[dante]

And wsj.com: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304364904575166611840931060.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news

According to U.S. officials, the pilots arrived at the scene to find a group of men approaching the fight with what looked to be AK-47s slung over their shoulders and at least one rocket-propelled grenade.

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.

 

[Straya]

Vid just made the Aussie evening news.

Quote from the press conference it was presented at today "if those killings were made under the Rules of Engagement then the Rules are wrong".

Have to say I agree.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Wow. We sure freedomed the fvck out of them. I have to disagree with Mccrystal here. Sure their is the whole fog of war thing and sometimes mistakes are made, but I can't see anything that would imply those guys were a threat. I've never been in the military, but is there not an obligation to correctly identify a target/threat before you engage? Sometimes I think you need to prosecute, as silver says, the people doing the executing. I think these Apache pilots might qualify. I'll have to look it up cause I forget which city exactly but there is a very vivid battle description in Jon Krakauers book about Pat Tillman where a pair of A10's turn a bunch of Bradleys full of American soldiers into Swiss cheese. Never mind the soldier(s) who kill Tillman. At some point there needs to be personal responsibility because in both instances in just gross negligence resulting in fratricide. This doesn't appear to be any different.

 

[DaveW]

but I can't see anything that would imply those guys were a threat.

To the Helo pilots? Not even remotely at that range.
the most modern RPG has a range (with auto self destruct at that max range) of 900m and a kill radius of 10m ad in the choppers elevation and they were not a threat from there..... Reported AK's even less so.
So I don't in this case buy into the "the instant life or death decision" case for this one.

An RPG/AK would most certainly be a threat to any troops on the ground in the ongoing firefight however...... Pretty sure said troops won't be bitching about it, if I was unfortunate enough to be there I would only bitch about the fact they wasted time on journos instead of the "Le resistance"* folks that had guns and were using them!!!!

As far as the Reuters fellas going? Well they knew all too well what they were getting into, which is why like any soldier they were shooting (film) from cover as standing out in the open is pretty much a suicide mish IMHO.






















*relax, just taking the piss for the sake of the wingnuts.

 

[MikeD]

I don't think anyone's said the helo was in danger or felt it was in danger (then again, how did those Blackhawks get downed way back in Mogadishu?). Nor does it need to be in danger to whack hostile forces in wartime; it's not a self-defense scenario.

 

[DaveW]

I don't think anyone's said the helo was in danger or felt it was in danger.

My bad maybe I misread Pesqueeb's post.

(then again, how did those Blackhawks get downed way back in Mogadishu?).

Could be wrong (its late and I'm drunk on craft beer), but weren't they tasked to extract people at the time???
Kinda implies a lower and closer flight profile.....

Nor does it need to be in danger to whack hostile forces in wartime; it's not a self-defense scenario.

Quite true but I also note from the vid that the green light was given BEFORE the RPG false sighting was made over the coms.
Also the transcript from the ground troops talks about taking fire from guys on the rooftops, targets in the vid were on the ground......To me it looks like poor target identification and, illegal* targeting the wounded who were "hors de combat".


But when all is said an done none of us really have all the info on what was going down so all of our armchair judgments are likely to missing more than a few pieces of the puzzle.



* illegal according to both the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, article 41. And the Hague conventions which are the main source for dealing with the conduct of hostilities

 

[$tinkle]

vivisection for those still on the fence: Cleverly-edited video becomes anti-Military infomercial for world's dumbest blogger and his traditional posse of useful idiots

 

[Silver]

Nor does it need to be in danger to whack hostile forces in wartime; it's not a self-defense scenario.

We're not at war. We never declared war. We are occupiers. It's not like there were "insurgents" running around the middle of NYC with weapons...those guys are in their own country, remember?

Think of it this way: If the British Army did this in Ireland, most of us would condemn that. Shooting up the van with the two kids? Inexcusable, even if the driver of the van is Patty O'Shea and a known IRA bomber.

Keep in mind, in this same thread, you have McChrystal admitting that we rotinuely kill a lot of people who are innocent (and if you start in by asking, "How innocent were they, really?" I'll have to point out that Bin Laden used that same justification with regards to 9/11) because we're stressed and scared. That's great and all, but those people had families. You think they give a **** that a foreign soldier in their country was stressed and scared? You think that they should?

 

[dante]

Lol, so instead of the left-leaning "cleverly edited" (as in edited so that there's little boxes pointing out the cameraman / reporter) video they instead release cleverly edited photos with blurry/pixilated things like RPG, AK-M and Rockets circled instead. Nice. I also liked this part of the "investigation"

Exhibit N:
"No, I believe all were involved [were combatants]. There were two RPG launchers, multiple rounds for them and an AK-47 on scene. Some of the males were described by Hotel 2-6 as the ones having pop shots at his PLT all day. All males were found within 20 meter radius to the weapons on the ground. Between the radio traffic from Crazy Horse before and during the engagement as well as what I took note of on scene, I believe that all males involved were not in any way non-combatants."

