Wikileak'd video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children

[geauxtohell]

[
Well, this is quite shocking to people that have never been present in a combat situation and who are not used to such comments as "Look at all these dead bastards." "Let us shoot!" or "Pick up the gun!" just so he had an excuse to shoot him to death or laugh when a bradley vehicle runs over one of the dead bodies ... or just dismiss shooting of two innocent children as "Well, he shouldn't have brought his kids to the battle."

Sorry, most civilized people that don't have shit for morals and brains don't consider this very kosher and are rather REPULSED by it.

I'm just being realistic here.

I agree. It is repulsive. As it has been since the inception of time.

Why would you ever think other wise? Does the nastiness of the matter increase simply because you and the rest of the public can see it? No, it does not.

If these pilots are "amoral shit-for-brains" then so is everyone else who has ever carried a weapon onto a battlefield.

I don't blame the pilots for this. They weren't the ones who rattled their sabers and cut their order to go into combat.

That would be the American public and the shit-for-brains politicians who sent them there.

 

[geauxtohell]

Military investigated... found numerous weapons, including at least 3 RPG's. Even the editor of the site the video was posted on had to admit that they had weapons.


Thats really all that needs to be known. These weren't innocents. The photographers weren't innocents either... they were hanging out with Terrorists in clothing that didn't identify them as photographers or press.

Kinda like how some pregnant women had AK-47s.... but then it came out that they didn't and it was a cover-up?

Naturally, the military is now trying to claim they found more than they actually did in order to save face. It's not the first time.

Naturally, as a Liberal, you believe the enemies of the United States in EVERY case before your own country.

That, sir, would identify you as a hater of your own country.

STFU. I am a liberal.

This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with perspective.

The conservatives who would ignore every wrong on the battlefield, to include the egregious ones, are just the other side of the same coin as the people they are condemning as "haters of their country".

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Naturally, as a Liberal, you believe the enemies of the United States in EVERY case before your own country.

That, sir, would identify you as a hater of your own country.

The US military has come out and said that they were unarmed and that their was a cover-up.

Link. Reference. Substantiation. Thanks.

Turn on the news

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Non proved himself an idiot when he called me a liberal.

 

[CurveLight]

You dems want to let the bad guys walk around in a war zone with rpgs and weapons and you don't know why you are considered to be weak on defense?

You want them to shoot at our soldiers first and you wonder why you are considered weak?

HA


You claim that you care about the soldiers hurt or killed in Iraq and it is you and those like you that make it harder for them to be successful.

These men were carrying weapons.. that has been confirmed. They did what they were supposed to do.

Pull your heads out of your asses and stop hating the US so much... you really are sickening.

Amateur hour is over.

You need to come up with a deflection not as moldy as "you just hate the US."

 

[SFC Ollie]

Kinda like how some pregnant women had AK-47s.... but then it came out that they didn't and it was a cover-up?

Naturally, the military is now trying to claim they found more than they actually did in order to save face. It's not the first time.

Naturally, as a Liberal, you believe the enemies of the United States in EVERY case before your own country.

That, sir, would identify you as a hater of your own country.

The US military has come out and said that they were unarmed and that their was a cover-up.

Really? Can you kindly provide that link to the rest of us?

 

[CurveLight]

They did not follow ROE. At. All. Here is the direct link showing the 38 minute version.

Http://www.collateralmurder.org/

Never mind I had to post the info showing the full version. Just show where they were engaged that justified firing on the civilians. (state the exact time from the video.)

Thanks.

I've watched the whole video (not the selective edits).

When does the ROE require that someone has to be engaged first before they fire? I've defended the necessity of the ROE numerous times, but I would never defend a ROE that stringent. It's "perceived danger". That is even more shaky when you are talking about CAS whose mission is to find and eliminate targets to provide clearance for a ground element.

The fact that they were civilians was not known to the pilots at the time. They either had, or thought they had, eyes-on Ak-47s and RPGs. . In Afghanistan, having an AK-47 did not justify engagement as they were legal. However, an RPG was instant clearance to engage. You didn't have to wait for someone to fire the ****** at you.

