One thing that I don't get is why, if they were seriously photographers, there was no chatter from those ground units remarking "uhhhh, crazy horse, I don't see any weapons down here...uhhh, only cameras...lots and lots of cameras"

I mean, someone in that patrol had to realize "these bodies don't have any weapons, and we shot them dead... whats goin' on here eh?".
Isn't it possible that there weren't any intact cameras after the chopper opened fire?

[Kornman00]

Yeah, .50 cal (or whatever it was) would do that to a person

oh, and fragile objects like cameras.

But you'd still figure that the ground troops who came in to handle the bodies and munitions would be like 'wtf?' when all they got where bodies. Not saying I think they WERE hauling around AKs and RPGs, just...I'm pretty sure there was at least ONE soldier in that bunch to smell something fishy

[Rob Oplawar]

suggesting that the military revamp it's ROE, to possibly include a more definitive requirement for recognizing weapons, or perhaps some sort of recognition software that could be loaded into these cameras which would help to define possible weapons more accurately?

I was about to post on the troubles of software recognition, and that got me thinking about the nature of the situation in general: in almost all situations, you're dealing with incomplete information. It's usually possible to create an algorithm that makes the correct decision in every case when given all the relevant information, but by definition when the information is incomplete there will be times when you make an incorrect decision. In terms of software, if you had some sort of image recognition suite that for example highlighted people carrying weapons for the gunner to shoot, it would be a matter of time before that suite made a false positive (or a false negative, allowing a combatant to get away), and then the scandal would be on the people who developed the software. Is the programmer to blame for the deaths of the people caused by the failure of his software?

But in general, people will do the same thing. Actually, the human eye is far, far better at object and pattern recognition than software. The human eye tends to be more reliable at picking out something that looks like a gun. It's still imperfect, though, relying on incomplete information, and to complicate it further the human brain has built-in biases for situations- it's pretty common to distort what you're seeing in order to make it fit with what you expect to see.

In this case, a soldier was looking through a grainy black and white camera at an area where US ground forces were being attacked and saw people carrying what looked like weapons.


Now, once again, a wrong decision is a wrong decision, and those involved rightly bear the blame. But I still don't think we can condemn them entirely because of the simple fact that from a probabilistic standpoint, this sort of misidentification is bound to happen again and again. The only solution is to continually refine imaging technology, always provide as much information as possible to people making decisions- in this case, simply provide a larger, clearer image. But by nature it is impossible to always get all the information and so by definition there will always be mistakes.

[SnaFuBAR]

Firing from an Apache helo, they were slinging 30mm shells meant for hard targets (vehicles, armor, covered positions) would definitely destroy cameras.

[SnaFuBAR]

I was about to post on the troubles of software recognition, and that got me thinking about the nature of the situation in general: in almost all situations, you're dealing with incomplete information. It's usually possible to create an algorithm that makes the correct decision in every case when given all the relevant information, but by definition when the information is incomplete there will be times when you make an incorrect decision. In terms of software, if you had some sort of image recognition suite that for example highlighted people carrying weapons for the gunner to shoot, it would be a matter of time before that suite made a false positive (or a false negative, allowing a combatant to get away), and then the scandal would be on the people who developed the software. Is the programmer to blame for the deaths of the people caused by the failure of his software?

But in general, people will do the same thing. Actually, the human eye is far, far better at object and pattern recognition than software. The human eye tends to be more reliable at picking out something that looks like a gun. It's still imperfect, though, relying on incomplete information, and to complicate it further the human brain has built-in biases for situations- it's pretty common to distort what you're seeing in order to make it fit with what you expect to see.

In this case, a soldier was looking through a grainy black and white camera at an area where US ground forces were being attacked and saw people carrying what looked like weapons.


Now, once again, a wrong decision is a wrong decision, and those involved rightly bear the blame. But I still don't think we can condemn them entirely because of the simple fact that from a probabilistic standpoint, this sort of misidentification is bound to happen again and again. The only solution is to continually refine imaging technology, always provide as much information as possible to people making decisions- in this case, simply provide a larger, clearer image. But by nature it is impossible to always get all the information and so by definition there will always be mistakes.

The technology gap is being dealt with by using low level surveillance drone helicopters. They've even got a couple in the works that can resupply, give support fire and medivac the wounded, and has high resolution cameras (though i'm sure that's to ID high value targets before they escape rather than to keep the locals out of harm's way).

