Wikileaks Releases Video Depicting US Military Killing Dozen Iraqis Including Two Reuters Employees

[archibaldcrane]

(BTW, who were they?)

This is the question I want answered the most. We know who the two Reuters reporters are - do we have any confirmation that these other people were engaging in attacking US troops?

[Kyrra]

This is the question I want answered the most. We know who the two Reuters reporters are - do we have any confirmation that these other people were engaging in attacking US troops?

I haven't seen anything about them. Unless this gets picked up by main-stream media, I wouldn't expect to get their names.

[Enkidu]

It's seems, from the report, the ground team was taking small arms fire throughout this whole ordeal, even after securing the area.

Seeing men with weapons in the area doesn't mean they were the ones firing, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to just assume they're not hostile and just in a hostile environment with weapons somewhat close to a military ground force... Also if they could snipe out the 3 with weapons maybe they would, but unfortunately that isn't the way it works in the real world. Maybe in 2050 that'll be realistic and hey we'll probably still be in Iraq so we'll see how that works...

I'll agree that I don't like the van part one bit. I think that's the point where the ground team should have taken more action as more of a police force then an army. Then again I wasn't there and I don't know how much small arms fire the ground team was taking at that point in time.

[Elvis]

Repost, in case people missed it:

More on 'Rules of Engagement' -

I have a question to pose to the discussion. From this PDF:

http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf

This part specifically, if my train of thought is correct:

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/612...ngagement1.jpg

Annex E, 'Deliberate Targets', CDE

EDIT:

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/139...ngagement2.jpg

So far, what we know is that the Apaches were sent in as a response to reports of gunfire in the vicinity. You don't see any troops on the ground taking fire. You don't see any troops period. Where was the action?

How do you judge hostile intent? And, does that 'intent' conflate the other persons within the vicinity?

I think in this incident, they were operating under 'Deliberate Targets'. They were told of possible enemy combatants in that area. So that's why they went there. They expected hostile intent and all that, but there is nothing going on, on the ground.

They nominated the use of force, based on image in Therin's gif. I think when one of the Reuters reporter knelt down, w/ his camera, it kind of sealed the deal. At that point, they had already decided to use force, so the pertinent space of time to scrutinize is a bit earlier than when one of the soldiers worryingly says 'RPG!'

The question is, is simply having the weapon out like that enough to fire? I'm now reading why the soldiers assumed all the people present, were involved and thus, legitimate targets.

The next thing to consider is the van, which I think is the weakest point, for the Army's case.

----------------------------

So new questions:

1) Were there US soldiers near by? Were they under fire?

2) Were the 3 armed Iraqi military-aged men, with the same group reported to have exchanged fire w/ US forces?

That being said.

I think we're arguing whether the soldiers actions were reasonable given the evidence we have access to.

I think the moment of truth comes w/ the camera-mistaken-for-bazooka around the corner (with the soldier exclaiming, 'RPG!'). Not simply the identification of the armed Iraqis.

Where is the CDE (collateral damage estimage) if it's applicable? Probably not though, since the soldiers think all the men, not just the 3, are enemy combatants.

The van part is the shadiest. I feel the same as I did before, about that in spite of the US Army report.

And none of this changes my views about the war still. Those insurgents don't have to be 'insurgents'/bogeymen/etc. Having a weapon in Iraq seems reasonable given the situation. And I think it's reasonable for people to want to fight the invader/occupier of their country.

They don't have to be Islamists.

At the same time, those soldiers who signed up, don't have to hate Muslims/Arabs and are probably just doing their job within their own moral framework ('Just war').

If you isolate this incident to just the reports of gunfire (TIF) to the end, where the ground team comes - what we're doing is just discussing the legality of the force used.

Morals matter with the case of the van, mostly, and it's also a legal issue.

And the entire thing to me, is part of the larger context of the War/'War on Terror'/etc.

When you occupy a country, the entire population of said country will come to be seen as an 'enemy'. Hence, why you have 'military aged male'.

