Thirty-eight minutes ago, the famous WikiLeaks.org leaked a video. Go here.
WikiLeaks: WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.
WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Jesus..
I only watched the lead-up ("AK-47 confirmed...") and don't want to watch the rest, but this is so awful.....
Outside of their own borders government agents show their true nature.
Nielsio: Jesus.. I only watched the lead-up ("AK-47 confirmed...") and don't want to watch the rest, but this is so awful..... Outside of their own borders government agents show their true nature.
I hear you. At 10:15, I got so intense that I had to walk a few laps around my neighborhood just to cool off.
I watched most of it with the sound off. Very disturbing.
Alright, well since the first thing I posted was apparently inflammatory for its brevity, I will supply a slightly longer version but still try to not be insulting (because I wasn't trying to be insulting the first time.) Basically, my reaction to this is my reaction to all things related to war: I feel disgusted but not overly emotional. I do not take joy from watching anyone receive harm (either physical or psychological), especially when it seems to be entirely unnecessary. However, this is war we are talking about. This is what I think happens in war, people get killed. Sometimes for no good reason. That's really all I have to say.
I do think it would be nice to see some kind of corrective action taken about this though. I don't know what the rules are in the military about this sort of thing but if this is an offense that can result in a court martial, I wouldn't see any problem with that.
Court martial? These guys probably got promoted.
Mtn Dew: Court martial? These guys probably got promoted.
Is there any way to actually find out instead of just speculating?
I'm glad that I deserted, and I did so before I had the opportunity to become a murderer.
bloomj31:This is what I think happens in war, people get killed. Sometimes for no good reason. That's really all I have to say.
How does this justify anything? Even arguing from a conservative perspective, there was no margin of error - there was no justifiable way that their cameras could have been mistaken for AK-47s, let alone an RPG. To add insult to injury, it's illegal to fire on wounded targets, and then they fired against two men helping to carry a wounded out of the kill zone. That is grounds for a court martial, at the least.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: How does this justify anything? Even arguing from a conservative perspective, there was no margin of error - there was no justifiable way that their cameras could have been mistaken for AK-47s, let alone an RPG. To add insult to injury, it's illegal to fire on wounded targets, and then they fired against two men helping to carry a wounded out of the kill zone. That is grounds for a court martial, at the least.
It didn't say it could be justified I just said it's not particularly surprising. I said it should be grounds for court martial so obviously I agree with you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-exposes-video-o_n_525569.html: Calling it a case of "collateral murder," the WikiLeaks Web site today released harrowing until-now secret video of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter in Baghdad in 2007 repeatedly opening fire on a group of men that included a Reuters photographer and his driver -- and then on a van that stopped to rescue one of the wounded men. None of the members of the group were taking hostile action, contrary to the Pentagon's initial cover story; they were milling about on a street corner. One man was evidently carrying a gun, though that was and is hardly an uncommon occurrence in Baghdad. Reporters working for WikiLeaks determined that the driver of the van was a good Samaritan on his way to take his small children to a tutoring session. He was killed and his two children were badly injured. In the video, which Reuters has been asking to see since 2007, crew members can be heard celebrating their kills. "Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards," says one crewman after multiple rounds of 30mm cannon fire left nearly a dozen bodies littering the street. A crewman begs for permission to open fire on the van and its occupants, even though it has done nothing but stop to help the wounded: "Come on, let us shoot!" Two crewmen share a laugh when a Bradley fighting vehicle runs over one of the corpses. And after soldiers on the ground find two small children shot and bleeding in the van, one crewman can be heard saying: "Well, it's their fault bringing their kids to a battle."The helicopter crew, which was patrolling an area that had been the scene of fierce fighting that morning, said they spotted weapons on members of the first group -- although the video shows one gun, at most. The crew also mistook a telephoto lens for a rocket-propelled grenade. The shooting, which killed Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, took place on July 12, 2007, in a southeastern neighborhood of Baghdad.The next day, the New York Times reported the military's official cover story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=2: The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed. "There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force," said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad. The video shows otherwise. Washington Post reporter David Finkel described the incident -- and the video -- in great detail in his September 2009 book, "The Good Soldiers". A summary can be found here. Finkel also described a review session after Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, commander of the Army's 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment and his soldiers returned to base, which "concluded that everyone had acted appropriately." (Kauzlarich was also involved in the Army's Pat Tillman cover-up, and later told ESPN that the reluctance of Tillman's parents to accept the military's story that he was killed by enemy action, rather than friendly fire, was the unfortunate result of their lack of Christian faith.) WikiLeaks, a small, independent Web site that invites people to post information and documents that powerful interests would prefer to keep secret, says it received the video and supporting documents from military whistleblowers. Julian Assange, the editor of the site, said the killings either violated the the army's rules of engagement, or those rules of engagement "are very, deeply wrong." Unveiling the video at the National Press Club on Monday morning, Assange said the helicopter crew approached its job as if it were a video game, not something involving human lives. Their desire was simply to kill," he said. "Their desire was to get high scores on that computer game." Reuters released this statement from David Schlesinger, editor-in-chief of Reuters news: "The deaths of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh three years ago were tragic and emblematic of the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones. We continue to work for journalist safety and call on all involved parties to recognise the important work that journalists do and the extreme danger that photographers and video journalists face in particular. The video released today via Wikileaks is graphic evidence of the dangers involved in war journalism and the tragedies that can result." An Army spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. ************************* Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail, bookmark his page; subscribe to RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.
