Just to add material:

As I understand it, troops were in the area because of reported shots fired. A convoy on the ground and two Apaches. Also this was in 2007.







And the guy peeping around the corner and acting sketchy with what seemed to be a tubular object (While it doesn't resemble an RPG-7, it does resemble just about every other modern portable AT weapon) was looking at this:

I could also make the argument that the types of fields (police officers, soldiers, etc.) attract the type of personalities that are capable of thinking like this. However, like I said earlier, I realize that for many people, that type of speech is supposedly used as a psychological wall of sorts so that they can deal w/ those types of situations. I also believe that there are the opposite types of people as well. I have a former Marine friend of mine that did 2 "tours" in Iraq & I'm fairly certain that he'd be as disgusted by the part of the dialogue regarding the injured children as me.


I didn't intend to make it sound like these particular soldiers were racist or anything of that nature (I have no way of knowing this). I was simply commenting on how there are people who are able to feel less guilty about murder if they can't relate to the person(s) they've murdered or witnessed being murdered (e.g. German's killing Jews). I do think that there are probably a lot of people that have difficulty relating to people from a culture that's so different than ours (e.g. Japan would've been a good example at one time). I don't think that most soldiers are monsters but I definitely don't think that we should be in the business of covering things up when we make mistakes & it appears that we attempted to do so, even if it was only for a limited time.



I think it's reasonable for me to assume that I would've been able to tell the difference between a gun & a camera bag even in the situation that the solder was in. I don't think that's far-fetched at all given the fact that there were no indications that they were in immediate danger, or danger at all for that matter. I'm not making the claim that the guy thought it was a camera & just really hates Reuters & decided to off a few of their photographers. I'm just stating that I do believe that it's quite possible to train someone to distinguish between a camera bag & a gun, even using the video feed that the soldier had & even if these guys were moving around in the street. I really don't see anything going on in that video that would rouse my suspicions to the point of committing violence. I suppose that's the problem w/ such situations. They can be interpreted in various ways by various humans in various flawed ways. I suppose that I simply don't think that we should be attacking people that could potentially just be photographers. Otherwise we'll be shooting every man, woman & child w/ an umbrella.



I'd hope that I'd be able to tell the difference between a camera bag & any of the things that you mentioned. I understand where you're coming from on this & I would agree w/ you if like JLee stated, this was a split-second decision, but by all appearances, in my opinion, it wasn't. If there had actually been shots fired or if these guys whipped out something that they had been hiding I would agree w/ you but that isn't the case. These guys appeared to be walking along a road, speaking & carrying everything in the open. Our soldiers have to give people like this the benefit of the doubt. For all we know they're strapped w/ a nuclear bomb but until we see it or until we have something more substantial than something black that may or may not be a camera bag. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there are more things to carry on ones shoulder than guns w/ straps & unfortunately this soldier either wasn't that bright, he let his imagination run away w/ him or he has really bad eyesight.

Also, I think that TwistedSoul brings up an interesting point about how policies have changed since then. It appears that even the U.S. government &/or military agrees that we shouldn't be shooting people w/ cameras. I was listening to an official on NPR not too long ago talking about all of the hoops they have to jump through now before they can do something like this. I think that's a good thing.

My apologies for being a dick in return. Now that I look back at it I'd probably come to the same conclusion. I have abnormal posting habits because my wife hates me getting on Massassi. She says it takes up too much of my time. Maybe she's right, haha.

I'm a fairly cold hearted *******, so saying this probably means nothing. But I could care less. It's not like people from that part of the world never did insanely inhumane things to us before...

*remembers people getting heads cut off while they were alive*

This is sort of what I was hinting at when I said the following.



I'm not intending to sound like I'm judging KOP_AoEJedi but I do think it's interesting to point out that he's not unique in that sentiment. One is possibly less likely to care enough to look a bit further when they feel like this & I think that there are probably a lot of soldiers & civilians that do.

interesting pictures, most of the reports have stated that no weapons were found on the scene, that or the news articles left out that rather important detail....