I heard a Winter Soldier testimony, where a soldier said he opened fire on a fast-moving car which wouldn't slow down at a checkpoint. Inside an Iraqi family. So you have soldiers doing their 'jobs' or enforcing rules, and people dying who didn't deserve to as a result. After telling his story, the soldier stated that his CO (right terminology?) said 'Damn hodgies need to learn to drive!' or something. Which sounds just like 'Oh, well, they shouldn't have brought their family to a warzone.'

You can bet that there would be TONS of situations like those in Iraq, over here in the States if we ourselves were invaded/occupied. Can you imagine all those bad drivers passing through checkpoints? Or the elderly? Or w/e number of situations you could see. And we aren't a society that is used to being invaded/occupied/etc. So I wonder how we'd handle all this stuff.

So the soldiers aren't monsters, but the situation facilitates these horrible situations in which this kind of stuff is going to happen.

Hence, why I don't agree w/ the war. You judge it by the possible aftermath. Like, the cost v. the risk and what will happen as a result of the invasion/etc.

I'm very strict on that too. So when Madeline Albright says 'WE think it's worth it' - I ask myself, who is "we" and what are the motivations of this group of "we".

My own personal conclusion after all these pages + new evidence:

I don't agree with the war. So regardless of the legal issues of this incident, it all falls under our crimes against the Iraqi people. Facilitating these situations. Not everyone who fights us is a radical Muslim. And that's where I'd begin my argument about seeing things from their perspective, of being invaded/occupied.

At the same time, if I had not heard the disgusting things said by SOME of the soldiers + not react emotionally as I did, I would probably think as I do now on page 12, back on page 3-4.

[Meresgi]

Why is this thread still going on? This video shows nothing wrong in the context of an operation. Sure it was a mistake, sure the camera was not actually a RPG. But you DON'T fucking sit there and wait, especially when you have guys on the ground, who were taking fire, and when it looks as if the "RPG" is being pointed towards their location.

It was a mistake, it cost people their lives, but what was done was how it should have been. It was a 50/50 chance they were armed and going to engage the ground troops. They went with that because it's a better choice then not and risking the death of the troops.

[Correction]

Why is this thread still going on? This video shows nothing wrong in the context of an operation. Sure it was a mistake, sure the camera was not actually a RPG. But you DON'T fucking sit there and wait, especially when you have guys on the ground, who were taking fire, and when it looks as if the "RPG" is being pointed towards their location.

It was a mistake, it cost people their lives, but what was done was how it should have been. It was a 50/50 chance they were armed and going to engage the ground troops. They went with that because it's a better choice then not and risking the death of the troops.

The thread continues because there is very strong evidence that the pentagon tried to keep the incident quiet and deny anything went wrong at all.

Also not the boss of me, etc. etc.

[Elvis]

The reason it's still going is because of people like me who look at this incident and chalk it up to the war in it's larger context. The war creates these situations.

People here who defended the troops right away (without the new evidence), give me the impression (I think it's obvious) that US power is inherently legitimate.

People have a right to arm themselves and take up arms against any invader and occupier. It happens to be us, over there. But if you fit everyone who fights the US army as a terrorist/etc. then you DEGRADE their legitimate right to self-defense.

Whereas, a US soldier 'defending' him or herself in a foreign country he invaded and now occupies is less compelling. And when he or she is doing so, it's a legal argument - LIKE THE ONE WE'RE HAVING NOW.

The entire 'Rules of Engagement' argument is legal, but is meaningless if you don't think about why these situations arise in the first place.

It always comes back to the politics. That's why its dragged on (mainly by me) because I see it as another reason to be against the war.

EDIT:

More about the legal issue. It's like I mentioned above. The Iraqi family in the car, speeding toward the checkpoint - got shot up. All dead. But it's not like the US soldier did it on purpose. It was a situation where that killing was institutionalized. The occupation is at fault.

[Meresgi]

The thread continues because there is very strong evidence that the pentagon tried to keep the incident quiet and deny anything went wrong at all.

Also not the boss of me, etc. etc.

