US gunship kills civilians/reuters journalists, then fires upon makeshift ambulance

[unozero]

ICC is prone to be abused but yeah these guys probably will discharged.

 

[VirusType2]

This is nothing but a bunch of guys hoping to get a few kills under their belt. It's painfully obvious when you listen to the commentary and even more so when hearing the inflection in their voices. Their cavalier assumptions in detecting weapons were arbitrary the moment they saw an object in their hands. They saw weapons because they WANTED to see weapons. Not once did I hear "are you sure?" or "wait and get a psitive id" from them.

There's no defense to be made for these soldiers...none.

Lol, the US military is volunteer. I suppose some/many/most of them volunteer so they can kill people.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Looking at the video again, they did really look like they had weapons. However, they should not have fired until fired upon, and especially being cleared to fire upon a vehicle taking away people who were WOUNDED was a big faux pas. Overall, I place the blame not on the helicopter but on Bushmaster 7 for clearing this bullshit.

 

[unozero]

Lol, the US military is volunteer. I suppose some/many/most of them volunteer so they can kill people.

No most volunteer so they can make a living and get their education payed for...in this case though...



edit:just for reference.

 

[Acepilotf14]

I AM FROM GREAT NATION KAZAKHSTAN

 

[13LACKBISHOP]

Being gung-ho about war isn't something to be discouraged aong soldiers.

Dude this is half of the the problem right here. It damn well is when your trying to police half the entire world.

and therefore assume the worst.

You don't assume anything. You make sure you are damn certain they are armed. Otherwise you do not shoot. You get an eye on the ground to clarify or else you do not engage. Its this kind of attitude that means this war will be perpetual. Its a solidiers job to take orders not to assume. You do what you are told and if you are unaware that someone is armed you do not start making judgments on whether they are or start firing just in case because look what happens. Solidiers are not trained to judge or make decisions. They are trained to obey and that is what they should do. This is the kind of thing that happens when you "assume the worst" as you put it. This particular case was because of this gung-ho attitude and the fact they dont train there solidiers to keep a god damn lid on it. And no a tiny little speck in the distence from a gunship is not certain is it.

There is a reason the number of innocents killed does not suprise me and this "gung-ho" attitude is pretty much it. Americas army may be the most powerful but they are sure as hell not the finest that's for sure.

 

[Shakermaker]

Isn't this called 'recon by fire'?

 

[VirusType2]

You don't assume anything. You make sure you are damn certain they are armed. Otherwise you do not shoot.

What? They shoot at unarmed enemy combatants all the time; they're supposed to. There are different protocols depending on the situation. Yes, in certain cases it's "do not fire unless fired upon." - but not always.

 

[unozero]

Dude this is half of the the problem right here. It damn well is when your trying to police half the entire world.



You don't assume anything. You make sure you are damn certain they are armed. Otherwise you do not shoot. You get an eye on the ground to clarify or else you do not engage. Its this kind of attitude that means this war will be perpetual. Its a solidiers job to take orders not to assume. You do what you are told and if you are unaware that someone is armed you do not start making judgments on whether they are or start firing just in case because look what happens. Solidiers are not trained to judge or make decisions. They are trained to obey and that is what they should do. This is the kind of thing that happens when you "assume the worst" as you put it. This particular case was because of this gung-ho attitude and the fact they dont train there solidiers to keep a god damn lid on it. And no a tiny little speck in the distence from a gunship is not certain is it.

There is a reason the number of innocents killed does not suprise me and this "gung-ho" attitude is pretty much it. Americas army may be the most powerful but they are sure as hell not the finest that's for sure.

This is the real world buddy you just ask somebody to drive 20 miles to "double check" if they have weapons and then give the ok....wishful thinking to say the least.

 

[Eejit]

Another clip from the extended, unedited video:

From what I've read elsewhere the rounds the apache was firing have a muzzle velocity of 800m/s, and given the time between firing (camera shakes) and impact the chopper was well over 1km away from their target. RPGs are ineffective at that kind of distance.
As others have said they could easily have taken another 30, 40 seconds to verify that the people were indeed armed, but they were apparently more concerned with topping the scoreboard's k/d ratio.

