WikiLeaks publishes apparent negligent attack on civillians in Iraq video

Quote:

---

Wikileaks has today published classified US military video of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter murdering people on a Baghdad street in 2007.

The footage shows those on the street seemingly minding their own business until being fired upon. Worse perhaps is that among the people was a Reuters journalist who made the mistake of pointing his camera at the helicopter, a move the pilot mistook as a militant lining up an RPG.

In the second scene, having shot a pile of people, the helicopter then fires on a van that arrives on the scene in an attempt to rescue one of the survivors.

The body count for the day included around a dozen people, and several children were also injured.

The US military initially claimed after the attack that all the dead were “anti-Iraqi” forces or “insurgents,” despite there being two Reuters journalists among the dead.

The footage below in disturbing, and before hitting play we emphasize that we’re not joking when we say that.

---

Inquisitr Site

Link to Youtube video

This video IS shocking. I discourage people with high levels of sensibility to watch it, as people are killed in the video.

This caught my eye in the Paradox OT Forums. While I am on the fence on this one, as that is a warzone and soldiers have to take quick decisions, I'm pending towards that this is a gross neglicence that costed the lives of several innocent people.

Curious thing is also that this video is still classified, and it was just leaked (A few days ago) to an humanitarian transprancy agency called Wikileaks, which I had no idea that it existed until now, by an annonymous source. In its site, you also find many other leaked cases on many countries, including one which caught my eye of an attempt by CIA to attempt to wreck the site's credibility.

The thing which made me heavily pend towards negligence was when they attacked the van which had come to help one of the few people still barely alive after the attack.

I don't understand at all the thinking behind shooting up the van :(

I wish the video makers would let it speak for itself though. When you zoom in and clearly label a blur as "children" you aren't showing what the soldiers could see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't understand at all the thinking behind shooting up the van :(

---

Insurgents regularly attempted evacuations of their wounded, sometimes even going back to get the dead to deny coalition forces the intelligence. I think it was reasonable for the pilots to assume that an unmarked van entering the scene so quickly during a firefight to collect the wounded man was serving that purpose.

The question seems to be whether this was a tragic accidental killing of two journalists and several innocents as WikiLeaks and the editors of the video contend, or the killing of two journalists imbedded with insurgent forces as the military contends. An examination of the supposedly unedited video at around 19:00 seems to confirm that there was an RPG involved.

In any event, Reuters and the US military seem to be in agreement that there were armed men in the group.

Quote:

---

Reuters stated that its photographer and his driver "had gone to the area after hearing of a military raid on a building around dawn that day, and were with a group of men at the time. It is believed two or three of these men may have been carrying weapons, although witnesses said none were assuming a hostile posture.

"The U.S. military said the helicopter attack, in which nine other people were killed, occurred after security forces came under fire," Reuters stated at the time.

According to a July 19 summary of the investigation, obtained by The Associated Press, U.S. troops acted appropriately.

Reuters employees were likely "intermixed among the insurgents" and difficult to distinguish because of their equipment, the document states.

"It is worth noting the fact that insurgent groups often video and photograph friendly activity and insurgent attacks against friendly forces for use in training videos and for use as propaganda to exploit or highlight their capabilities," the document concludes.

---

More tragic then it's shocking

I blame the first guy that mistook the camera for an RPG. Once seen, hard to unsee, especially when you figure you could die...

Itchy trigger fingers, nothing more.

Apparently the Pentagon now considers "wikileaks" a threat to national security... Does that mean they'll send in another couple of attack helicopters?

If they thought the van was there to evacuate the wounded, that's a warcrime. If they thought it was reinforcements that is an unfortunate error.

The Military appears to be of the opinion that even if they knew it was a camera it was still a valid target... :inquisitive:

In terms of recruiting for the Taliban, it was very successful all round.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Insurgents regularly attempted evacuations of their wounded, sometimes even going back to get the dead to deny coalition forces the intelligence. I think it was reasonable for the pilots to assume that an unmarked van entering the scene so quickly during a firefight to collect the wounded man was serving that purpose.