Calling it a case of "collateral murder," the WikiLeaks Web site today released harrowing until-now secret video of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter in Baghdad in 2007 repeatedly opening fire on a group of men that included a Reuters photographer and his driver -- and then on a van that stopped to rescue one of the wounded men.
None of the members of the group were taking hostile action, contrary to the Pentagon's initial cover story; they were milling about on a street corner. One man was evidently carrying a gun, though that was and is hardly an uncommon occurrence in Baghdad.
Reporters working for WikiLeaks determined that the driver of the van was a good Samaritan on his way to take his small children to a tutoring session. He was killed and his two children were badly injured.
In the video, which Reuters has been asking to see since 2007, crew members can be heard celebrating their kills.
"Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards," says one crewman after multiple rounds of 30mm cannon fire left nearly a dozen bodies littering the street.
A crewman begs for permission to open fire on the van and its occupants, even though it has done nothing but stop to help the wounded: "Come on, let us shoot!"
Two crewmen share a laugh when a Bradley fighting vehicle runs over one of the corpses.
And after soldiers on the ground find two small children shot and bleeding in the van, one crewman can be heard saying: "Well, it's their fault bringing their kids to a battle."The helicopter crew, which was patrolling an area that had been the scene of fierce fighting that morning, said they spotted weapons on members of the first group -- although the video shows one gun, at most. The crew also mistook a telephoto lens for a rocket-propelled grenade.
The shooting, which killed Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, took place on July 12, 2007, in a southeastern neighborhood of Baghdad.The next day, the New York Times reported the military's official cover story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=2: The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed. "There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force," said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.
The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.
"There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force," said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.
The video shows otherwise.
Washington Post reporter David Finkel described the incident -- and the video -- in great detail in his September 2009 book, "The Good Soldiers". A summary can be found here.
Finkel also described a review session after Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, commander of the Army's 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment and his soldiers returned to base, which "concluded that everyone had acted appropriately." (Kauzlarich was also involved in the Army's Pat Tillman cover-up, and later told ESPN that the reluctance of Tillman's parents to accept the military's story that he was killed by enemy action, rather than friendly fire, was the unfortunate result of their lack of Christian faith.)
WikiLeaks, a small, independent Web site that invites people to post information and documents that powerful interests would prefer to keep secret, says it received the video and supporting documents from military whistleblowers.
Julian Assange, the editor of the site, said the killings either violated the the army's rules of engagement, or those rules of engagement "are very, deeply wrong."
Unveiling the video at the National Press Club on Monday morning, Assange said the helicopter crew approached its job as if it were a video game, not something involving human lives. Their desire was simply to kill," he said. "Their desire was to get high scores on that computer game."
Reuters released this statement from David Schlesinger, editor-in-chief of Reuters news: "The deaths of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh three years ago were tragic and emblematic of the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones. We continue to work for journalist safety and call on all involved parties to recognise the important work that journalists do and the extreme danger that photographers and video journalists face in particular. The video released today via Wikileaks is graphic evidence of the dangers involved in war journalism and the tragedies that can result."