 

[13LACKBISHOP]

This is the real world buddy you just ask somebody to drive 20 miles to "double check" if they have weapons and then give the ok....wishful thinking to say the least.

Out all alone unable to even tell whether someone is armed making judgements that cameras are AKs. Good idea? Nah. Whats the point of having a gunship 20 miles away from support that is unable to distinguish from an AK and a camera and ordering your solidiers to assume the worst. Thats an accident waiting to happen. Heck it did happen.

 

[unozero]

Eejit

I think you misunderstand what the role of an AH-64 is, it's ground support they go flying around making sure infantry doesn't have to much trouble
pretty much every Apache Vid I've seen their at this distance.


and black that's just not how stuff likes this works sorry.The pilots either get a call if Infantry is already engaged or they spot Insurgents first ask permission from the Commanding Office on shift and then they open fire.
And alota times their is a back and forth of at least 10-15 minutes before they do start shooting. Eejit is right when he says they should have spent more time conforming but I don't think it would have a difference sadly.
But you are talking about is simply impractical.

 

[13LACKBISHOP]

I think you misunderstand what the role of an AH-64 is, it's ground support they go flying around making sure infantry doesn't have to much trouble

Clearly. And now I know how.

 

[15357]

Gunships never were intended for anti-infantry roles, though.

 

[unozero]

Gunships never were intended for anti-infantry roles, though.

just like the A-10 made to destroy t-85's and now it's used to destroy buildings and strafe mountain sides.If it works it works.

 

[15357]

Dude this is half of the the problem right here. It damn well is when your trying to police half the entire world.

What I mean is in terms of unit morale; sure there are certain side-effects, I've witnessed it myself on the USFIK guys I sometimes see over here; they tend to act as if they own the world. But that's a confidence that needs instilling before combat, you need to be damn sure that you actually do own the world and can go burn some commies or "towel-heads" (as Americans call the muslim populace) without as much as a scratch. That confidence lets you be aggressive, and keep the enemy from holing up by continuously driving them away. Of course, PROFESSIONALISM is a different thing altogether, and it might be something the US troops might lack - you may want to educate your soldiers a bit more, but the attitude is a good thing.

You don't assume anything. You make sure you are damn certain they are armed. Otherwise you do not shoot.

Unfortunately most of the time that confirmation comes in the way of a rocket hurtling at your direction.

You get an eye on the ground to clarify or else you do not engage.

Er, that's not why they have aerial recon..

Its this kind of attitude that means this war will be perpetual. Its a solidiers job to take orders not to assume. You do what you are told and if you are unaware that someone is armed you do not start making judgments on whether they are or start firing just in case because look what happens.

I agree on that.

Solidiers are not trained to judge or make decisions. They are trained to obey and that is what they should do.

No; you are actually trained to make split-second decisions that may or may not haunt you for the rest of your life. Confirmation going forth and back from the commander might waste valuable time.

This is the kind of thing that happens when you "assume the worst" as you put it. This particular case was because of this gung-ho attitude and the fact they dont train there solidiers to keep a god damn lid on it. And no a tiny little speck in the distence from a gunship is not certain is it.

I think that the solution would be to - I cannot stress this enough -

INSTALL SOME BETTER CAMERAS ON WEAPONS SYSTEMS THAT CAN KILL HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE!

Then they won't have to assume the worst; they'll know.

There is a reason the number of innocents killed does not suprise me and this "gung-ho" attitude is pretty much it. Americas army may be the most powerful but they are sure as hell not the finest that's for sure.

I agree.

**** YEAH ROK!

just like the A-10 made to destroy t-85's and now it's used to destroy buildings and strafe mountain sides.If it works it works.

Really? You guys use A-10s over there?

Lol overkill.