---

That may be true, but then the Apache helicopter was still in plain sight and circling around the area where they just attacked. It would have been pretty stupid for an unmarked van to just come by a recently attacked site where there is an American attack helicopter flying-by and loading up people who were attacked if they were insurgents. Likewise, the soldiers should have seen there were children in the van (In the front seat, if I'm not mistaken.)

When there is a terrorrist attack (Like the usual market bombings), the first thing willing citizens do is start loading wounded into their vehicles to transport them to the hospital as quickly as possible. That seems pretty much to be the case of a van who just happened to be around and heard an attack, came to the site and saw a badly wounded man and was about to transport him to the hospital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Insurgents regularly attempted evacuations of their wounded, sometimes even going back to get the dead to deny coalition forces the intelligence. I think it was reasonable for the pilots to assume that an unmarked van entering the scene so quickly during a firefight to collect the wounded man was serving that purpose.

---

So? Let them collect the wounded man.

Quote:

---

The question seems to be whether this was a tragic accidental killing of two journalists and several innocents as WikiLeaks and the editors of the video contend, or the killing of two journalists imbedded with insurgent forces as the military contends. An examination of the supposedly unedited video at around 19:00 seems to confirm that there was an RPG involved.

---

The WikiLeaks video seemed to be pushing a "this was an evil massacre from the start" angle. It is clearly tragic however you look at it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Insurgents regularly attempted evacuations of their wounded, sometimes even going back to get the dead to deny coalition forces the intelligence. I think it was reasonable for the pilots to assume that an unmarked van entering the scene so quickly during a firefight to collect the wounded man was serving that purpose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

So? Let them collect the wounded man.

---

Indeed; even if they were insurgents, and the man-with-the-van were an insurgent medic, are you telling me that it is US army doctrine to target enemy medics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Indeed; even if they were insurgents, and the man-with-the-van were an insurgent medic, are you telling me that it is US army doctrine to target enemy medics?

---

Strictly speaking, medics in a combat zone should be displaying the red cross (or crescent) for them to be afforded legal protection.

That is true if we were talking about a war zone, which this isn't.

Civilians always have legal protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Strictly speaking, medics in a combat zone should be displaying the red cross (or crescent) for them to be afforded legal protection.

---

They have to meet other criteria as well. If Buba and Earl want to fight against the gov'ment and use Earl's truck as an ambulance, they aren't afforded any special protection.

I would like to know how blind the pilot and gunner must be to think a long-range camera is an AK-47.

As far as i understand those two apaches clearly recogniced that no one was shooting at them. Its terrible to listen how the gunner begs for the pilot to get the green light from the commander in ground to open fire at the van,while the men coming out of the van are clearly moving towards the wounded and no one is shooting at the gunships.

The language is pretty harsh. No need to be rude. But seriously, there's nothing like the lack of context to make me mad. The section they show may be "uncut" but we don't know the events leading up to the shooting. I don't trust Wikileaks and they're hypocritical. It appears that a gunship just happened to be flying around and decided to take our a bunch of people. To the ignorant and naive it looks like big bad USA is at it again. I don't know how someone could think this is helicopter gun footage; it is clearly a fixed wing aircraft. You'll also notice how the gunner didn't fire on the wounded man. He wasn't told to do so, he made the decision himself. It looks like he adhered to the rules of engagement. It also looks like the gun camera isn't calibrated to the weapon.

Another issue of armchair generals, lack of context, and emotional outrage. In summary: Bad guys spotted, rules of engagement followed, van is shot when trying to pick up bad guys. Yes it's a "50,000 foot view" but it accurately describes the situation. I've grown as numb to these politics as some have grown numb to killing. Both are dirty business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The language is pretty harsh. No need to be rude. But seriously, there's nothing like the lack of context to make me mad. The section they show may be "uncut" but we don't know the events leading up to the shooting. I don't trust Wikileaks and they're hypocritical. It appears that a gunship just happened to be flying around and decided to take our a bunch of people. To the ignorant and naive it looks like big bad USA is at it again. I don't know how someone could think this is helicopter gun footage; it is clearly a fixed wing aircraft. You'll also notice how the gunner didn't fire on the wounded man. He wasn't told to do so, he made the decision himself. It looks like he adhered to the rules of engagement. It also looks like the gun camera isn't calibrated to the weapon.