Fo rizzle? The government would cover up something that makes them look bad? or not release the real facts of an event before taking time to go over them? Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit


http://a-m-p.gr/media/image/large/EG...ymindblown.jpg

[Kuya]

Please avoid making irrelevant posts. Most sane people would say that if a government lies about something like this, they should get reprimanded and if possible suffer consequences. Only meaningless cynics whine about these sort of things, such as government coverups and lies being revealed by people with actual integrity.

[kuronosan]

I know this is fucked up, but I just thought I would note that while I was watching that video I was waiting for the tactical nuke emblem to pop up on the screen.

... I'm going to hell aren't I?

[braaaanch]

I know this is fucked up, but I just thought I would note that while I was watching that video I was waiting for the tactical nuke emblem to pop up on the screen.

... I'm going to hell aren't I?

i think everyone that plays mw2 thought something similar.

[Elvis]

In related news, but w/ some context:

In a stark assessment of shootings of locals by US troops at checkpoints in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal said in little-noticed comments last month that during his time as commander there, "We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force . . . . [T]o my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it."

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/Vi...anistan_100406

U.S. Special Operations commandoes in February mistakenly killed five Afghans, including two pregnant women, and then tried to cover up their mistake. An investigation by NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) determined that American and Afghan special forces arrived at the village of Khataba in Paktia province on February 12, entered a residential compound, and opened fire on two men—a police officer and a local prosecutor—because “they showed what appeared to be hostile intent by being armed,” according to the investigation. The two pregnant women, along with an 18-year-old girl, were also killed by the gunfire.

Dozens of people had gathered at the home to celebrate the naming of newborn baby. When they saw armed men on their property, they assumed the intruders were Taliban.

After the bungled raid, the Americans removed bullets from the dead bodies and cleaned the wounds with alcohol as part of their cover up. The Special Forces then lied to their superiors, claiming they found the women already dead when they entered Khataba.

Mohammed Tahir, the father of the 18-year-old girl, told the Times of London, “The foreigners are always talking about human rights. But they don’t care about human rights, They teach us human rights, then they kill a load of civilians. They didn’t come here to end terrorism. They are terrorists.”

“We deeply regret the outcome of this operation, accept responsibility for our actions that night, and know that this loss will be felt forever by the families,” said Brigadier General Eric Tremblay, an ISAF spokesperson, in a prepared statement. “The force went to the compound based on reliable information in search of a Taliban insurgent and believed that the two men posed a threat to their personal safety. We now understand that the men killed were only trying to protect their families.”

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...lings_open2010

A thorough joint investigation into the events that occurred in the Gardez district of Paktiya Province Feb. 12, has determined that international forces were responsible for the deaths of three women who were in the same compound where two men were killed by the joint Afghan-international patrol searching for a Taliban insurgent.

The two men, who were later determined not to be insurgents, were shot and killed by the joint patrol after they showed what appeared to be hostile intent by being armed. While investigators could not conclusively determine how or when the women died, due to lack of forensic evidence, they concluded that the women were accidentally killed as a result of the joint force firing at the men.

"We deeply regret the outcome of this operation, accept responsibility for our actions that night, and know that this loss will be felt forever by the families," said Brig Gen. Eric Tremblay, ISAF Spokesperson. "The force went to the compound based on reliable information in search of a Taliban insurgent and believed that the two men posed a threat to their personal safety. We now understand that the men killed were only trying to protect their families."

[Source: http://www.isaf.nato.int/en/article/...oncludes.html]

The cover-up, reported by the London Times:

US special forces soldiers dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched night raid, then washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened, Afghan investigators have told The Times.

Two pregnant women, a teenage girl, a police officer and his brother were shot on February 12 when US and Afghan special forces stormed their home in Khataba village, outside Gardez in eastern Afghanistan. The precise composition of the force has never been made public.

From Salon again:

This was denied by the ISAF in March. The first stand -- and still partly the stand -- of the ISAF is that a man came to the yard carrying a weapon -- an AK-47, possibly -- and that the special forces unit felt threatened by him and shot him. This man, by the way, was a police officer. Another man then rushed into the yard, also with a weapon; three women followed him, possibly trying to hold him back from charging toward the troops, possibly to see what had happened. One of the American forces opened fire and killed all four. The man who'd rushed the yard was the police officer's brother.