 

[flamingdts]

Another clip from the extended, unedited video:

From what I've read elsewhere the rounds the apache was firing have a muzzle velocity of 800m/s, and given the time between firing (camera shakes) and impact the chopper was well over 1km away from their target. RPGs are ineffective at that kind of distance.
As others have said they could easily have taken another 30, 40 seconds to verify that the people were indeed armed, but they were apparently more concerned with topping the scoreboard's k/d ratio.

Exactly.

The fact that the camera did not zoom in any further showed their distance from their "targets". RPGs are ineffective in that distance.

Heck, if they were actually hostile, they would've fired at the gunship by then.

 

[unozero]

read the above posts flamin.

Oh btw this die hard movie terrorist is incredibly biased lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d3SHumK2UY&feature=player_embedded#

I'm glad they have another guest to bring a wee bit of balance to the discussion.

 

[13LACKBISHOP]

But you are talking about is simply impractical.

If you are right then I think that they should not be out there in the first place on the grounds that it is too much of a risk and should only be called in or on a pre planned op. If it gets to the point that innocents are being targeted for the safty of the crew then something needs to be done. Besides if they lack proper recon then that is another problem that needs to be sorted. Where are there eyes and ears? What good is a gunship that destroys targets but cannot identify targets in a non combat situation. They need to identify the targets before you destroy them and that is why I think that they would be best supporting ground troops with either recon or directly on the battlefield were targets can be marked and confirmed by ground troops and the threat has been identified rather than with no support from the ground. I do not think it is a good idea for air support to operate alone with no support from the ground which was evident at the time and mark its own targets.

 

[unozero]

Again just the first few fords in your post you live in a dream world apparently...Stuff like this happens in every War it sucks but it happens.And you are so worried about innocent people dying but I don't see any outrage when Afghani girls get acid spilled all over their face. Or When Taliban go around raping the daughters of village elders etc.
There is a reason why were still there and leaving wouldn't make things better.
But yeah you seem to have it figured out apparently man you should apply at the DoD or Army.



edit:

looks like RPG AT Warhead IMO

 

[Eejit]

A rather light warhead to be held and swung around like that.

It would still have posed no threat to the apache at that range and no other americans were in the vicinity.

 

[13LACKBISHOP]

you need to be damn sure that you actually do own the world and can go burn some commies or "towel-heads" (as Americans call the muslim populace) without as much as a scratch

Gung ho. That's gung-ho attitude. It needs to be binned. Someone needs to tell them that they are not going "into afghanistan to shoot me an A-rab". Professionalism and gung-ho do not mix.

Unfortunately most of the time that confirmation comes in the way of a rocket hurtling at your direction.

Evidently not.

Er, that's not why they have aerial recon..

But clearly they needed ground recon. If they had proper cameras or air recon then this would not have happened.

No; you are actually trained to make split-second decisions that may or may not haunt you for the rest of your life. Confirmation going forth and back from the commander might waste valuable time.

If your having to get confirmation in the first place it is hardly split second is it.

I think that the solution would be to - I cannot stress this enough -

INSTALL SOME BETTER CAMERAS ON WEAPONS SYSTEMS THAT CAN KILL HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE!

Then they won't have to assume the worst; they'll know.

Or that lol.

 

[unozero]

A rather light warhead to be held and swung around like that.

It would still have posed no threat to the apache at that range and no other americans were in the vicinity.

we are at war man.

Yeah I think those Germans are walking right by us Sarge if they leave us alone we should do the same.

Yeah that attitude would have helped through out History I bet

 

[13LACKBISHOP]

Again just the first few fords in your post you live in a dream world apparently...

K

Stuff like this happens in every War it sucks but it happens.

In THIS war most of the deaths could have been avoided. Its not just oh well. That sucks. Hope it never happens again. There is a problem and the military should be solving it.

And you are so worried about innocent people dying but I don't see any outrage when Afghani girls get acid spilled all over their face. Or When Taliban go around raping the daughters of village elders etc.