Also, at one point in the video one of the helicopters either was or thought they were taking ground fire. So either the pilots, knowing that he whole incident would be on film, made up a script or they made a mistake (or maybe they didn't. Reporters embed with insurgents too). It's regrettable, but mistakes like this happen in combat. It's why some of us (and I know it includes you, but it also includes me) adamantly opposed Iraq. We k now this was the nasty reality of it.

Obviously the Army investigated the incident and to my knowledge didn't feel that the pilots violated the ROE.

As for the pilot's cavalier attitude about engaging something they perceived to be a target, that's the attitude I'd expect from them.

As for them being callous about the children, that's a defense mechanism.

This isn't a My Lai type of incident where military personnel intended to kill innocents.

My only hope is that the jackasses that supported this war and are horrified from seeing this in their living rooms have a moment of introspection.

But I doubt it.

I'm sorry, did I overlook the part where you stated the time on the video where our Soldiers were engaged?

 

[Neser Boha]

[
Well, this is quite shocking to people that have never been present in a combat situation and who are not used to such comments as "Look at all these dead bastards." "Let us shoot!" or "Pick up the gun!" just so he had an excuse to shoot him to death or laugh when a bradley vehicle runs over one of the dead bodies ... or just dismiss shooting of two innocent children as "Well, he shouldn't have brought his kids to the battle."

Sorry, most civilized people that don't have shit for morals and brains don't consider this very kosher and are rather REPULSED by it.

I'm just being realistic here.

I agree. It is repulsive. As it has been since the inception of time.

Ok ... Shit like this (and worse) has been going down for thousands of years. That hardly makes it better.

Why would you ever think other wise? Does the nastiness of the matter increase simply because you and the rest of the public can see it? No, it does not.

Sorry, but the public can't react to something it can't either see or hear. So, when I saw this, I reacted. I was disgusted.

If these pilots are "amoral shit-for-brains" then so is everyone else who has ever carried a weapon onto a battlefield.

That's quite relative. And I would never make such a blanket statement. I do believe there is such a thing as just war. However, anyone revelling - in killing others is an 'amoral shit-for-brains', yes. Very much so.

I don't blame the pilots for this. They weren't the ones who rattled their sabers and cut their order to go into combat.

See the point above.

That would be the American public and the shit-for-brains politicians who sent them there.

Yeah, you elected the stupid **** and now you're eating his shit.

 

[geauxtohell]

They did not follow ROE. At. All. Here is the direct link showing the 38 minute version.

Http://www.collateralmurder.org/

Never mind I had to post the info showing the full version. Just show where they were engaged that justified firing on the civilians. (state the exact time from the video.)

Thanks.

I've watched the whole video (not the selective edits).

When does the ROE require that someone has to be engaged first before they fire? I've defended the necessity of the ROE numerous times, but I would never defend a ROE that stringent. It's "perceived danger". That is even more shaky when you are talking about CAS whose mission is to find and eliminate targets to provide clearance for a ground element.

The fact that they were civilians was not known to the pilots at the time. They either had, or thought they had, eyes-on Ak-47s and RPGs. . In Afghanistan, having an AK-47 did not justify engagement as they were legal. However, an RPG was instant clearance to engage. You didn't have to wait for someone to fire the ****** at you.

Also, at one point in the video one of the helicopters either was or thought they were taking ground fire. So either the pilots, knowing that he whole incident would be on film, made up a script or they made a mistake (or maybe they didn't. Reporters embed with insurgents too). It's regrettable, but mistakes like this happen in combat. It's why some of us (and I know it includes you, but it also includes me) adamantly opposed Iraq. We k now this was the nasty reality of it.

Obviously the Army investigated the incident and to my knowledge didn't feel that the pilots violated the ROE.

As for the pilot's cavalier attitude about engaging something they perceived to be a target, that's the attitude I'd expect from them.

