wikileaks.org releases classified US military video depicting killing of civilians

[CaptainCrunch]

Like I said, I would hope that the release of this video would force the U.S. Military to properly release their conclusions and how they reached them.

However to me, its a far different thing to view a video tape, photoshop arrows into it and analyse the video from the actual live experience where things are confusing, deceptive and look like its moving incredibly fast.

The pilots certainly don't know that there are reporters with this group. They see weapons, they see the reporters carrying bulky gear that could be weapons. They see the van pull up, they see a person jump out to collect the body, the believe that the people from the van are collecting bodies and the weapons.

Its easy to judge from far away with a video that you can rewind and slowdown. and point things out.

we've seen civilian casualties in the past, we've seen friendly fire incidents in the past. The soldiers don't have the benefit of second sight or hind sight, they have the right here and right now, they make a snap judgement based on what they see and compare it to the rules of engagement, they ask for permission to fire and relay their information back to their command structure and get permission to fire.

And again, as far as the laughing and quips, that is the only coping mechanism that these guys have.

If they had hesitated on a mission to seek out insurgents then very bad things could have happened to them.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Sounds pretty transparent.... I wish that if I did something illegal I could investigate myself.

Doesn't matter how it sounds, or how we think it is. The military has its own system.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

No shots fired, exaggerated weapons counts and descriptions and false conclusions to get the necessary fire confirmation on an unarmed, injured civilian.

Question to people who have watched the video as I can't watch it at work: Is the helicopter pilot falsely reporting that those particular people opened fire on them? Or say for example.... they got reports of shots being fired in that area, the helicopter flew over and spotted a couple people with weapons and a few other people with unidentified objects that looked like might be weapons.

One of those situations becomes more understandable than the other.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by flip

Well maybe in the US but I know guys in the Canadian military and they are not trained to be cold-blooded killers.

When they accidentally kill people out of fear for their lives or the lives of others I understand.

When they intentionally kill innocent people they should be treated as murderers no matter how tough the job.

Agreed. Although I doubt JTF2 isn't trained to be cold-blooded killers. I think you have a rosy view of the Canadian Military.

Otherwise, if this was intentional, it should be dealt with harshly.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Question to people who have watched the video as I can't watch it at work: Is the helicopter pilot falsely reporting that those particular people opened fire on them? Or say for example.... they got reports of shots being fired in that area, the helicopter flew over and spotted a couple people with weapons and a few other people with unidentified objects that looked like might be weapons.

One of those situations becomes more understandable than the other.

All we know as he swings around the building and the people go out of view is that the pilot reports that shots were fired. We don't know the relative position of the gun sight camera that we're seeing to what the pilot can identify.

[nik-]

Even if you can get past the first barrage, which I can, reluctantly, shredding a van trying to pick up bodies is beyond disgusting.

[photon]

From the video I didn't see anything that's unambiguously an RPG, but when the one guy hides behind the wall with what looks like a long lens camera, it sure does look like a guy with an RPG hiding behind a wall and lining up.

There was other camera views too that we obviously don't see.

The guys in the choppers called in and got permission to engage, they got it and they did what they are told to do, the blame goes to those who gave permission as much as anywhere else.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If they had hesitated on a mission to seek out insurgents then very bad things could have happened to them.

But seriously though, do insurgents walk openly in the streets like that knowing American gunships are flying around? I have a feeling that insurgents tend to hide in the streets and do not openly walk around as shown in that video.

I would be more inclined to believe that they likely thought they wouldn't be attacked because ya know, they're civilians!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by ikaris

But seriously though, do insurgents walk openly in the streets like that knowing American gunships are flying around? I have a feeling that insurgents tend to hide in the streets and do not openly walk around as shown in that video.

I would be more inclined to believe that they likely thought they wouldn't be attacked because ya know, they're civilians!

And do reporters usually act in the way the acted as shown in the video?

It can go one way or the other.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Question to people who have watched the video as I can't watch it at work: Is the helicopter pilot falsely reporting that those particular people opened fire on them? Or say for example.... they got reports of shots being fired in that area, the helicopter flew over and spotted a couple people with weapons and a few other people with unidentified objects that looked like might be weapons.