An Army spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment.
*************************
Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail, bookmark his page; subscribe to RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.
What do you want to see done here?
bloomj31: What do you want to see done here?
No idea, really.
I. Ryan: bloomj31: What do you want to see done here? No idea, really.
I liked the first version of this post better.
I just saw it. At first I thought that the soldiers were just making mistakes in the fog of war. But they originally singled out the crowd of people which were obviously just civilians, and there was no real way you could mistake a camera for an Ak-47... so I can understand how they could mistake that original camera for an RPG... but after that they went overboard. This video shows the true horrors of modern war. Wars are still horrible, no matter how much better our weapons are.
bloomj31: Alright, well since the first thing I posted was apparently inflammatory for its brevity, I will supply a slightly longer version but still try to not be insulting (because I wasn't trying to be insulting the first time.) Basically, my reaction to this is my reaction to all things related to war: I feel disgusted but not overly emotional. I do not take joy from watching anyone receive harm (either physical or psychological), especially when it seems to be entirely unnecessary. However, this is war we are talking about. This is what I think happens in war, people get killed. Sometimes for no good reason. That's really all I have to say. I do think it would be nice to see some kind of corrective action taken about this though. I don't know what the rules are in the military about this sort of thing but if this is an offense that can result in a court martial, I wouldn't see any problem with that.
Let's say I have a problem with you and decide to take over the city block where you live. Then I decide to blow up the houses around you. Don't you think that I ought to be held accountable for such actions? Why the double standard?
Ignore previous post; read your post too quickly Bloom. My apologies.
Not going to watch the video; don't feel like punching the wall.
So let me get this straight... US soldiers were receiving fire from insurgents so they call in close air support. A helicopter comes in, finds a group of young men, one of whom is carrying an AK-47 and two who seem to be carrying RPGs, so they figure these must be the insurgents and they shoot. Then, someone comes to pick up what the guys in the chopper believe is a wounded insurgent. So the helicopter opens fire on the people that were believed to be aiding in the escape of an insurgent.
This was a mistake, pure and simple. Trying to spin ludicrous conspiracy theories about how soldiers are baby killers is not going to help the anti-war movement.
Political Atheists Blog
SilentXtarian:At first I thought that the soldiers were just making mistakes in the fog of war. But they originally singled out the crowd of people which were obviously just civilians, and there was no real way you could mistake a camera for an Ak-47... so I can understand how they could mistake that original camera for an RPG...
Having something slung over your shoulder in a weapon-like fashion, walking in the middle of a road and pointing your fingers around like a military leader apparently giving commands to the other young men around you, and then appearing to take aim at something in a war zone is grounds for taking action, IMHO. But hell, maybe that's just my survival instinct.
krazy kaju: So let me get this straight... US soldiers were receiving fire from insurgents so they call in close air support. A helicopter comes in, finds a group of young men, one of whom is carrying an AK-47 and two who seem to be carrying RPGs, so they figure these must be the insurgents and they shoot. Then, someone comes to pick up what the guys in the chopper believe is a wounded insurgent. So the helicopter opens fire on the people that were believed to be aiding in the escape of an insurgent. This was a mistake, pure and simple. Trying to spin ludicrous conspiracy theories about how soldiers are baby killers is not going to help the anti-war movement.
You do realize that these people weren't insurgents but they were reporters don't you? It was more than a simple mistake. I don't think there was any way that you could mistake the cameras for AK-47s. It's as clear to me that those people were carrying cameras. They may have been in the right for firing at first... but this isn't a conspiracy theory or anything. Watch the video again, and you'll see just exactly what they did was so wrong.
SilentXtarian:You do realize that these people weren't insurgents but they were reporters don't you?
You do realize that these people were:a. In a war zone with weapon-like objects slung over their shoulders.b. A group of young men walking spread out over a road with one of them pointing around like he was the boss.c. Being looked at from hundreds (if not thousands) of feet away.
I don't have 20/20 vision, so maybe someone who does can enlighten me, but could you make out an RPG from hundreds of feet away?
SilentXtarian:I don't think there was any way that you could mistake the cameras for AK-47s. It's as clear to me that those people were carrying cameras.