As for them being callous about the children, that's a defense mechanism.

This isn't a My Lai type of incident where military personnel intended to kill innocents.

My only hope is that the jackasses that supported this war and are horrified from seeing this in their living rooms have a moment of introspection.

But I doubt it.

I'm sorry, did I overlook the part where you stated the time on the video where our Soldiers were engaged?

At the four minute mark of the "short version" you can hear the discussion about the RPG and of someone taking fire.

That was what triggered the engagement.

 

[geauxtohell]

Ok ... Shit like this (and worse) has been going down for thousands of years. That hardly makes it better.

No it doesn't. I never said it did. I said it has been a brutal undertaking, and will remain to be, for the duration of time.

Sorry, but the public can't react to something it can't either see or hear. So, when I saw this, I reacted. I was disgusted.

Then you have a heart. I am sure you will see much worse than this in the years to come.

That's quite relative. And I would never make such a blanket statement. I do believe there is such a thing as just war. However, anyone revelling - in killing others is an 'amoral shit-for-brains', yes. Very much so.

The reasons behind war may be just or unjust, but the very nature of combat is still the same. World War II is considered "just". I suppose it's just our good fortune that no one videotaped us when we firebombed Tokyo or Berlin?

I am only surprised that people are surprised.

Yeah, you elected the stupid **** and now you're eating his shit.

Those of us in "the know" have been eating his shit for some time now. I am only mildly sorry that the average American voter has to flip on the TV to see the nastiness of something they supported.

 

[CurveLight]

I doubt we will ever see the phantom "unedited" version and even though the pentagon has confirmed the video is authentic that doesn't stop rabid Nationalists from closing their eyes and screaming in vain hoping their mousy shrills will retard everyone else's ability to be honest.

The "unedited version" doesn't include a transcript telling you what was really going on at the time, arrows and bubbles to highlight reporters, and close up enhancement to show children in the passengers seat of a van.

This stuff happens in real time and is, and always has been, the nature of war. What do you think a video of Tokyo would have shown when we firebombed it?

There is no refining it.

It's convenient for people to sit here and second guess people now. However, it is not realistic. The intent of these pilots was not to kill civilians.

With the video and audio evidence I don't really care to play the mind reading games of intent. Your excuse about it being "real time" is pure honky kentucky grade bullshit. I've been in similar situations so please don't try to sell me that. The crews did not come under fire before, during, or after they slaughtered those people.

The civilians were milling around in a very casual manner without taking defensive or offensive positions. Had this been a situation where there was a firefight I would agree with your views but it's obvious these pilots were saturated with a desire to shoot regardless of the facts or ROE.

One way to engage this group would have been to fire warning shots around them on the ground. Had they been the enemy they would have responded with force. With ground forces approaching there were reasonable ways to handle it without outright murder.

 

[Nonelitist]

Christian Science Monitor:

Killings of Iraqi journalists: US says they were not war crimes / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

"Crazyhorse 18 and 19, the helicopters in question, were on a directed mission in support of ground forces that had been taking constant fire from insurgents, according to the report. They identified “with reasonable certainty” the presence of military-age males with weapons at a location within 300 feet of the site where US forces were being attacked.

Photos included with the report show the presence of both a rocket-propelled grenade and an AK-47 automatic rifle among group members, according to the report. ...“While observing this group of individuals, the [helicopters] satisfied all requirements to initiate the engagement,” according to the investigation."

The aircrews “exercised sound judgment ... during attempts to acquire insurgents,” according to the report.

From NY Daily News:

Military: Brutal WikiLeaks video of shooting death of Reuters journalist in Iraq lacks context

The U.S. military is firing back at the outcry over a grisly video in which an Army helicopter in Iraq guns down a Reuters photojournalist and his driver, along with dozens of others.

"The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day," Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, told Fox News.

 

[CurveLight]

I've watched the whole video (not the selective edits).