What?

There is a reason why were still there and leaving wouldn't make things better.

I never said leave or even so much as mention it for that matter.

But yeah you seem to have it figured out apparently man you should apply at the DoD or Army.

It is not me that has it figured out it is that the American military hasn't and that is evident. The number of innocents killed speaks for itself.

 

[13LACKBISHOP]

Whoops

 

[unozero]

Ejit was making it sound like since the Apache was out their range they should have left them alone even hostile or not,I just pointed that out to him.Care to explain why you had to make a post like that?

 

[13LACKBISHOP]

Ejit was making it sound like since the Apache was out their range they should have left them alone even hostile or not,I just pointed that out to him.Care to explain why you had to make a post like that?

Oh I thought you meant something else. Whoopsie.

 

[Eejit]

we are at war man.

A war with rules of engagement.

 

[Barnz]

unozero, you should be the new president. maybe you can liberate more eastern countries.

 

[flamingdts]

Ejit was making it sound like since the Apache was out their range they should have left them alone even hostile or not,I just pointed that out to him.Care to explain why you had to make a post like that?

In the end, this is a case of unjustified shooting.

Yes, a few people may look armed, and sure the black van pulled up to pick up the victims, but they did not get enough confirmation to open fire.

Really, all they had to do was use binoculars or something. Double check who they are shooting at.

 

[Escaep]

Facepalm...

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

Thanks for posting that. Reminds of something I saw in this picture:

If I was that guy carrying what honestly can be mistaken as an RPG, and if you listened to the pilots chatter it sounded like there was a friendly patrol in the area, why would you peak around the corner like that? IF he was a photographer, yes he could have been looking to take a pic, but honestly, who acts that sneaky when taking a picture? Why would you peak around the corner then go back to talk?

 

[Sparta]

Thanks for posting that. Reminds of something I saw in this picture:

If I was that guy carrying what honestly can be mistaken as an RPG, and if you listened to the pilots chatter it sounded like there was a friendly patrol in the area, why would you peak around the corner like that? IF he was a photographer, yes he could have been looking to take a pic, but honestly, who acts that sneaky when taking a picture? Why would you peak around the corner then go back to talk?

You realise he actually was one of the two reporters right? And it's fairly common for photographers to crouch or lie down when taking photos that are either extremely wide or telescopic so they can get the frame they want. Everyone who has ever held a camera has done this.

Not to mention, they heard there was something going on in the area and were probably told it was happening around the corner, so walking around in plain view might not be the safest idea in the world if bullets could come flying in that direction. I mean they are war photographers after all, I don't think you get to be a war photographer described as one of the best in your field without apply basic common sense in regards to safety when entering a battlefield.

 

[CptStern]

Again just the first few fords in your post you live in a dream world apparently...Stuff like this happens in every War it sucks but it happens.And you are so worried about innocent people dying but I don't see any outrage when Afghani girls get acid spilled all over their face. Or When Taliban go around raping the daughters of village elders etc.

pathetic attempt at dismissing the issue by pointing out the other side does worse. what does that have to do with anything? if anything it hurts your credibility because it reveals how biased you are. to the point of dismissing pretty iron clad evidence just because you happen to support the military.

There is a reason why were still there and leaving wouldn't make things better.
But yeah you seem to have it figured out apparently man you should apply at the DoD or Army.

hahah pathetic

"if you think you can do better than killing a handful of innocent civilians, journalists and children then YOU do it"

<plans shooting spree>

Thanks for posting that.

ya that article sounds like a completely fair and balanced assessment of the incident:

Contrary to all of the "context" given by Wiki Leak which try to lead the viewer into thinking the US Military "murdered" several Iraqis including two who worked for Reuters, the video clearly runs contrary to the narrative.

I've embedded the Wiki Leak video below. Just ignore all the propaganda they write before and after the video and watch it.

Reuters has a long history of its local stringers embedding themselves with terrorist forces. Perhaps they do this because they are sympathetic...

