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

[Pirian]

Difference is you get busted for pot you get arrested. You get busted and labeled Insurgent you get killed.

The difference you point out here makes no difference to what I said -- it only heightens the stakes.

[Alleya]

ITT: People with no imagination calling soldiers evil / people blindly defending all military action on principle.

Lesson: Complexity, context, and nuance are overrated, just spew dumb shit, it's the american way!

[Elvis]

Wrong. "He's got an RPG!" If he did in fact have one, and he was able to acquire his target and fire it accurately, it would have been game over for those two pilots, period.

No u.

In the video, the 'RPG' comment (yes, IF he even had one) comes AFTER they calmly talk about engaging and agree w/ a consensus to do so.

[Pirian]

ITT: People with no imagination calling soldiers evil / people blindly defending all military action on principle.

Lesson: Complexity, context, and nuance are overrated, just spew dumb shit, it's the american way!

Pretty much. It's clear by our 0% PTSD rate in soldiers that we do a good job creating emotionless killing machines.

[*Shinzon*]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...iscussion-form

and they even said in the video there are no ground troops in the area. Which is why they decided to fire.

The video says 8 minutes after the attack on these people troops arrived. They were already in the area. Was who fired upon?

From the article you just posted:

The video, obtained by WikiLeaks, is shot from two Apache helicopters on patrol in Iraq. The choppers were responding to reports of AK-47 gunfire in the suburb of New Baghdad when military personnel on board spotted a group of nine to 12 persons, including what turned out to be the two Reuters photographers, walking through a courtyard. A military official confirmed the authenticity of the footage to Fox News.

The military contends that the U.S. followed the appropriate "Rules of Engagement" for these episodes. In fact at the time, the Pentagon says U.S. troops were hit by rocket-propelled grenades (RPG's) and small arms fire while caught in a clash with Shia insurgents.

The two Apache choppers weren't fired upon themselves, they responded to claims that US troops were taking fire from the suburbs. This implies the zone was hot, and there were already members of US forces engaged some where. These choppers weren't the first on the scene. Again, they weren't just flying the fuck around looking to kill people, so don't portray it that way.

[Rhinox]

Ah thanks for putting us in our place Alleya. Nice to see you have time to join us mere mortals.

[Elvis]

The video says 8 minutes after the attack on these people troops arrived. They were already in the area. Was who fired upon?

[...]The two Apache choppers weren't fired upon themselves, they responded to claims that US troops were taking fire from the suburbs. This implies the zone was hot, and there were already members of US forces engaged some where.

Where in the article does it say US soldiers were taking fire. It states 'gunfire' it does not state 'target'.

[Mojo]

Ah thanks for putting us in our place Alleya. Nice to see you have time to join us mere mortals.

Perfectly warranted from what you had to say.

[braaaanch]

if i was manning that CG i would have gotten a lot more than 8 kills.

[Rhinox]

The video says 8 minutes after the attack on these people troops arrived. They were already in the area. Was who fired upon?

From the article you just posted:



The two Apache choppers weren't fired upon themselves, they responded to claims that US troops were taking fire from the suburbs. This implies the zone was hot, and there were already members of US forces engaged some where. Again, they weren't just flying the fuck around looking to kill people, so don't portray it that way.

Eight minutes after the attack. your telling me the Helicopter pilots couldn't have waited for a sit rep from the boots on the ground before firing? isn't that how it usually happens?

[BadKarma]

if i was manning that CG i would have gotten a lot more than 8 kills.

/thread


Its over. You can all go home now.

[*Shinzon*]

Where in the article does it say US soldiers were taking fire. It states 'gunfire' it does not state 'target'.

The military contends that the U.S. followed the appropriate "Rules of Engagement" for these episodes. In fact at the time, the Pentagon says U.S. troops were hit by rocket-propelled grenades (RPG's) and small arms fire while caught in a clash with Shia insurgents.

?

[archibaldcrane]

The whole thing seems like:

"We've got ground troops taking fire"

"ok choppers coming"

"where are they at?"

"over here-ish"

"ok, I see a group of guys with guns - are we clear to fire?"

"yeah, go ahead"

*bunch of people, mostly civilians probably, dead*

And it's like...where's the confirmation that these are the right guys? I think they missed a step.

[Elvis]

It's not over til Kuya chimes in, I drag in the Israel-Palestine conflict (which will always be a legitimate derail), and Leif shows up to praise the soldiers for M-m-m-monster Kill.

[Elvis]

?

As I said, where is there a source saying the Helis were responding to US soldiers taking fire.

What you are referring to is the incident IN THE VIDEO. Not the 'gunfire' mentioned as the pretext for those Helicopters BEING THERE during the video.

