WikiLeaks publishes apparent negligent attack on civillians in Iraq video

**Vladimir** · 04-06-2010, 14:17

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.

**Kekvit Irae** · 04-06-2010, 15:17

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

**Kagemusha** · 04-06-2010, 15:43

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.

**Vladimir** · 04-06-2010, 17:00

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.

**Kagemusha** · 04-06-2010, 17:31

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.

**Vladimir** · 04-06-2010, 17:54

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).

**gaelic cowboy** · 04-06-2010, 18:04

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.

**Kagemusha** · 04-06-2010, 18:04

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.

**Husar** · 04-07-2010, 01:39

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.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 04-07-2010, 02:36

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.