That's because:1. You first read about the photojournalists getting killed when they had their cameras, so you subconsciously were expecting that, whereas the CAS guys were subconsciously expecting young Arab men with weapon-like things slung over their shoulder to be insurgents.2. You're already predisposed towards taking an anti-military stance.
Rewatch the video and try to put yourself in the boots of the guys in the chopper.
krazy kaju: Having something slung over your shoulder in a weapon-like fashion, walking in the middle of a road and pointing your fingers around like a military leader apparently giving commands to the other young men around you, and then appearing to take aim at something in a war zone is grounds for taking action, IMHO. But hell, maybe that's just my survival instinct.
And where in all of this do property rights figure into according to you?
Marko:And where in all of this do property rights figure into according to you?
The US military is responsible for the accidental killings of innocents. Thus, it must do its best to compensate the families of the victims.
My point is that no one seems to have purposefully killed innocents in the video.
krazy kaju: You do realize that these people were:a. In a war zone with weapon-like objects slung over their shoulders.
You do realize that these people were:a. In a war zone with weapon-like objects slung over their shoulders.
The same war zone, where the same soldiers have to be able to distinguish between insurgents, IP and civilians on a regular basis.
b. A group of young men walking spread out over a road with one of them pointing around like he was the boss.
This doesn't sound very tactically sound, to be honest. This should have been an indication that these men were civilian.
c. Being looked at from hundreds (if not thousands) of feet away.
Through the lens of a camera with pretty good resolution, that is usually used to distinguish between targets.
krazy kaju: My point is that no one seems to have purposefully killed innocents in the video.
Even giving the benefit of the doubt for the opening rounds, the act of shooting up the two men carrying the wounded man into a van is completely inexcusable and illegal according to U.S. TOE. You can tell that something illegal is going on when the U.S. Army actively covered up the event afterwards.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:The same war zone, where the same soldiers have to be able to distinguish between insurgents, IP and civilians on a regular basis.
Let me re-emphasize: In a war zone with weapon-like objects slung over their shoulders.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:This doesn't sound very tactically sound, to be honest. This should have been an indication that these men were civilian.
What makes you think that the majority of insurgents in Iraq are well-trained soldiers?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Through the lens of a camera with pretty good resolution, that is usually used to distinguish between targets.
Did you actually look at the video? Because I did and I understand why the soldiers mistook those civilians for weapon-carrying insurgents.
It's still murder.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Even giving the benefit of the doubt for the opening rounds, the act of shooting up the two men carrying the wounded man into a van is completely inexcusable and illegal according to U.S. TOE.
This sounds like one of those bad set-ups for a poor thriller movie. Someone tries to kill you, you injure them, and then you let them get away because the alternative is [possibly] killing them... then, they come back after their injuries have healed and hunt you down.
I doubt it's illegal to kill someone who is escorting injured insurgents (not soldiers) out of a war zone. The guys in the chopper had to receive permission from some kind of CO before firing.
Daniel Muffinburg:It's still murder.
I know. I never said that it wasn't. I even said that the US military should be held responsible and it should compensate the families of the victims.
krazy kaju: Daniel Muffinburg:It's still murder. I know. I never said that it wasn't. I even said that the US military should be held responsible and it should compensate the families of the victims.
Fine, as long as they don't use taxpayer money. I'd say it'd be fair if Kyle, the guy who shot the innocent, were forced to pay the victims' families.
krazy kaju: Jonathan M. F. Catalán:The same war zone, where the same soldiers have to be able to distinguish between insurgents, IP and civilians on a regular basis. Let me re-emphasize: In a war zone with weapon-like objects slung over their shoulders. Jonathan M. F. Catalán:This doesn't sound very tactically sound, to be honest. This should have been an indication that these men were civilian. What makes you think that the majority of insurgents in Iraq are well-trained soldiers? Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Through the lens of a camera with pretty good resolution, that is usually used to distinguish between targets. Did you actually look at the video? Because I did and I understand why the soldiers mistook those civilians for weapon-carrying insurgents.
Do property rights not exist in a war zone? If the USA military invades the neighborhood in which I live, do I no longer have the negative right to walk around with an AK-47?