I wouldn't say what you have labelled as an RPG is one, nor the guy poking his head around the corner,

There are a lot of if's and but's in this case, although I think some of the pilots actions are wrong, they could still be justified.

You could say the same thing for the pilots in this case, hoping that the unarmed cameramen they had shot, but not killed would pick up a weapon and finish him off. Instead they just had to wait for the van to turn up with the other people/kids in so that they could get permission to shot as they were carrying away "weapons" and bodies.

The interesting thing about the whole incident is that it isn't, in my opinion, a clear cut yes the pilots were 100% wrong. Reading a few bits on the rules of engagement they roughly followed the rules, (although there was some bias over the number of weapons in view), but that brings me back to why the US military wouldn't allow the video+radio footage to be released to Reuters?

I'm ok knowing that the type of "war" going on in Iraq will lead to civilian casualities, what I'm not ok with is the covering up of these incidents and the apparent shoot first ask questions later approach of some the military, especially considering the high media presence and likelyhood of ****-ups being caught on camera when they don't think first.

I would like to refer you to the pictures posted by Commander 598. Now, apparently (based on what you've told me) they found no weapons at the scene, so assuming nothing got past the pilots or the soldiers after they arrived, then what is in the pictures seem to be innocent objects (I don't know what they are). But look at those pictures, look at the images of the two journalists with cameras in that context, and then picture that last image...that's what the guy on the ground peeking around the corner was seeing. The guys in the helicopter see this, and if that camera had been an AT weapon, everyone in that humvee would be dead.

A group of guys meeting down the street from your troops, 4 men that appear to have weapons, plus a guy peeking around a corner at your troops pointing what appears to be an AT weapon. Shoot or don't shoot?

Keep in mind that they do that kind of thing a lot. If you assume every civilian, even the suspicious ones, are innocent, then you will never get anywhere, because the guys we are fighting look exactly like innocent civilians right up until they do something that kills our guys, or innocent civilians. This kind of result is what happens every once in a while...sometimes you're wrong. But being wrong doesn't mean that you made the wrong decision at the time.

In regards to the language used by the helicopter crew...the US military training is based entirely on this kind of attitude. It's the biggest reason we are as effective as we are. It has much less to do with the color of their skin and the clothes they wear. Very little, in fact. I suggest that you read the book On Killing. The simple fact that they are in a helicopter, circling high above, looking through a fuzzy black and white camera, pushing a button is the reason they can do this. Do you think that if you put that same guy on the ground, with a knife, he would be able to kill all those people and joke about it after? Maybe. There is perhaps a 1% chance...Probably not. Probably even if they DID all have weapons and WERE aiming them at our troops, and you gave the guy a knife and a free pass, he would be completely ruined by killing all those people.

Listen to his voice when he says what he said about the kids. That is a coping mechanism. What do you want him to do, burst into tears in the helicopter and on the radio and say "I'm a murderer and a terrible person?" That's the kind of attitude that makes PTSD a huge problem.

The labels do not indicate what is actually there, but what it appears to be, which is the whole point.

You have:

• Shots Reported Fired
• Lone Group Spotted
• Acting Sketchy
• Carrying Objects that Resemble Weapons
• Within Firing Range of Ground Convoy

What's your call? Then there's the van:

• Unmarked Vehicle Stops Near Bunch of Shredded and Bleeding Bodies in Warzone
• Enemy Uses Unmarked Vehicles
• Driver Gets Out

I don't think I would even ****ing do that in the states, especially not near the US/Mex border these days and definitely not on the other side of that border. So in my mind that is pretty damn sketchy too, and I'm far from being in a stressful situation.

The only thing special about this at all is the "coverup" part.

Edit: And "RPG" is a vague term. Most commonly it refers to the classic RPG-7 but can also refer to the less distinct and LAW-like RPG-22

Again, take a step back from the situation, don't look at it as an "us vs. them" situation, but understand that it IS that situation for them. We as civilians and third parties have the luxury of doing this without risking our lives. They don't (arguably, on either side).

