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

[Stee]

I doubt the pilot and the gunner were really that nonchalant about the kids, trying to justify their actions which I bet is going to haunt them later on.


I can see why they shot at the first group, shooting the second group with the van was messed up since they didn't seem them grabbing weapons.

That said, guns have made killing people a lot less personal.

[Meresgi]

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.

I dont think evidence would be in the video on the first page, as the gunships were sent out due to the troops coming under fire supposedly. So the guys on the ground were probably hunkered down when the gunships rolled in, saw a large group of individuals, some with guns. Got permission to engage what they saw as a threat and took them out.

[Mojo]

Actually, let's clear up a misunderstanding.



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

More from the Reuters article:



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):



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.

The small arms fire wouldn't be in the video because that's the reason why the helicopters showed up. Who can really say for sure what happened before the helicopters arrived, but to be honest if there are men walking the streets with AK-47s that certainly means that it's plausible.

[Drex]

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 guess we are interpreting the bolded part differently. To me, it sounds like the bolded part took place before this helicopter arrived, not what it is depicted in the video. The heli came in to deal with the bolded attack, and shot down the "insurgents".

In any case, it looks like it's just going to come down to he-said-she-said. The iraqi witnesses and police are saying it was a random gun-down. The military is saying they were responding to a call for help from ground troops in the area. Both have plenty of reasons to lie about what happened. It's entirely possible the army is making up the gunfire that happened beforehand to give the pilots motive to want to kill those guys so badly, or that the "witnesses and police" never heard/saw the fighting that was going on before the helicopter arrived and are just mistaken, or that the witnesses and police are making it up because they hate america, or any number of other things.

It's even possible the army lied to the soliders in the helicopter and told them that their boys on the ground were under attack, when there wasn't any firing to begin with. I don't know, and neither does anyone else that is going to speak up. So I won't bother to defend their actions any longer after this post. As far as I'm concerned, they believed they were retaliating against insurgents who had attacked and tried to kill american ground troops minutes earlier. I don't see anything wrong with their actions in that context, bearing in mind that they can not think of iraqis as people or they will come home to a white padded cell and a long sleeved jacket. If that makes me a monster, I'll take my cookies and find a nice bridge to live under.

I don't agree with the war in Iraq, and I don't like to see innocent people die, but I'm not going to sit in my computer chair and throw the Bible at these soldiers who clearly had no way of knowing these were innocent people, and who were almost certainly being fed information (true or false, they don't have much choice but to believe it) that these guys were dangerous to them and the other soldiers.

There's alot of other nonsensical arguments you made that can be picked apart like why America needs to defend itself from a country that didn't give a shit about attacking them in the first place but i'll leave most of that to everyone else.

Feel free to pick apart what I've said. It's the interbutts. But I never said America needs to defend itself from Iraq (well, I guess now we do, since we've gone and shot up their country for a while), I said the American soldiers in Iraq need to defend themselves from the Iraqis who want to kill them. I'm also not sure what I did that implied the Iraqis should not be attacking American soldiers for invading their country, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say that either.

[Elvis]

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.

This doesn't answer my post. I made some edits.

A) they are responding to reports of gunfire in and of itself or gunfire directed at US soldiers?

B) is there a fire-fight? No. Look at the video. Who shot first, what was the situation. WHY WOULD 2 REUTERS REPORTS WALK AROUND CALMLY during a 'fire fight'.

I mean, with respect to 'B' - this was supposed to be a hostile/fire fight situation. Yet, in the video, 2 non-insurgents are just walking around. Not running, seeking cover, etc. Just walking around. One is on the phone I think. OUT IN THE OPEN.

[Elvis]

I dont think evidence would be in the video on the first page, as the gunships were sent out due to the troops coming under fire supposedly. So the guys on the ground were probably hunkered down when the gunships rolled in, saw a large group of individuals, some with guns. Got permission to engage what they saw as a threat and took them out.

Good point.

However - and I write about this point in my last post - why are two Reuter's reporters walking around so calmly? One makes a phone call. They do all this in the open.

I don't know what else to squeeze out of the video, except to say an investigation needs to happen.

[archibaldcrane]

There was a report of small-arms fire, apparently.

Whether it was towards US troops is unclear.

but to be honest if there are men walking the streets with AK-47s that certainly means that it's plausible.

From what I understand there are men walking around with AKs everywhere, it's a daily occurrence. But yes, "small arms fire" and "US troops under attack" could be two very, very different things.

[*Shinzon*]

This doesn't answer my post. I made some edits.

A) they are responding to reports of gunfire in and of itself or gunfire directed at US soldiers?

B) is there a fire-fight? No. Look at the video. Who shot first, what was the situation. WHY WOULD 2 REUTERS REPORTS WALK AROUND CALMLY during a 'fire fight'.

I mean, with respect to 'B' - this was supposed to be a hostile/fire fight situation. Yet, in the video, 2 non-insurgents are just walking around. Not running, seeking cover, etc. Just walking around. One is on the phone I think. OUT IN THE OPEN.

What the Choppers are responding to, is the report that US Troops are taking small arms fire in the form of AKs and RPGS. What you see in the video are the Apaches asking to engage the targets they believe are responsible for, or associated with the group firing on the troops. The choppers would not have opened fire if they were just patrolling until they were actually fired upon. Hope that clears it up.

