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

[valo403]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Is there not some sort of code/rule protecting medical evacuation vehicles? How is this not comparable to opening fire on an ambulance?

It's a random van, not exactly clear that it's not another insurgent vehicle.

[flip]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's a random van, not exactly clear that it's not another insurgent vehicle.

Regardless they seemed a tad bit trigger happy. That is the part that concerns me.

[wooohooo]

Originally Posted by flip

Regardless they seemed a tad bit trigger happy. That is the part that concerns me.

Yeah - how easy they engaged was a little scary. I would think a little bit more confirmation would be required. I could see them opening fire when they are shooting, but these guys were just walking around. I'm not going to blame the helicopter pilots as I can see their reason for shooting, but getting the go ahead to kill was way too easy.

[Azure]

Usually ambulances are identified by the 'cross' symbol.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's a random van, not exactly clear that it's not another insurgent vehicle.

what is clear though is that they are loading bodies, and not running around with RPG's.

[puckluck]

This video will be in my mind for a while. I stopped watching after the van got lit up with bullets. Is there any more shooting afterwards? not really in the mood to watch it all.

[flip]

This story is now being picked up by most major news sources. I read a NY Times article that said that no disciplinary action was taken against the guys who opened fire.

Late Monday, the United States Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released the redacted report on the case, which provided some more detail.

The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees “made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/wo...ad.html?src=me

[joe_mullen]

Originally Posted by Azure

Hindsight is 20/20 flip. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but stuff like this happens on a daily basis in a 'warzone.'

In a war zone that was created through an illegal invasion by the same country where the soldiers in question hail from.

[FurnaceFace]

I did some "research" tonight and watched the beginning of the video in some detail.

Here's some RPG launchers seized in Iraq:



The encyclopedia of mostly truths (Wikipedia) tells me:

The launcher is reloadable and based around a simple steel tube, 40 millimeters in diameter, 95.3 centimeters long, and weighing 7 kilograms. [...]


As with similar weapons, the grenade protrudes from the launch tubes. It is 40-105 millimeters in diameter and weighs between 2.5 and 4.5 kilograms.

A telephoto lens of the type they appear to be holding isn't that long however not the similarity of the flared end of the RPG vs the widening lens and lens hood of the camera. There are some similarities.

The other people seem to be carrying weapons. I've taken screen shots specifically of two of the guys who as you watch the video quite clearly have weapons. I'm not as high tech as wikileaks so I've just simply circled in red.

Same guy in both pics, two different angles. AK-47? In the second shot it looks longer and thinner than an AK and more the profile of a loaded RPG launcher. I note the comment at the time which says AK-47.




The guy standing beside person above. That is the profile of an AK-47 and could be what the soldiers are referring to.


Here is the first guy standing still. This is not the clearest capture but I note the weapon seems to go up to at least his waist and seems more long and thin than AK-47 like.


And finally here is the camera. Even stopping it and going back and forth a few times it comes and goes quick so the assumption of an RPG is plausible. I do wonder if the guy who says "RPG!" is looking at the camera view or something different.


I would say it's hard to tell from this exactly what was going on and I do find it interesting the video editors don't note the weapons. They are there so it would make sense that gets pointed out. I would also like to know if Reuters or many news agencies send their reporters out to tag along with insurgents. I recall seeing some Israel/Palestine war photos where the photographers were right there with the Palestinians.

In a quick search there are a bunch of photos tagged Iraqi Insurgents taken for western news agencies. For example here's one with an Associated Press watermark when viewed on the original site .


My point in all of this is not to say the photographers should have known better or not been there or that it's somehow their fault. My point is more, there are lots of things which transpired here and everything needs to be taken in a complete view...something which I don't think any of us can do from this footage.

[flip]

Originally Posted by puckluck

This video will be in my mind for a while. I stopped watching after the van got lit up with bullets. Is there any more shooting afterwards? not really in the mood to watch it all.

I don't think so. But they do show the Army vehicle running over a dead body. You can't really see anything though.

I didn't find the content to be overly graphic but with the commentary of the pilot and gunman and knowing it was just some innocent civilian being mowed down I was kind of disturbed.

[HPLovecraft]

The child comment was insanity.

Wow.

Tough to see someone be so glib about killing kids. Anyone for that matter, but kids. Holy sh**. I don't care if you're in a war or not, there's a line that one crosses when you start talking like that about children.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's a random van, not exactly clear that it's not another insurgent vehicle.

It's rather clearly trying to pick up the wounded people....

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

The child comment was insanity.

Wow.

Tough to see someone be so glib about killing kids. Anyone for that matter, but kids. Holy sh**. I don't care if you're in a war or not, there's a line that one crosses when you start talking like that about children.