I replied to your post, but apparently someone thought it was a good idea to delete your post before I posted my reply. Why, I do not know. Here is the text of my reply:
krazy kaju: Daniel Muffinburg:Do property rights not exist in a war zone? If the USA military invades the neighborhood in which I live, do I no longer have the negative right to walk around with an AK-47? Look, I agree with you and you're taking everything out of context. I agree that just shooting someone who happens to be carrying around an AK-47 is being trigger-happy. I agree that property rights were clearly violated. As an anarchist, I believe that the very institution of the US Dept. of "Defense" is immoral. But at the same time, walking around in a war zone is stupid to begin with, especially when you have trigger happy insurgents on one hand and trigger happy US soldiers on the other. The issue I have with the video and accompanying article is that Huffington and her psuedo-Marxist ilk are turning this into something that it isn't. It wasn't a purposeful killing of photojournalists and children.
Daniel Muffinburg:Do property rights not exist in a war zone? If the USA military invades the neighborhood in which I live, do I no longer have the negative right to walk around with an AK-47?
Look, I agree with you and you're taking everything out of context. I agree that just shooting someone who happens to be carrying around an AK-47 is being trigger-happy. I agree that property rights were clearly violated. As an anarchist, I believe that the very institution of the US Dept. of "Defense" is immoral. But at the same time, walking around in a war zone is stupid to begin with, especially when you have trigger happy insurgents on one hand and trigger happy US soldiers on the other. The issue I have with the video and accompanying article is that Huffington and her psuedo-Marxist ilk are turning this into something that it isn't. It wasn't a purposeful killing of photojournalists and children.
krazy kaju: Let me re-emphasize: In a war zone with weapon-like objects slung over their shoulders.
That is largely irrelevant. As someone who went through infantry training I can vouch for the fact that you are trained on what you expected to able to distinguish in Iraq and Afghanistan. First of all, AK-47s amongst the civilian population are very common and have to be taken into account during all operations, given that insurgents like to mix themselves amongst civilians for this very reason. Just because one of the subjects under surveillance had a "weapon-like" (a weapon that looks nothing like an AK-47 if you know what one looks like, by the way) object slung over his shoulder is not reason to open fire. Those soldiers are trained to distinguish, as it is a regular part of all combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You are not analyzing the situation within perspective.
Nothing, but they are not idiots. Despite common myth, non-professional insurgents are not tactically-ignorant rabble, which is why they are so difficult to find and kill. I invite you to actually research the subject before passing judgment.
Yes, that is the forward-looking gunnery camera the gunner looks through when targeting subjects. Those crosshairs are there for a reason. It is an Apache combat helicopter; the internet pretty much has the manual for it.
Someone tries to kill you, you injure them, and then you let them get away because the alternative is [possibly] killing them... then, they come back after their injuries have healed and hunt you down.
Looks like you didn't watch the video. Nobody opened fire on that helicopter, which is why the helicopter had to ask for permission before opening fire. The gunner pretty much lied about what he was seeing, or did not take into consideration any of his training... which means he was a new gunner, and I'm not sure I'm willing to believe that.
And, yes, firing on that wounded man and the two unarmed civilians helping him is illegal under U.S TOE, insurgent or not.
The guys in the chopper had to receive permission from some kind of CO before firing.
Had you paid attention to the video you would have noticed that the gunner said that the wounded man had an RPG in the hand he was actually using to drag himself onto the side of the street. The gunner lied.
You mean ROE. Yes, that is a blatant ROE violation. It's possible that shooter was lying when he identified the targets as carrying AK47's just to get permission to fire.
Caley McKibbin: You mean ROE. Yes, that is a blatant ROE violation.
You mean ROE. Yes, that is a blatant ROE violation.
AFAIK, they are used interchangeably.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: That is largely irrelevant. As someone who went through infantry training I can vouch for the fact that you are trained on what you expected to able to distinguish in Iraq and Afghanistan. First of all, AK-47s amongst the civilian population are very common and have to be taken into account during all operations, given that insurgents like to mix themselves amongst civilians for this very reason. Just because one of the subjects under surveillance had a "weapon-like" (a weapon that looks nothing like an AK-47 if you know what one looks like, by the way) object slung over his shoulder is not reason to open fire. Those soldiers are trained to distinguish, as it is a regular part of all combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. You are not analyzing the situation within perspective.