One of those situations becomes more understandable than the other.

The video provides no evidence of shots fired. If there were shots fired, I'm fairly confident it wasn't at the helicopter.

Everyone on the ground in the video looks like they are out for a Sunday stroll. No one is hiding or running or looking tense. The US guys don't intentionally misrepresent the # of weapons (I don't think) but it appears that they do mistake the cameras for AK 47s.

The guy with what is presumably an RPG kind of crouches behind a corner when they get to an intersection. Hard to tell if he's watching the helicopter or looking at something else.

It also appears they incorrectly say that the RPG guy is getting ready to fire. I'm not weapons expert but at no point does he point his RPG at anything and look ready to fire. (some people in the thread don't think it is an RPG at all but a guy with a camera)

The helicopter then reports shots fired which aren't visible in the video, and IMO, based on the actions of the people in the video appear to be complete BS.

They get permission to engage BEFORE they report shots fired so even if there were shots fired it is irrelevant. They were gonna waste those guys no matter what.

A van comes to save the Reuters guy. They open fire on the van for no real reason other than they think he's saving an insurgent.

Two kids happen to be in the van. And are injured/killed.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flip

Well maybe in the US but I know guys in the Canadian military and they are not trained to be cold-blooded killers.

When they accidentally kill people out of fear for their lives or the lives of others I understand.

When they intentionally kill innocent people they should be treated as murderers no matter how tough the job.

but your making large leaps here Flip. The pilot saw weapons, that suddenly in his mind removes the innocence factor. He saw a van and reported collection of bodies and possible collection of weapons.

I agree, that they should be punished if the investigation shows that they thrill killed, but until we see the proper results of that, which hopefully this video will force into the open, its tough for me to make a judgement.

And frankly, I stay current in the Armed Forces Community, and every single person that I know that has been rotated into combat has that same coping mechanism where they try to dehumanize the people that they're trying to kill.

Its similar to fighter pilots who don't refer to shooting down and killing enemy pilots but refer to their enemy as a plane. Or a Naval member who doesn't refer to individuals but to ships.

Its simply how they cope.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ikaris

But seriously though, do insurgents walk openly in the streets like that knowing American gunships are flying around? I have a feeling that insurgents tend to hide in the streets and do not openly walk around as shown in that video.

I would be more inclined to believe that they likely thought they wouldn't be attacked because ya know, they're civilians!

Gunships are notoriously quiet, they might not have even noticed it until it began its circle around the building.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Azure

And do reporters usually act in the way the acted as shown in the video?

It can go one way or the other.

You mean walking down the street casually in a war zone? that is all I saw the reporters do.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Azure

And do reporters usually act in the way the acted as shown in the video?

It can go one way or the other.

I don't understand? How were they acting suspiciously? Are you referring to the camera man who was crouching against the building appearing to take a photo?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by ikaris

I don't understand? How were they acting suspiciously? Are you referring to the camera man who was crouching against the building appearing to take a photo?

That is how WE see it AFTER the fact.

How do you think it looked to the guys watching them from above?

[flip]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

but your making large leaps here Flip. The pilot saw weapons, that suddenly in his mind removes the innocence factor. He saw a van and reported collection of bodies and possible collection of weapons.

I agree, that they should be punished if the investigation shows that they thrill killed, but until we see the proper results of that, which hopefully this video will force into the open, its tough for me to make a judgement.

And frankly, I stay current in the Armed Forces Community, and every single person that I know that has been rotated into combat has that same coping mechanism where they try to dehumanize the people that they're trying to kill.

Its similar to fighter pilots who don't refer to shooting down and killing enemy pilots but refer to their enemy as a plane. Or a Naval member who doesn't refer to individuals but to ships.

Its simply how they cope.

Just to clarify, that post you quoted wasn't a direct attack on the guys in the video. I was replying to Azure's post.


I get all the stuff about coping. I really do. I just don't see most Army personnel as cold blooded killing machines.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by ikaris

I don't understand? How were they acting suspiciously? Are you referring to the camera man who was crouching against the building appearing to take a photo?

I think it is suspicious to be talking on a cellphone seemingly without a care in the world, which is what is happening as they are fired upon.