When you embed yourselves with terrorists you know the risk. You are producing propaganda for them. You have become one of them.

Anything less than this understanding is purposeful naivite about "objective journalism". In war there can be no objective journalism. You're either with us or the enemy

pathetic biased whitewashing of the events to diismiss any sort of responsibility for the incident.

 

[StarBob]

So here we are spending hours upon hours scrutinizing video frame by frame and we're still unable to determine the exact nature of what weapons were there if any. How is it that a guy looking through at a tiny video strapped to his face is going to be able to make a 100% accurate identification through any reasonable amount of time?

Whether or not anyone was in direct danger, whether troops on the ground or the helicopter itself from an RPG (remember Blackhawk Down?), leaving armed soldiers with weapons in continued control of their weapons only leaves them capable of attack in the future. In what war time situation would you happen across what appears to be the enemy carrying weapons and then just let them go because they weren't shooting at you at that moment?

I mean really, what if they had mistakenly perceived weapons as cameras, didn't fire, then half an hour later that group of 12-15 soldiers ambushes a convoy and kills 20 allied soldiers? We'd get a little dot on the news about more people dying in Iraq and no one would be up in arms like they are now. These guys weren't targeting cameramen. They weren't targeting children. They were trying to kill enemy soldiers with what they thought were weapons. They should have never had orders to fire on an ambulatory vehicle, but it happened that way.

 

[Gargantou]

Facepalm...

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

The comments to the article are particularly hilarious, your typical right-wing nutters, somehow always managing to make everything in the world the fault of "liberals" and "socialists."

And in the final comments, it's basically mob-mood, they talk about how they should dig up the names of all Reuters employees who have been deployed to/in Iraq and string'em up.

Pathetic right-wing extremists.

 

[CptStern]

So here we are spending hours upon hours scrutinizing video frame by frame and we're still unable to determine the exact nature of what weapons were there if any.

I wouldnt say that's the case at all. people see what they want to see. it's especially true if they're predisposed to thinking a certain why because of their political affiliation/pov

I mean really, what if they had mistakenly perceived weapons as cameras, didn't fire, then half an hour later that group of 12-15 soldiers ambushes a convoy and kills 20 allied soldiers?

that's a lot of "ifs". what if they fired on civilians and journalists and when aid arrived they fired on that too, possibly killing children. gues that "if" doesnt merit as much consideration as flights of fancy involving invisible uber-soldiers that take out almost twice their number of better armed, better supported allied troops. listen to yourself. you'd rather make up inplausible scenarios than deal with what's before you

We'd get a little dot on the news about more people dying in Iraq and no one would be up in arms like they are now. These guys weren't targeting cameramen.

because that's their ****ing job. the civilians didnt sign up for this

They weren't targeting children. They were trying to kill enemy soldiers with what they thought were weapons. They should have never had orders to fire on an ambulatory vehicle, but it happened that way.

ebven when you admit they shouldnt have fired on aid you whitewash it by adding a c'est la vie attitude.

 

[StarBob]

I wouldnt say that's the case at all. people see what they want to see. it's especially true if they're predisposed to thinking a certain why because of their political affiliation/pov

Unsubstantiated. You don't know anything about their reasoning. They followed orders. Officers are just as much at fault.

that's a lot of "ifs". what if they fired on civilians and journalists and when aid arrived they fired on that too, possibly killing children. gues that "if" doesnt merit as much consideration as flights of fancy involving invisible uber-soldiers that take out almost twice their number of better armed, better supported allied troops. listen to yourself. you'd rather make up inplausible scenarios than deal with what's before you

It's called a hypothetical situation. It's what people do when they want to look at both sides of a situation instead of taking a limited perspective and making tons of sweeping judgements. Also there's not one reference to then being "invisible" or "uber," but people die in Iraq quite often and most of those deaths occur due to ambushes.

because that's their ****ing job. the civilians didnt sign up for this

Actually the photographers did sign up for this... it's not like they just haphazardly ended up in war torn Iraq.

ebven when you admit they shouldnt have fired on aid you whitewash it by adding a c'est la vie attitude.