If you watch the video, you'll notice that you can't really see what is slung over the men's shoulders because of the camera angle, so really all that you can tell is that something is slung over their shoulders. And three of them have something slung over their shoulders.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Nothing, but they are not idiots. Despite common myth, non-professional insurgents are not tactically-ignorant rabble, which is why they are so difficult to find and kill. I invite you to actually research the subject before passing judgment.
Yes, I'm sure 20 year olds who maybe have had some experience in poorly-trained conscript armies are very tactically efficient. And I'm also positive that everyone expects those same 20 year olds to walk around in tactically-efficient formation when they do not believe they're being watched.
I'm not one of those people who thinks that every other military in the world sucks. I'm sure the Republican Guard was a force to reckon with despite poor equipment and that many other countries we might soon be at war with (e.g. DPRK and Iran) have superior professional armies. That said, nobody can expect the conscript portions of their militaries to be tactically proficient, much less a bunch of young insurgents with little or no formal or even informal military training.
Also, assuming that I have not researched this subject now or before is not only wrong, but also extremely presumptuous on your part.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Yes, that is the forward-looking gunnery camera the gunner looks through when targeting subjects. Those crosshairs are there for a reason. It is an Apache combat helicopter; the internet pretty much has the manual for it.
A good way to ignore what I was saying which was that it was difficult if not outright impossible to determine that they were carrying cameras.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Looks like you didn't watch the video.
I watched the whole 19 minutes twice, actually.
Nobody opened fire on that helicopter
I never claimed that anyone did open fire on the helicopter. It looks like you misread what I said. Try again.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:The gunner pretty much lied about what he was seeing, or did not take into consideration any of his training... which means he was a new gunner, and I'm not sure I'm willing to believe that.
What he saw was men with things slung over their shoulders. I don't know if you have some kind of 4D vision or something that you can see what people are carrying behind their backs, but clearly the gunner and I are just human beings. When the gunner said he saw people with weapons, the camera was pointed at people with things slung over their shoulders walking towards the camera POV. It really is impossible to tell.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:And, yes, firing on that wounded man and the two unarmed civilians helping him is illegal under U.S TOE, insurgent or not.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Had you paid attention to the video you would have noticed that the gunner said that the wounded man had an RPG in the hand he was actually using to drag himself onto the side of the street. The gunner lied.
The website is down now so I can't double check, but from what I recall, the gunner was almost daring the "insurgent" to grab a weapon, since he wanted to end the ordeal and shoot him. But he ultimately did not shoot because he could not make out the insurgent going for any weapon. That's why he ultimately asked for permission to "disable the vehicle" when the "insurgent" was being carried into the van.
krazy kaju: I replied to your post, but apparently someone thought it was a good idea to delete your post before I posted my reply. Why, I do not know. Here is the text of my reply: krazy kaju: Daniel Muffinburg:Do property rights not exist in a war zone? If the USA military invades the neighborhood in which I live, do I no longer have the negative right to walk around with an AK-47? Look, I agree with you and you're taking everything out of context. I agree that just shooting someone who happens to be carrying around an AK-47 is being trigger-happy. I agree that property rights were clearly violated. As an anarchist, I believe that the very institution of the US Dept. of "Defense" is immoral. But at the same time, walking around in a war zone is stupid to begin with, especially when you have trigger happy insurgents on one hand and trigger happy US soldiers on the other. The issue I have with the video and accompanying article is that Huffington and her psuedo-Marxist ilk are turning this into something that it isn't. It wasn't a purposeful killing of photojournalists and children.
My bad. I deleted because I had responded to the wrong post. It's reposted though.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Caley McKibbin: You mean ROE. Yes, that is a blatant ROE violation. AFAIK, they are used interchangeably.
Really? If ROE is "rules of engagement" what is TOE?
krazy kaju:Look, I agree with you and you're taking everything out of context. I agree that just shooting someone who happens to be carrying around an AK-47 is being trigger-happy. I agree that property rights were clearly violated. As an anarchist, I believe that the very institution of the US Dept. of "Defense" is immoral. But at the same time, walking around in a war zone is stupid to begin with, especially when you have trigger happy insurgents on one hand and trigger happy US soldiers on the other.
Insurgents, you know, fire at enemy helicopters, or at least take cover when they spot enemy helicopters. Any moron could tell that they were not insurgents. So please, stop apologizing for them. They are murderers who wanted to kill something, and they did.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."