[photon]

Originally Posted by ikaris

But seriously though, do insurgents walk openly in the streets like that knowing American gunships are flying around? I have a feeling that insurgents tend to hide in the streets and do not openly walk around as shown in that video.

I would be more inclined to believe that they likely thought they wouldn't be attacked because ya know, they're civilians!

What our feelings say or what we would do in situations are not good things to go by when trying to figure out what's going on in a situation so far removed from our personal experiences that it's impossible to say.

Maybe insurgents do walk around openly because they look like everyone else? Maybe the coverage at the time of the attack wasn't so much that at that point insurgents could walk around and have very little chance of being confronted or attacked.

There's a thousand implicit assumptions and judgments I make when I watch that video, and if I want to be fair and impartial I have to recognize them and recognize that me sitting here at my desk there are so many factors that I am unaware of.

That doesn't mean I don't hold an opinion on what happened, I just realize that my opinion is based on a lot of assumptions and my confidence in those assumptions is very low, so my opinion isn't (or shouldn't be) very strong; it can be altered either way with more information.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flip

The video provides no evidence of shots fired. If there were shots fired, I'm fairly confident it wasn't at the helicopter.

But you don't know, I don't know, the only person who knows is the pilot and the gunman. Remember this is a gunsight camera that is mounted under the nose of the helicopter its a different view from what the pilot had.

Originally Posted by flip

Everyone on the ground in the video looks like they are out for a Sunday stroll. No one is hiding or running or looking tense. The US guys don't intentionally misrepresent the # of weapons (I don't think) but it appears that they do mistake the cameras for AK 47s.

Until the helicopter swung around the building we don't even know if these people on the streets insurgents or not knew if there was danger. Gunships are notoriously quiet.

Originally Posted by flip

The guy with what is presumably an RPG kind of crouches behind a corner when they get to an intersection. Hard to tell if he's watching the helicopter or looking at something else.

It also appears they incorrectly say that the RPG guy is getting ready to fire. I'm not weapons expert but at no point does he point his RPG at anything and look ready to fire.

We're not talking police rules of arrest here. The fact that he's carrying a weapon or possible weapons marks him as a target. He doesn't have to point it at the helicopter to elicit a response.

Originally Posted by flip

The helicopter then reports shots fired which aren't visible in the video, and IMO, based on the actions of the people in the video appear to be complete BS.

But thats an opinion, not a fact.

Originally Posted by flip

They get permission to engage BEFORE they report shots fired so even if there were shots fired it is irrelevant. They were gonna waste those guys no matter what.

They were on a mission to go after insurgents. The fact that they identified weapons was enough. The shots fired made the situation more defensive.

Originally Posted by flip

A van comes to save the Reuters guy. They open fire on the van for no real reason other than they think he's saving an insurgent.

Two kids happen to be in the van. And are injured/killed.

How are the pilots suppossed to know that there were kids in the van.

And your right, they open fire on a van thats rescuing an insurgent. Its not an ambulance, its a van, and the pilot suspects that the person is also going to collect weapons.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

but your making large leaps here Flip. The pilot saw weapons, that suddenly in his mind removes the innocence factor. He saw a van and reported collection of bodies and possible collection of weapons.

I agree, that they should be punished if the investigation shows that they thrill killed, but until we see the proper results of that, which hopefully this video will force into the open, its tough for me to make a judgement.

And frankly, I stay current in the Armed Forces Community, and every single person that I know that has been rotated into combat has that same coping mechanism where they try to dehumanize the people that they're trying to kill.

Its similar to fighter pilots who don't refer to shooting down and killing enemy pilots but refer to their enemy as a plane. Or a Naval member who doesn't refer to individuals but to ships.

Its simply how they cope.

It's how anyone can possibly cope with anything. They find a way to distance themselves from the people that died. For example: what was the final death toll in Haiti's earth quake? 220,000 or something like that? I wouldn't say that people were trying to dehumanize the people of Haiti but... distance themselves from their plight maybe? Otherwise, how do you possibly deal with that?!

If a life is a life is a life and they're all worth the same to everyone... take the grieving and coverage of Michael Jackson's death for example... multiply that by 200,000 and how would the world go on?



So it goes...