Another issue of armchair generals, lack of context, and emotional outrage. In summary: Bad guys spotted, rules of engagement followed, van is shot when trying to pick up bad guys. Yes it's a "50,000 foot view" but it accurately describes the situation. I've grown as numb to these politics as some have grown numb to killing. Both are dirty business.

---

Well if you are educating other people.Maybe you should have noticed that there were 2 gunships and at times it is the first gunships camera that pics up the firing of the other gunships on its view. If you listen to the initial conversation leading to the gunships opening fire. Gunships spot group of men. They report their sightings to the ground commander some distance away and ask for permission to fire. Ground commander gives a green light and the gunships open fire. After a while gunships report to ground commander approaching the area that a van arrives with possible hostiles and after repeated requests the commander gives green light to firing at the van.

The initial spotting and reaction of the gunships can be explained by they are being over enemy territory and under pressure. Thus making a hasty conclusion about the group of men.

The second request to attack the van is unacceptable based on the facts that no one fired a shot against the gunships and the gunships observed the van for quite some time before opening fire.But this isnt the first or last time civilians are killed in wars.

More education to follow:

Measure the time it took between the sound of the gunfire and when the bullets reached the ground. It's silly to think that the gunship needs to be threatened directly. Even if they could see it it's likely thousands of feet in the air!

The gunner clearly followed the rules of engagement regardless of your personal feelings. We can always disagree with those rules but they aren't made up on a whim. The military has lawyers who specialize in this area.

You're thinking about the chess piece not the quadrant or the rest of the board. Civilians are always killed in wars and insurgents are almost always civilians (have fun with those sentences).

The real problem at the end of the day is the fact the army wont hold up it's hands and say a simple sorry we got it wrong we made a mistake under pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

More education to follow:

Measure the time it took between the sound of the gunfire and when the bullets reached the ground. It's silly to think that the gunship needs to be threatened directly. Even if they could see it it's likely thousands of feet in the air!

The gunner clearly followed the rules of engagement regardless of your personal feelings. We can always disagree with those rules but they aren't made up on a whim. The military has lawyers who specialize in this area.

You're thinking about the chess piece not the quadrant or the rest of the board. Civilians are always killed in wars and insurgents are almost always civilians (have fun with those sentences).

---

I dont understand why you are supposed to know my sentiments? Are you empath of sorts? If you had any knowledge about optics. You would understand it that the gunships were low and at times the targets were horizontally out of their sight. That doesnt give the one watching the tape any hint what their distance to their targets was. From the radio conversation it seems quite clear that the gunships had a line of sight to the ground forces below as they were directing them to the area the group of men were. But you dont have any way to measure their distance to their targets. So please stop educating me if you dont know anything about what you are saying.

Clearly you're emotional and I don't have people skills. However, it does make me smile when you suggest that those people fire an AK-47 at a plane thousands of feet in the sky. Again, we don't have context, you're making assumptions, and essentially there is nothing to see here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Clearly you're emotional and I don't have people skills. However, it does make me smile when you suggest that those people fire an AK-47 at a plane thousands of feet in the sky. Again, we don't have context, you're making assumptions, and essentially there is nothing to see here.

---

You dont comprehend that would the choppers be thousends feets at the sky.They would have a birds view on the target? Which they dont have the gunner is talking to the pilot as the crowd disappears behind a building. Second you cant see a single flash coming out from rifle barrels from the crowd.In matter of fact you cant see a single rifle in the crowd. Last i cant understand how i have to be emotional because i disagree with you? Because i hate freedom, for questioning actions of US military service men?

While certainly tragic I can understand why the aviators did what they did. They saw a large group of men, they looked armed, in order to prevent some ambush on US ground pounders they engaged. A few minutes later a van pulls up and starts recovering bodies, the pilots obviously think these are the insurgent QRF and engage. The Apache crew was definitely quick to engage, this being 2007 the ROE was still lax and what they did was well within it. A non-uniformed enemy makes target ID difficult to do, mistakes can and will be made.

As for the lack of threat to the Apaches, in Iraq they fly a few hundred feet from the ground, it allows them to have some aspect of surprise because when you fly high the enemy can see and hear you from much farther away. I've responded to Apaches that have found people digging in IEDs, moving around after curfew and so on, all because they fly low and fast (for a helo).