[Cadsuane]

There's frightfully little to chime in about really, since there are only two basic positions in this thread so far to attack, namely the military apologists and those who think the shooting was criminally irresponsible. The former can be reminded that for one, apaches fly in almost perfect silence and that probably no one would think it's okay for people to be mangled with 30 mm shells in any homeland residential area just because some stimulant addled helicopter pilot suspects you're armed as best as he can tell through grainy digital optics from a few clicks distance. And the latter, that viewing this as a flashpoint humanitarian issue clearly highlights how little you've been paying attention to the war so far or any other American war since vietnam. Both are frightfully boring discussions so the only thing left to do is derail into geopolitics.

[Mojo]

This doesn't answer my post. I made some edits.

A) they are responding to reports of gunfire in and of itself or gunfire directed at US soldiers?

B) is there a fire-fight? No. Look at the video. Who shot first, what was the situation. WHY WOULD 2 REUTERS REPORTS WALK AROUND CALMLY during a 'fire fight'.

I mean, with respect to 'B' - this was supposed to be a hostile/fire fight situation. Yet, in the video, 2 non-insurgents are just walking around. Not running, seeking cover, etc. Just walking around. One is on the phone I think. OUT IN THE OPEN.

You act like you're going to see soldiers and insurgents shooting back and forth in a fire fight. That's not really how it happens at all. Typically it's a very long and drawn out situation with only occasional shooting back and forth. Just because you don't see any shooting in the video doesn't mean it wasn't happening before the helicopters arrive.

[archibaldcrane]

You act like you're going to see soldiers and insurgents shooting back and forth in a fire fight. That's not really how it happens at all. Typically it's a very long and drawn out situation with only occasional shooting back and forth. Just because you don't see any shooting in the video doesn't mean it wasn't happening before the helicopters arrive.

Does anyone in this thread actually believe that the casually strolling people that got shot by the helicopter were really shooting at U.S. soldiers not 10 minutes prior?

Cause I'm seeing that as extremely unlikely.

[Elvis]

You act like you're going to see soldiers and insurgents shooting back and forth in a fire fight. That's not really how it happens at all. Typically it's a very long and drawn out situation with only occasional shooting back and forth. Just because you don't see any shooting in the video doesn't mean it wasn't happening before the helicopters arrive.

If I observe a group of people, take my time, identify the targets, get confirmation to strike, then do so - I would not emphasize the action as a 'fire-fight'.

You're right though, I did think a fire-fight was a TRADE of back and forth. I did not see it in the video, so the imagery that came to mind seemed incorrect.

It looked like a preemptive strike. That seems more appropriate. I assume the phrase 'fire fight' has an actual definition. Tell me what it is.

Oh and hey, this is finally on the news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq_shooting

Important info:

A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47.

So there was already an investigation apparently.

[vagus]

"That's what you get for bringing your kids to battle."

Sadly it seems like innocent people were killed in this incident.

http://i26.tinypic.com/2cdin2b.jpg

[Cochise]

Saddam Husein was proof you have to be a monster to bring some sense of order to these people.

[Rhinox]

There's frightfully little to chime in about really, since there are only two basic positions in this thread so far to attack, namely the military apologists and those who think the shooting was criminally irresponsible. The former can be reminded that for one, apaches fly in almost perfect silence and that probably no one would think it's okay for people to be mangled with 30 mm shells in any homeland residential area just because some stimulant addled helicopter pilot suspects you're armed as best as he can tell through grainy digital optics from a few clicks distance. And the latter, that viewing this as a flashpoint humanitarian issue clearly highlights how little you've been paying attention to the war so far or any other American war since vietnam. Both are frightfully boring discussions so the only thing left to do is derail into geopolitics.

http://www.helis.com/sounds/bo-ah64.wav

http://www.helis.com/sounds/

I think I'd hear that. More likely that they had nothing to hide and didn't expect to get fired upon by americans.

[Brill Weave]

Wow.

[Elvis]

Also from the above article:

The shooters can be heard asking for permission to engage, and one says "Light 'em up!"

Some men drop immediately, while at least one can be seen scrambling to get away.

"Ah, yeah, look at those dead bastards. Nice," one shooter says.

I assume those comments are in the unedited version.

This was what I was getting at earlier about the 'tone' of those soldiers. Whether it was egging on the dying Iraqi (the Reuters reporter) or expressing dark humor over running over dead Iraqis. The above comments are much more to the point.

[*Shinzon*]

http://www.helis.com/sounds/bo-ah64.wav

http://www.helis.com/sounds/

I think I'd hear that. More likely that they had nothing to hide and didn't expect to get fired upon by americans.

I don't hear anything, and at a high enough altitude you would not be able to hear them.

Edit: Worked now, but yeah, that's not exactly loud and could easily be drowned out by gun fire or loud ambient noise.

[Elvis]

Just to reiterate:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq_shooting

A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47.

So there was already an investigation apparently.

[*Shinzon*]

Just to reiterate:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq_shooting



So there was already an investigation apparently.

The video said there was one already, and the soldiers were not found criminally responsible. Kinda why I made the point to ask why everyone thought they did something wrong.