When does the ROE require that someone has to be engaged first before they fire? I've defended the necessity of the ROE numerous times, but I would never defend a ROE that stringent. It's "perceived danger". That is even more shaky when you are talking about CAS whose mission is to find and eliminate targets to provide clearance for a ground element.

The fact that they were civilians was not known to the pilots at the time. They either had, or thought they had, eyes-on Ak-47s and RPGs. . In Afghanistan, having an AK-47 did not justify engagement as they were legal. However, an RPG was instant clearance to engage. You didn't have to wait for someone to fire the ****** at you.

Also, at one point in the video one of the helicopters either was or thought they were taking ground fire. So either the pilots, knowing that he whole incident would be on film, made up a script or they made a mistake (or maybe they didn't. Reporters embed with insurgents too). It's regrettable, but mistakes like this happen in combat. It's why some of us (and I know it includes you, but it also includes me) adamantly opposed Iraq. We k now this was the nasty reality of it.

Obviously the Army investigated the incident and to my knowledge didn't feel that the pilots violated the ROE.

As for the pilot's cavalier attitude about engaging something they perceived to be a target, that's the attitude I'd expect from them.

As for them being callous about the children, that's a defense mechanism.

This isn't a My Lai type of incident where military personnel intended to kill innocents.

My only hope is that the jackasses that supported this war and are horrified from seeing this in their living rooms have a moment of introspection.

But I doubt it.

I'm sorry, did I overlook the part where you stated the time on the video where our Soldiers were engaged?

At the four minute mark of the "short version" you can hear the discussion about the RPG and of someone taking fire.

That was what triggered the engagement.

I didn't ask that. I asked for you to show where our troops were engaged. It's also pretty damn difficult to mistake a camera for an rpg considering the obvious difference in lengths. Even if he thought it was an rpg what actions were taken by the civilians that created a threat?

 

[geauxtohell]

With the video and audio evidence I don't really care to play the mind reading games of intent. Your excuse about it being "real time" is pure honky kentucky grade bullshit. I've been in similar situations so please don't try to sell me that. The crews did not come under fire before, during, or after they slaughtered those people.

You don't think intent matters here? That's a rather bizarre statement.

Furthermore, as I pointed out to you, being fired upon is not a pre-requisite to engage. You should know that.

The civilians were milling around in a very casual manner without taking defensive or offensive positions.

That's your perspective of the situation. The pilots, by virtue of the narrative, thought otherwise. Of course, as I pointed out and you don't want to accept, we have the benefit of a narrative and video enhancement. They did not.

Had this been a situation where there was a firefight I would agree with your views but it's obvious these pilots were saturated with a desire to shoot regardless of the facts or ROE.

Yes, if only every situation in combat were like the cookie cutter drills in training, things would function so much better and we most likely wouldn't have scores of veterans with PTSD.

One way to engage this group would have been to fire warning shots around them on the ground. Had they been the enemy they would have responded with force. With ground forces approaching there were reasonable ways to handle it without outright murder.

Warning shots with an Apache main gun? Are you ******* kidding me? It's an area-kill weapon.

I always give people the benefit of the doubt, but a statement like that makes me wonder just how much experience you have in "situations like this". I also can't remember many situations when bad guys decided to stand and fight against an attack helicopter once it had given up the element of surprise.

Furthermore, they wanted to kill these men. Why wouldn't they? They perceived them to be insurgents.

 

[geauxtohell]

I didn't ask that. I asked for you to show where our troops were engaged. It's also pretty damn difficult to mistake a camera for an rpg considering the obvious difference in lengths. Even if he thought it was an rpg what actions were taken by the civilians that created a threat?

Sorry, I can't change the fact pattern to suit your collective conscious. I've made the case as to why they engaged.

That might not suit you, and you might want to impose an absurdly restrictive ROE on this scenario. That's your prerogative.

It's not relevant since our wants and desires don't equate to the reality of the situation. If we all had our way, no innocents would be killed in war and there would be no bad decisions.

Since that, again, is not reality, we have to look at the intent of the pilots.