All this does not however serve to excuse their action, they made a terrible mistake. WikiLeaks is right to publish the footage despite the protests of the Pentagon, this does hurt our war effort and will probably be another recruiting call for more of our enemies but it should be public because I value truth a bit more than pride or this war.

Quote:

---

The real problem at the end of the day is the fact the army wont hold up it's hands and say a simple sorry we got it wrong we made a mistake under pressure.

---

Exactly!

Well, part of the problem is that saying sorry destroys the credibility of a military (Who is always noble and brave and "almost" never wrong), and doesn't do much good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

The real problem at the end of the day is the fact the army wont hold up it's hands and say a simple sorry we got it wrong we made a mistake under pressure.

---

Agreed. Of course a military under pressure is going to make mistakes. While the gunner definitely seemed trigger-happy and the attack on the van completely unjustified, I've never been in a war zone getting shot at, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Not accepting responsibility for those mistakes that can and will be made, however, is imo unacceptable. Good that this is out, I think.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae

I would like to know how blind the pilot and gunner must be to think a long-range camera is an AK-47.

---

Well, they didn't, they thought it was an RPG, which makes it all okay, no wait, worse, because people always wave RPgs around with one hand and everybody knows RPGs are just 20cm long.

Itchy trigger finger is a good point indeed considering the conversation, the pilot/gunner literally says to the command: "come on, let us shoot!", they also call the guys down there bastards and blame them for the two children who got injured, say it's their own fault for bringing kids to a combat zone, which I guess wasn't a combat zone until the military started shooting.

Personally, I find this pretty disgusting, quick decisions didn't play a role here, as kage says, there was noone shooting at the helicopter, they asked for permission to fire all the time, so clearly they should have had enough time to realize that noone was about to fire an RPG at them, yet they didn't, they seemed all concerned about killing everybody down there quickly. They belong in a court IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, they didn't, they thought it was an RPG, which makes it all okay, no wait, worse, because people always wave RPgs around with one hand and everybody knows RPGs are just 20cm long.

Itchy trigger finger is a good point indeed considering the conversation, the pilot/gunner literally says to the command: "come on, let us shoot!", they also call the guys down there bastards and blame them for the two children who got injured, say it's their own fault for bringing kids to a combat zone, which I guess wasn't a combat zone until the military started shooting.

Personally, I find this pretty disgusting, quick decisions didn't play a role here, as kage says, there was noone shooting at the helicopter, they asked for permission to fire all the time, so clearly they should have had enough time to realize that noone was about to fire an RPG at them, yet they didn't, they seemed all concerned about killing everybody down there quickly. They belong in a court IMO.

---

I see no excuse for shooting up the van when they guys tried to pull the wounded guy into it, but didn't the video say that they had weapons, were shooting at the helicopters, and one of them had an rpg round (found afterwards)? That's what I remember hearing.

The "callous" comments made are what I think people would have to say as a defense of their own psyche in a war situation.

Anyway, wikileaks should have leaked the video and left it at that. You can't complain about the government trying to keep the video out of your hands when you edit it like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Clearly you're emotional and I don't have people skills.

---

:laugh4: mind if I borrow that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

So? Let them collect the wounded man.

---

Why would they do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae

I would like to know how blind the pilot and gunner must be to think a long-range camera is an AK-47.

---

I don't mean to question your obvious expertise in long range target identification, but if you examine the video posted at 3:40, there clearly looks to be a man with a weapon. Further, at 4 minutes in, it very much looks like a man with an RPG is crouching and peering around the corner. It even startles the pilots.

Even from a video as heavily edited as that, I'm still not convinced that the pilots erroneously saw weapons that weren't there. Also curious is the fact that the video mentions nothing about the other men. If they had weeping widows and children, surely the propagandists editors would have utilized them. This, along with the conclusions from the military and Reuters, leads me to believe these journalists were most likely imbedded with insurgent forces and their deaths, while tragic, are par for the course in that line of work.

We can think of the gunner's side of the story while we disagree with his decision.
The problem is, would the Middle East, particularly the families and the news agency of those journalists believe the gunner's side of the story? Take note that this happened in 2007. The Middle East knew what happened to those journalists for 2 years without hearing about the explanation for it.