[Kuya]

Democracy Now just had a report where the people who were in the area were interviewed. It's divided into two parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKEmtM7PM3c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIiFhgISeu4

The people claim that nobody there was an insurgent (i presume by insurgent they either mean some ex-Saddam loyalist or some religious fighter and not people who simply fought the Americans because they were invading their country) or more specifically, that nobody there was hostile to Americans. The report also mentions what Elvis has previously mentioned about the guns:

I mean, so, first of all, there is no reason at all to believe or to conclude that any of the people in that picture are armed insurgents. I mean, you can see two men with Kalashnikovs, but this is 2007 in Baghdad. This is the height of the civil war, when dozens of bodies a day were being picked up from the street, when sectarian militias filled the Iraqi security forces, the police and the army. Every neighborhood in Baghdad organized its own protection force. And it was legal at the time for every household to own a Kalashnikov in Iraq, and every household I ever went to did. So the presence of two men, dangling at their sides Kalashnikovs, in a crowd of civilians who have no weapons at all, I mean, is absolutely no—I mean, it’s—the whole thing is ridiculous.

What i found most shocking was what the residents claimed happened to one of the victims:

RICK ROWLEY: Yeah, now, I mean, I’m a journalist, and I go and talk to people and report what they said. And these residents came and told me that the man who they drove over was alive, that he had crawled out of the van that had been shot to pieces and that he was still alive when the Americans drove over him and cut him in half, basically, with a Bradley or tank or whatever armored vehicle they were driving in.

Seriously...

[Rhinox]

This is war

http://www.shirt-fight.com/wp-conten...ll-with-it.jpg

[thebearofscience]

I'm real late coming into this and bumping it, so dill with it. I didn't read any of the thread so I may be repeating, but the soldiers didn't do anything wrong until they shot at the van. AKs are illegal in war times and were clearly visible, so they were allowed to shoot. It's crazy because that helicopter is possibly a mile away, with bullets flying 150... 200 +mph. Even if you don't hit the target, the dirt shooting out of the ground from the bullet is almost equivalent to grenade shrapnel; you're going to injure it. They were totally raped and had no chance. There were no weapons visible when the van came. It has been rule of warfare ever since the beginning not to shoot unarmed enemies. They were simply just carrying a body. The soldiers were literally salivating to kill every one in the van, even the visible children. "Can we shoot? Can we shoot????" That's fucked up. What's the icing on the cake is them trying to cover it up.
I remember there was something about US intelligence trying to destroy wikileaks, but that just ended up getting leaked.

[archibaldcrane]

AKs are illegal in war times and were clearly visible, so they were allowed to shoot.

That's not what the rules of engagement say.

[Elvis]

It's illegal for Iraqis to arm themselves.

[Shuvo]

Anyone see the recent interview between Julian Assange (head of wikileaks) and Stephen Colbert?

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...ited-interview

It was great, usually when Colbert drops the sarcasm and gets serious he creams the interviewee (can't think of a single time he didn't), but this time it was surprisingly even all the way through, and Assange came out a little ahead by the end imo.

[Pirian]

It was great, usually when Colbert drops the sarcasm and gets serious he creams the interviewee (can't think of a single time he didn't), but this time it was surprisingly even all the way through, and Assange came out a little ahead by the end imo.

I don't agree. Colbert called him out for breaking the neutral bias of the website (not the content, the website itself) and Assange couldn't/didn't offer any explanation other than "free speech should is a right and an obligation", which wasn't really an answer or comment at all to Colbert's remark.

[Shuvo]

I don't agree. Colbert called him out for breaking the neutral bias of the website (not the content, the website itself) and Assange couldn't/didn't offer any explanation other than "free speech should is a right and an obligation", which wasn't really an answer or comment at all to Colbert's remark.

It wasn't so much a calling out, Assange was never hiding it in the first place. But when I said Assange came out better, I was thinking moreso what happened towards the end. Colbert would get stumped a couple of times and had to change topic instead of doing a direct response.

Colbert did a little better at the start, Assange did better towards the end. But overall, I think Assange "won" that particular debate.