BTW - clearly in the video, the US soldiers fire first. I already posted more info from the website which people clearly did not read. You are referring to the following tidbit I assume:

July 16th, 2007Counterpunch reports that "The US military says US and Iraqi forces engaged "a hostile force" and, after coming under fire, called for air support that killed nine insurgents and two civilians. The police and witnesses tell a different story. A preliminary police report from al-Rashad police station said Mr Noor-Eldeen and Mr Chmagh were killed along with nine others by a "random American bombardment." One witness, Karim Shindakh, said: "The aircraft began striking randomly and people were wounded. A Kia [mini-van] arrived to take them away. They hit the Kia and killed ... the two journalists."

In the video, no US soldiers are seen taking fire. The 'gunfire' used as the pretext exists where? Where does it state, US soldiers were under fire BEFORE this incident, hence the arrival of the Helis and so on and so forth.

[6souls]

this should probably be added to the op. the video in the op is the short edited version, this is the full 39 minute video;

[Rhinox]

Guys. Obviously the videos are fake. The government did it to Arnold in the Movie The Running man they are doing it again here.

[archibaldcrane]

July 16th, 2007Counterpunch reports that "The US military says US and Iraqi forces engaged "a hostile force" and, after coming under fire

I read this as saying that whatever gunfire occurred from whatever "hostile force" (assuming it isn't entirely fabricated) was before the helicopters arrived.

Either the report of a prior gunfight was completely fabricated, or (more likely from how I'm reading it) the helicopters were in the wrong place, looking at the wrong people.

[Elvis]

Actually, let's clear up a misunderstanding.

The U.S. military in a statement issued just after midnight on Thursday described the incident as a firefight with insurgents. It has said the killings were being investigated.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1617459520070716

More from the Reuters article:

"Our preliminary investigation raises real questions about whether there was fighting at the time the two men were killed," said David Schlesinger, editor-in-chief of Reuters.

"For the sake of their memory and for the sake of all journalists in Iraq we need a thorough and objective investigation that will help us and the military learn lessons that will improve the safety of journalists in the future."

Residents and witnesses interviewed by Reuters said they saw no gunmen in the immediate area where Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh were killed in Baghdad's al-Amin al-Thaniyah neighborhood.

They said they were not aware of any clashes in the area leading up to the Apache helicopter attack around 10.30 am local time.

Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh had gone to the area after hearing of a U.S. air strike on a building around dawn that day.

On Sunday, the U.S. military returned to Reuters two digital cameras that belonged to Noor-Eldeen which were taken by American soldiers from the site of the deaths.

No pictures taken by Noor-Eldeen on July 12 show clashes between militants and U.S. forces. The pictures show no gunmen, nor residents running for cover.

The U.S. military said last week it had called in "attack aviation reinforcement" after coming under fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades.

Nine insurgents and two civilians "reported as employees for the Reuters news service" were killed, the statement said.

The contention is whether gunfire/hostilities existed in this area. I think from the video, there is no evidence of US soldiers being fired on.

However, I missed this (sorry Shiz):

06:50:00 1/8 CAV moves in to assist 2/6 after a report of Small Arms Fire (SAF) in the area. They fail to positively identify (PID) the attacker.
06:18:40 Crazyhorse [lead helicopter] notices a group of people on an open plaza.
06:20:05 Crazyhorse: "Have five to six individuals with AK47s. Request permission to engage."
06:21:09 First shots fired at the group.

Can someone translate? Am I missing something here or does it say they are simply responding to reports of gunfire (and not US soldiers under attack). To reiterate, the Army said this was a fire fight before and during the incident. However, in the video, clearly the soldiers open fire first and come to an agreement calmly. It's only after they already agree to engage, that a soldier says 'RPG!' (if it was an RPG).

[*Shinzon*]

As I said, where is there a source saying the Helis were responding to US soldiers taking fire.

What you are referring to is the incident IN THE VIDEO. Not the 'gunfire' mentioned as the pretext for those Helicopters BEING THERE during the video.

BTW - clearly in the video, the US soldiers fire first. I already posted more info from the website which people clearly did not read. You are referring to the following tidbit I assume:



In the video, no US soldiers are seen taking fire. The 'gunfire' used as the pretext exists where? Where does it state, US soldiers were under fire BEFORE this incident, hence the arrival of the Helis and so on and so forth.

I'm not sure as to what you are referring. The background is apparently that US forces within the area were taking fire from men armed with RPGs and AKs. This is actual communication from ground troops not a news report. That is what prompted the deployment of the gunships. They found individuals carrying weapons and asked to engage, thats what you see in the video.

Edit: This post also addresses your post above this.