If you choose not to look at intent, then you are basically relegated to being pissed off at the situation.

Again, that is your right, but few are going to agree with you.

 

[CurveLight]

[
Well, this is quite shocking to people that have never been present in a combat situation and who are not used to such comments as "Look at all these dead bastards." "Let us shoot!" or "Pick up the gun!" just so he had an excuse to shoot him to death or laugh when a bradley vehicle runs over one of the dead bodies ... or just dismiss shooting of two innocent children as "Well, he shouldn't have brought his kids to the battle."

Sorry, most civilized people that don't have shit for morals and brains don't consider this very kosher and are rather REPULSED by it.

I'm just being realistic here.

I agree. It is repulsive. As it has been since the inception of time.

Why would you ever think other wise? Does the nastiness of the matter increase simply because you and the rest of the public can see it? No, it does not.

If these pilots are "amoral shit-for-brains" then so is everyone else who has ever carried a weapon onto a battlefield.

I don't blame the pilots for this. They weren't the ones who rattled their sabers and cut their order to go into combat.

That would be the American public and the shit-for-brains politicians who sent them there.

Soldiers can do whatever they want because they were sent? Hmmm....might wanna ponder that.

More importantly, the pilots, as Officers, had a sworn duty to question the legality of being sent to Iraq so these assholes failed their Oath and slaughtered innocent people.

 

[CurveLight]

I didn't ask that. I asked for you to show where our troops were engaged. It's also pretty damn difficult to mistake a camera for an rpg considering the obvious difference in lengths. Even if he thought it was an rpg what actions were taken by the civilians that created a threat?

Sorry, I can't change the fact pattern to suit your collective conscious. I've made the case as to why they engaged.

That might not suit you, and you might want to impose an absurdly restrictive ROE on this scenario. That's your prerogative.

It's not relevant since our wants and desires don't equate to the reality of the situation. If we all had our way, no innocents would be killed in war and there would be no bad decisions.

Since that, again, is not reality, we have to look at the intent of the pilots.

If you choose not to look at intent, then you are basically relegated to being pissed off at the situation.

Again, that is your right, but few are going to agree with you.

The only way I interpret this response is you have absolutely no ******* way to justify what happened so you ignore the facts.

 

[geauxtohell]

Soldiers can do whatever they want because they were sent? Hmmm....might wanna ponder that.

I never said anything remotely resembling that comment. Don't be dishonest, it makes you look silly.

More importantly, the pilots, as Officers, had a sworn duty to question the legality of being sent to Iraq so these assholes failed their Oath and slaughtered innocent people.

Are you saying any Officer who didn't protest the legality of the Iraq War is now a criminal? Now who is being unreasonable?

Also, I'd lay odds that out of the 2-4 individuals flying these Apaches, that more than half weren't commissioned officers.

 

[geauxtohell]

The only way I interpret this response is you have absolutely no ******* way to justify what happened so you ignore the facts.

No. I am looking at the facts, and not just the aftermath in making my statements.

As I pointed out to you, seeing an RPG was criteria to engage in my AO. I'd assume the same here.

You keep wanting to ignore the ROE while also insisting that these men didn't follow the ROE.

 

[CurveLight]

Soldiers can do whatever they want because they were sent? Hmmm....might wanna ponder that.

I never said anything remotely resembling that comment. Don't be dishonest, it makes you look silly.

More importantly, the pilots, as Officers, had a sworn duty to question the legality of being sent to Iraq so these assholes failed their Oath and slaughtered innocent people.

Are you saying any Officer who didn't protest the legality of the Iraq War is now a criminal? Now who is being unreasonable?

Also, I'd lay odds that out of the 2-4 individuals flying these Apaches, that more than half weren't commissioned officers.

You said you don't blame the pilots because they didn't cut the orders to be combat deployed. That means you assessed their actions by being deployed and not their specific choices.

I didn't say they are criminals. I clearly said they failed their Oath and Commissioned or not, they are still Officers.