[Rob Oplawar]

just...I'm pretty sure there was at least ONE soldier in that bunch to smell something fishy
AFAIK the soldiers expect Iraqis to pick up weapons from the aftermath of the battle- it seems that's what the gunner expected of the people in the van, which is why he opened fire on it. Perhaps the soldiers that came in after the "battle" didn't think twice about the absence of guns because they get that a lot when coming to the aftermath.Or, perhaps they, I dunno, were distracted by the fact that they were in a combat zone surrounded by corpses that had been torn apart by the giant fucking gun on an Apache, expecting more attackers to arrive at any moment. Ack, sorry Lag, that was a bit of sarcasm. These damn threads just force it out.

[Cortexian]

I'd like to clear up a few things about my previous posts in this thread, specifically my position on the whole "cover-up" situation. I received a few PM's as well as various IM's on this situation which lead me to believe that some of my posts were unclear. I don't condone that the military tried to cover-up this situation, and I'm fully with you all when you say that this would have been better served in the light of day from the beginning. I still stand by all of my previous statements defending the fact that the Apache crew were doing the correct thing in engaging possible threats to a ground column that had, only minutes earlier, called in air support due to hostiles firing at them. However, once the real situation was determined it should not have been covered up like it was, it should have seen the light of day so that steps could be taken to prevent similar mistakes from happening again.

Now, I have read that there WERE at least three different weapons found on the scene after the fact by our Forces from a couple different web sites. As I've stated before, none of us were actually there and involved in the situation, so I can't comment on the reliability of the sources claiming that weapons were found. That said, apparently there WERE two AK style weapons and an RPG found at the scene during the aftermath. These weapons were believed to be in the possession of local security forces assigned to protect the photographers while they were out "in the field", I myself see the RPG and at least one rifle in the video footage.

I'm not going to reiterate what I've already said in previous posts any more than I have, if you want to see what I typed out previously you can go re-read my posts yourself.

[sleepy1212]

What's this about not covering it up? Everyone keeps saying they shouldn't have covered it up...

I'd expect them to send the tapes to someone responsible in the military so that it could be reviewed and learned from and certain actions could be taken.
certainly no one's suggesting tapes like these be mailed to CNN every time it happens? ...right?

[p0lar_bear]

What happened, sleepy, was those two journalists were killed by the US military, and Reuters wanted to know why. The US Military told them that they reviewed the footage and claimed that, while it was unfortunate that the photographers were killed, the soldiers had followed the Rules of Engagement and there was nothing to be done except offer condolences. Reuters invoked an act that forced the military to give them the footage for their review, and then an anonymous source within Reuters leaked the footage.

The footage contradicts what was told, and shows a side of the soldiers that typically isn't seen by the public. Because of that, the military wanted to cover it up so they wouldn't get bad publicity. Even if it's not the case, the masses see one example of a population and assume that it applies to everyone, so in this case, if I were to apply my opinion of that chopper gunner to the US military, it would be my belief that they're all trigger happy sadists that just want to shoot people, innocent civilians included. However, I'm more sensible than that and realize that this was a one-off tragedy and feel that those directly involved should be reprimanded, and measures taken to make sure the probability of this happening again is reduced (eliminated is unrealistic, we're human and shit will happen).

[Kornman00]

I thought they were denied the video when they requested it? And that this video was actually from a whistle blower in the military?

p0lar: There are at least two rather immature soldiers I have to work with everyday that act like that if placed in the gunner seat. *sigh* One is even reclassing to infantry so he can shoot at people. I really don't think he realizes what he's getting himself into.

[sleepy1212]

ah, thanks for answering



the masses see one example of a population and assume that it applies to everyone

That's what i was getting at...sampling bias and, obviously, intentional bias in reporting. I'm not sure i agree with the "shouldn't have covered it up" sentiment. at least not yet. I agree they shouldn't sweep it under the rug and pretend it didn't happen but disclosure to a populace who knows nearly nothing of the situation at hand is dangerous to the mission. We've always had war correspondence but in recent decades the reporting has gone from "make them look good" to "make them look bad". This obviously impacts the military's disclosure. Improvements to ROE aside an honest and objective media complex would alleviate some of the "cover up" issue.

@Korn: growing up near several military bases i've met a lot of soldiers like that too. remember though, a lot of them are still just kids. or maybe i'm old lol

[Kornman00]

Knuckle head #1 is 24/25. #2 is in his mid-30s

[SnaFuBAR]

I think that a lot of the "make them look bad" sentiment comes from the fact that we're so bragadocious about our capability to fight a "clean" war and our precision and intel that we demand them to do better than to gun down civilians. When the world is told our government speaks for us and they send our military to war in our interests and to protect us, it makes us look very bad when they basically fuck up. We basically want to show the world we don't condone this, and we expect people held responsible. The last administration was known for stacking lies upon lies about the going-ons of this war, and we don't want to look like a decietful people.