The gunner sees an insurgent who had just been planning an attack on US troops, trying to crawl away and escape (so that he can continue to fight US troops and kill civilians). He sees a van trying to help the insurgent, and so presumes that they, too, are insurgents. When insurgents show up at scenes like this, they apparently remove wounded and bodies and gather the weapons to use again on US troops. He is not authorized to stop this unless the person is a threat, which being wounded and unarmed, he is not. So, he can do nothing to stop it...so he hopes the guy does something stupid like pull a weapon so he CAN stop it.

The gunner's mind by necessity is in an "us vs. them" mentality, and since he has already established the context that these men are insurgents, had that context validated (by asking for clearance), and then committed to that context by killing a bunch of them, this is a completely understandable way to view this and to act (for him).

Let's also not forget that they drove a van full of kids into what is essentially an active battlefield and proceeded to aid the primary targets of the attack. Altruistic (if stupid) from their point of view, but reckless from the objective point of view.

Does a person run out into traffic and not expect to get hit by a car?

I can see how, under stress, they thought they saw RPGs.

However, the bad part was when they fired upon the people trying to get the wounded man in the van. They were clearly NOT collecting weapons. No weapons were seen being carried by these man, they did not take any hostile stance or action.

What happens there is totally against the ROE.

This guy says it best: (from that page Happydud linked to)

Not having read the entirety of all the linked material, I would like to offer that perhaps the person they were removing from the scene was a "person of interest" who could potentially have information useful to the troops.

Yeah, because the ROE say, shoot at anything or anyone that's suspicious, because you may never know.

I can't blame a helicopter crew for wanting to shoot the **** out of everything. Helicopters are so incredibly vulnerable to everything.

Actually, no. In fact quite the opposite. Now, I failed to read any of the thread past my last post, just skimmed, so if your post was sarcasm then you can just consider my comment to reinforce your point. I have a rare-on-this-board perspective so I don't really feel that I'm going to gain any insight from reading all the posts here. Some people seem to be discussing it from a position of being able to relate to the situation while others, understandably, cannot relate to the situation.

For those wondering what equipment the "shooters" were viewing the situation through it is exactly what we are viewing it with so I don't understand Mentat's opinion that the "streaming youtube video" must be superior. We are viewing the Target Acquisition and Designation System of one of the Apaches involved. The armament being used is the M230 Chain Gun.

Here is what the uninitiated cannot get from watching a short clip of the scenario: these guys routinely witness insurgent activity, routinely wait frustratingly long periods for permission to engage, routinely miss the opportunity because permission is either denied or late. Insurgent activity looks remarkably similar to what we see in the video presented. Not knowing the specifics of the situation I can't comment on it but I have watched similar events unfold and while the force used by an Apache is overwhelming the response was justified.

Hindsight is 20-20. You guys are saying they were clearly holding cameras, but at that distance it's impossible to tell. The gunner(s?) clearly thought they were killing bad guys, and maybe they were too quick to say they were carrying weapons, but if that's all you see day after day, aren't you going to start seeing it in everything?

FYI, yes, I was being sarcastic. That would have been obvious if you'd read my previous comment.

I watched the first 25 minutes of the long version.

All I can really say is...**** happens. Of course its horrible but it's war and these things are no doubt going to happen. Just like they happened in, in Vietnam, in the Pacific and in Europe in the 1940s. It's not like our guys are out there hunting civilians for fun on a daily basis.

Plus I didn't see any mention of what happened previously. I don't think they just "stumbled" across that group standing there.

From the way it was written I assumed that, obviously, as soon as I hit the quote button. However, on this board, it would seem likely that some ignoramous would post that seriously. You probably just beat them to the punch.

Actually, back then you would have seen the entire town reduced to rubble. The more humane the warrior tries to be, the more his actions will be scrutinized.

She probably is. :p
Anyway, for the record, I didn't think you were being a dick. I just thought you were taking a cheap shot. Sorry I misunderstood the situation.

As for your response to Bob, lt;dr.

>.>

J/k I actually am going to read it in about 20 minutes.