There's nothing being whitewashed here. It's two separate situations, one somewhat justified and one with absolutely no reasonable purpose.

 

[CptStern]

Unsubstantiated. You don't know anything about their reasoning. They followed orders. Officers are just as much at fault.

I was refering to the people in this thread, so were you:

So here we are spending hours upon hours

It's called a hypothetical situation.

it's speculating. you're not really basing your speculation on anything related to the incident. I could have said they were a group of sheep herders and it would have been just as [in]valid as what you said because neither of us would have anything to base that on. you're clutching at straws

It's what people do when they want to look at both sides of a situation instead of taking a limited perspective and making tons of sweeping judgements.

hey at least they're looking at the material presented in front of them instead of making up inplausible scenarios

Also there's not one reference to then being "invisible" or "uber," but people die in Iraq quite often and most of those deaths occur due to ambushes.

that's not true:

IEDs cause the majority (63%) of US deaths in Iraq

and the "uber" thing is just a label for what you describe: a rag tag group of would be terrorists are somehow going to kill almost twice their number of better trained, better armed, better supported enemy troops.

Actually the photographers did sign up for this... it's not like they just haphazardly ended up in war torn Iraq.

notice I said civilians. and even then they're non-combatants. they didnt sign over their life in the same sense as a soldier would. a soldier's specific job is to kill or be killed. that's not part of any journalists job description. and way to whitewash it by ignoring the civilians and focusing on the journalists ...which I didnt mention

There's nothing being whitewashed here. It's two separate situations, one somewhat justified and one with absolutely no reasonable purpose.

somewhat justified. again, you're purposefully choosing language that conveys your pov that it was accidental at worst and somewhat justified at best; whitewashing or at the very least watering down the issue to make it seem better than it is

 

[No Limit]

It's called a hypothetical situation. It's what people do when they want to look at both sides of a situation instead of taking a limited perspective and making tons of sweeping judgements. Also there's not one reference to then being "invisible" or "uber," but people die in Iraq quite often and most of those deaths occur due to ambushes.

Starbob, you keep pulling shit out of your ass. But you do it in such a way that it makes it seem like you actually know what you are talking about, props to you on that.

No, most soliders in Iraq don't die from ambushes. Most soldiers in Iraq die from IEDs or car bombs they never saw coming. An insurgent with ancient equipment and no military intelligence isn't going to confront the best equiped military in the world.

So again, these people posed absolutely no threat to any US soldiers. You guys can not dispute this fact. They couldn't have taken out the apache (they didnt even seem aware of it) nor were any US soldiers in the area. Yet you people seem to be ok with our military making these kinds of life and death decisions miles away using cameras with shitty resolution. Your absolute disregard for human life is absolutely sickening here.

 

[Tyguy]

So here we are spending hours upon hours scrutinizing video frame by frame and we're still unable to determine the exact nature of what weapons were there if any. How is it that a guy looking through at a tiny video strapped to his face is going to be able to make a 100% accurate identification through any reasonable amount of time?

This basically invalidates your argument. If he can't make an educated distinction in what he is seeing than his decision to engage is based on what exactly?

leaving armed soldiers with weapons in continued control of their weapons only leaves them capable of attack in the future.

This is all overshadowed by the fact that they didn't know if there were weapons. There's a difference in observing a few guys planting an IED and a guy walking down the road with something indistinguishable in his hands.

In what war time situation would you happen across what appears to be the enemy carrying weapons and then just let them go because they weren't shooting at you at that moment?

When you don't know if they are carrying weapons.

I mean really, what if they had mistakenly perceived weapons as cameras, didn't fire, then half an hour later that group of 12-15 soldiers ambushes a convoy and kills 20 allied soldiers?

Like Stern said, that's a pretty big "what if" scenario. Let's assume if they didn't fire they would have at least continued to observe them to determine their intentions.