[sleepy1212]

I get what your saying but i'd like to add that there were similar issues with the Clinton administration, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam, and Korea. The Gulf War was little different from my memory of watching Wolf Blitzer cover it for CNN. There was, in hindsight, obvious propaganda about how great we were in WWII when it was by far bloodier than the following wars. I think that says something about our ability to fight a clean war. It isn't clean but it is much better than in wars of the past. I hope it will get even better.

What i really mean by "make them look bad" is really "make them look bad because we have a political agenda" and not because we want to make the inevitability of war to become as civilized as possible. This is where we would benefit from a proper objective media. Instead we get bias to fuel a party.




Knuckle head #1 is 24/25. #2 is in his mid-30s

that sucks.

[paladin]

WIKI DECEPTION: Iraq "Collateral Murder" Video Rebuttal: Scenes WikiLeaks Edited Out!!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1b_1270800204


This video contains footage NOT SEEN in wikileaks 17 minute version. IF YOU WANT CONTEXT WATCH THIS ONE.

The video released by Wiki Leaks is EXTREMELY misleading, and propagating it as “murder” is borderline criminal. Their 17 minute version edited out any mention of hostile gunfire on the part of insurgents for the purpose of defaming U.S. Defence Forces. WikiLeak head Julian Assange has since reluctantly admitted to AK-47 and RPGs being present. To their credit, they did release a full 39 minute version, but for “research” purposes only. Their edited version tells a very different story.

0:26 The “Black van” dropping off possible insurgents.

0:46 “We got a target fifteen coming at you, it’s a guy with a weapon.”

1:05 “One of them has a weapon.”

1:27 Guy carrying AK-47, and other with RPG (no way it a tripod) that had previously fired on U.S. Troops. WikiLeak video distracts you with letter box about a camera Bag).

3:53 “Roger, be advised, there were some guys popping out with the AKs behind that dirt pile. Break.”

4:25 “Uh, location, I have about 12 to 15 dead bodies. Where else were you taking fire from?”

4:34 They had AK-47s and were to our East. So, where we were taking small arms fire, over.

4:59 “I also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG crouching around the corner, Getting ready to fire on your location. That’s why we requested permission to engage.”

5:17 (IMPORTANT) “Six this is four, I got one individual looks like he’s got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break.” (Note: Four was at the scene of the shooting and found an RPG, of course wikileaks left that out).

5:43 “ I can hear small arms fire from your engagement area…”

6:10 “Right about where we engaged? Yeah, one of them with that RPG or whatever.”

6:19 “He’s got a weapon. Got an RP–, uh AK-47.”

6:34 “Roger, we have another individual with a weapon.”

The WikiLeaks transcription is poor in areas, as well. For instance, one part in their version they claim one guy said “F—-ing Prick”. It was not “prick, it was “break”. Not sure the word before it, sounded cut off.

USE OF CAMERAS: Should also note that a tactic used in battle is to take pictures using high powered lenses to gather intel on troop location, size, and armament. Photos would then be shared with the RPG carrier for more precise target acquisition. Not saying this was the case here, but that does happen. Tragic as it is, one should know better than to aim what looks like a weapon at ground troops with surveilling Apache Copters overhead, especially when standing next to insurgents carrying an RPG and AK-47s.

[thehoodedsmack]

What a bunch of assholes. Now I don't know what to think about this story.

[Disaster]

Wow. Lost my trust in wikileaks.

[Spartan094]

Oh wow.

[paladin]

Typical, on all accounts. Im not saying anyone in particular because everyone does it, but people deliberately leave important information out to prove their point. i.e. Global warming LOL

[StankBacon]

anyone who researched the incident instead of just taking wikileaks word for it would have known long ago they were full of shit.

[paladin]

anyone who researched the incident instead of just taking wikileaks word for it would have known long ago they were full of shit.

I know, but the general tone from a majority of people that posted in this thread had pitch forks and torches for the US Military.

[CN3089]

don't see how it changes anything, you should have watched the full version to begin with

[paladin]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/ArmyReport_ExhibitO.png/799px-ArmyReport_ExhibitO.png

From the site of the attack

[Kornman00]

There should be laws against this kind of media


But...it's the internet

[paladin]

:nsmug: There should be a law against stupidity

[Dwood]

And you guys trusted them.

[thehoodedsmack]

Well, I'm glad to know that the soldiers may have had more legitimate reasons for opening fire. Though I'm still not a fan on them shooting at those who came to aid the survivors. And I still think that the video equipment and superior-contact system deserves to be upgraded, if it hasn't by now.

[paladin]

Ahh, the van that came to get them, dropped them off...

[thehoodedsmack]

Oh, I missed that bit.