That last sentence summed it up pretty good if you ask me. Key words, putting their lives at risk. Indeed they did..

Personally I think the soldiers could have been a bit more professional (With their comments) but it was a mistake obviously, I may have made the same call. The military really needs HD camera's, then you could probably tell the difference between a camera and a gun. (PS. Don't hold a video camera around your torso like an assault rifle)

I can't watch it at school.

Do they say stuff like "HELL YEAH" when things explode? Because I think thats perfectly acceptable if you're in a helicopter shooting a huge ****ing automatic weapon. I guess racial slurs also work, but only because Clint Eastwood makes them so ****ing funny in Grant Torino.

Like I explained above, the problem is not so much the initial shooting at the guys with the cameras. It's what happens later, when people come to help one of the wounded.

Like I said earlier, that looked perfectly inline with insurgent activitiy. This is a hard concept to get across to people that have never seen this sort of thing but virtually every "bad guy" scenario you can find footage of has great similarities to the one you saw here. And, yes, the "bad guys" routinely haul their kids along with them. No better way to train them.

The only reason these incidents are "acceptable" to us is that we choose to accept them under the pretext of war. We're socialized to accept that innocent casualties are an unavoidable part any conflict. That said, under those conditions I can't say I would've made better decisions, but it really is a damn shame that these things happen. I don't feel sorry for the chopper gunner/everyone else who was involved though. ****ers reap what they sew.

Thats right, you tell dem sheeple brother.

So why does a veteran pilot say this is totally out of line?

Let me quote again:

I'm just a simple Iraqi insurgent from a backwoods sun brick mud house, but I reckon that that there "Blackhawk pilot" is just a jawin' on about stuff he gots no idea what he's even talkin' about. As fer as I can tell, he ain't even a real whirr-lee-bird pilot, and just some in-ter-net fella puttin' on a show for the folks.

See what I did there?

Nice one

Because various people with a common reference from which to discuss the issue will draw and discuss their own conclusions. I could have a discussion with him. People here without that frame of reference can't really discuss more than their emotional reaction to the video.

Also, keep in mind, that the mission of a UH60 aviator is vastly different and he likely has never personally viewed the same type of footage first hand unless he, also unlikely, served in an attack helicopter.

FFF the military. They get all the perks, too:

It's settled. I'm joining.

Except they haven't been scrutinized, and that is precisely the problem.

The only reason we even know about this is through the persistence of Reuters and the stellar work of WikiLeaks - by far one of the most important services on the internet. Were we entirely trusting of the Pentagon and the US military, this would be entirely covered up and we would never know.

This happened almost 3 years ago, and every Freedom of Information request has been denied and every attempt to investigate this has been stubbornly quashed by the US military.

The very least we expect is a simple admission that a ****up was made.

What is the source of that ****up? Are the Rules of Engagement not adequate? Were these soldiers not trained adequately? Was this ****up just a single, isolated incident of momentary incompetence or was it a result of some greater structural mismanagement?
We shall only know with a full investigation - an investigation that will undoubtedly be opposed bitterly at every step, as the US military appears to fear and hate transparency more than it does insurgency.

/me loves WikiLeaks.

Hopefully the pentagon gets a little smarter in a hurry and goes ahead and kills everyone involved in wikileaks along with every possible insurgent/terrorist (they are one in the same, really) in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. In an ideal world they would also be able to pick up and prosecute everyone who believes this was anything but a by-the-book military operation. What do you expect when you gather on a public street in one of the largest cities in the world?

All you USA hating hippies need to realize we are fighting a war here and if ten times as many people and children were shot in this video it was totally worth it to protect our boys on the ground.

P.S. - How many people were shot exactly? I tried watching it, but the quote at the beginning was so boring I turned it off and just looked at pictures.

Go suck big brothers slimy schlong you tool.

Hey man, you need to chill out man, it's like we're one consciousness brother.

P.S. Death to America

I think ButterBalls here is playing the role of a strawman.

ButterBalls is banned but I don't see him on the proscription list?