What was the comment?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Is there not some sort of code/rule protecting medical evacuation vehicles? How is this not comparable to opening fire on an ambulance?

Medical evacuation units have to be clearly marked by either the red cross or any other internationally recognized symbol.

That wasn't an ambulance.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

It's rather clearly trying to pick up the wounded people....

Its an unmarked vehicle. As far as the pilot is concerned its an insurgent operated vehicle.

I'm betting that the standard ROE is that anyone that comes into contact with suspected insurgents or attempts to aid them is considered to be enemy combatants.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by puckluck

What was the comment?

"That's what happens when you bring your children to the battlefield" or something like that.

[Temporary_User]

I don't think the soldiers in the video did anything wrong. Wrong in the legal sense.
It definitely looks like the guys are carrying guns, and looks like they are setting up an rpg.

As for the comments the soldiers made:
The guy is trying to rationalize how he just killed a child. Also I think he is right, wdf is that parent doing taking children into a spot that was just shot down from by a helicopter when the helicopter is still circling the area.

Unfortunate incident in war is all this is.

EDIT: I would also like to see an unedited video. Not only was there zooming in and highlighting of target areas to sensationalize the thing, but time was also edited. What were the soldiers saying/doing throughout the time. I think there was a 3 hour edit at one point.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I did some "research" tonight and watched the beginning of the video in some detail.

Here's some RPG launchers seized in Iraq:



The encyclopedia of mostly truths (Wikipedia) tells me:

A telephoto lens of the type they appear to be holding isn't that long however not the similarity of the flared end of the RPG vs the widening lens and lens hood of the camera. There are some similarities.

The other people seem to be carrying weapons. I've taken screen shots specifically of two of the guys who as you watch the video quite clearly have weapons. I'm not as high tech as wikileaks so I've just simply circled in red.

Same guy in both pics, two different angles. AK-47? In the second shot it looks longer and thinner than an AK and more the profile of a loaded RPG launcher. I note the comment at the time which says AK-47.




The guy standing beside person above. That is the profile of an AK-47 and could be what the soldiers are referring to.


Here is the first guy standing still. This is not the clearest capture but I note the weapon seems to go up to at least his waist and seems more long and thin than AK-47 like.


And finally here is the camera. Even stopping it and going back and forth a few times it comes and goes quick so the assumption of an RPG is plausible. I do wonder if the guy who says "RPG!" is looking at the camera view or something different.


I would say it's hard to tell from this exactly what was going on and I do find it interesting the video editors don't note the weapons. They are there so it would make sense that gets pointed out. I would also like to know if Reuters or many news agencies send their reporters out to tag along with insurgents. I recall seeing some Israel/Palestine war photos where the photographers were right there with the Palestinians.

In a quick search there are a bunch of photos tagged Iraqi Insurgents taken for western news agencies. For example here's one with an Associated Press watermark when viewed on the original site .


My point in all of this is not to say the photographers should have known better or not been there or that it's somehow their fault. My point is more, there are lots of things which transpired here and everything needs to be taken in a complete view...something which I don't think any of us can do from this footage.

Good post. I don't believe that the pilot and gunner are seeing the same type of footage that we're seeing here. The pilot is eyes on and the gunner is using the gun site camera but probably doesn't set to the same level of zoom as he wants to see a bigger picture.

To me that camera peeking around the corner does look like a RPG or similar long weapon.

with the RPG (Which I've fired) Its not a sophisticated weapon. You can elevate aim and fire in literally a second.

The fuzzy long rifles that don't look like AK-47 could be mistaken for any type of rifle type weapon. The insurgents don't merely stick to AK's they use whatever they get their hands on.

[flip]

Originally Posted by puckluck

What was the comment?

From the NY times article I quoted earlier:

A short time later a van arrives to pick up the wounded and the pilots open fire on it, wounding two children inside. “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle,” one pilot says.

That is kind of a misrepresentation because they actually say that well after they open fire on the van. There is no reason to believe they fired on the van knowing it had children in it. They said that after ground forces show up to pick up the wounded children.

Actually the more I think about it the NY Times looks pretty Fox News like with reporting like that. A totally misleading description of the chain of events.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

As for the comments the soldiers made:
The guy is trying to rationalize how he just killed a child. Also I think he is right, wdf is that parent doing taking children into a spot that was just shot down from by a helicopter when the helicopter is still circling the area.

Unfortunate incident in war is all this is.

You're right. Good job by him...

I understand the difficulties and unfortunate circumstances of war, but I really can't understand someone dismissing this as "just an unfortunate incident in war."

F****ing internet desensitizes us all.