So the guy with the camera? Combatant. The guy with his kids in the van driving by who stopped to help the wounded? Combatant. The little boy shot in the front seat? Combatant. And people wonder why everyone doesn't just take people at their word, when the official video looks drastically different.

 

[MikeD]

Quite true but I also note from the vid that the green light was given BEFORE the RPG false sighting was made over the coms.
Also the transcript from the ground troops talks about taking fire from guys on the rooftops, targets in the vid were on the ground......To me it looks like poor target identification and, illegal* targeting the wounded who were "hors de combat".

Call it cynical if you want, but note that they *don't* shoot at the wounded man. They wait to see if he picks up a weapon, which he doesn't. They want him to, because they want to kill him. But he doesn't, so they don't.

Until the van shows up. It's not illegal to target this van, as it's not identified as a medical vehicle. Since they're assisting the fighters but are not identified as medical...even a simple house-paint red cross or red crescent on the side...it's considered a combatant at that point. (Based on the admittedly incorrect, but reasonable, conclusion of the Apache pilots concerning their initial target.)

So the van is considered a combatant vehicle at that point, and targeted as such. This includes the occupants. The choice they made to pull the wounded inside of it is their own, and the Apache is not required to check fire. If this wasn't the case, a tank, for example, would not be a legit target if they pulled a wounded soldier inside, or even if one of the crew was wounded.

The fact that they like killing insurgents, while repugnant to many, has nothing to do with the legalities of the situation. And the fact of their restraint and adherence to ROE in the face of their expressed desire to kill their erstwhile target takes this far and away from "indiscriminate" or "wanton."

 

[Silver]

Until the van shows up. It's not illegal to target this van, as it's not identified as a medical vehicle. Since they're assisting the fighters but are not identified as medical...even a simple house-paint red cross or red crescent on the side...it's considered a combatant at that point. (Based on the admittedly incorrect, but reasonable, conclusion of the Apache pilots concerning their initial target.)

It's not a declared war zone.

It's great that you toss the burden of responsibility onto the Iraqi. Yeah, he should have rolled up to Home Depot, bought a can of red paint, put a red mark on the side of his van (to proper specifications, of course) and then gone back out to pick up the guy bleeding to death.

The guys in the helicopter? Innocent victims.

 

[MMike]

The guys in the helicopter? Innocent victims.

They should sue for wear and tear on the aircraft.....

 

[MikeD]

It's not a declared war zone.

It's great that you toss the burden of responsibility onto the Iraqi. Yeah, he should have rolled up to Home Depot, bought a can of red paint, put a red mark on the side of his van (to proper specifications, of course) and then gone back out to pick up the guy bleeding to death.

The guys in the helicopter? Innocent victims.

Or, hey, fight an insurgency from your truck, and as soon as you have a wounded man inside or wish to pretend you're a civilian, "GAME OFF!"

The clear designation of medical vehicles, required under the rules of land warfare is essential to prevent exploitation of the same laws.

You can't be an ambulance if you have some other function on the battlefield. In this case, you had identified combatants (again, correctly or incorrectly) and someone aiding them who was not an ambulance. So it's a combatant vehicle. (Or some poor guy in a van trying to help out wounded civilians who's misidentified as a combatant vehicle. But in either case, based on the original target ID, the engagement doesn't even come close to violating the laws of warfare...)


Edit-you'll recall, I hope, our massive agreement on the wisdom and morality of starting this conflict. But that's the root politics of the thing.

And one of the reasons I didn't want this to start was because things like this were going to be inevitably common. But I think this engagement as reasonable, from the point of view of the soldiers involved, as it was tragic. At least based on what we know.

 

[MikeD]

Lol, so instead of the left-leaning "cleverly edited" (as in edited so that there's little boxes pointing out the cameraman / reporter) video they instead release cleverly edited photos with blurry/pixilated things like RPG, AK-M and Rockets circled instead. Nice. I also liked this part of the "investigation"



So the guy with the camera? Combatant. The guy with his kids in the van driving by who stopped to help the wounded? Combatant. The little boy shot in the front seat? Combatant. And people wonder why everyone doesn't just take people at their word, when the official video looks drastically different.

The still frames are pretty much a useless crock, but the original reports of weapons from the ground troops on-scene are interesting, at least.

 

[$tinkle]

i sure wish there were recovered images from one of the dead fotogs' camera showing their complicity in helping the insurgents gather intel or develop propaganda

like this one:

maybe he was just getting material for his creative memories scrapbook?

 

[MikeD]

Umm, OK, so cut off the last part of that URL in an effort to see if there were more pics.

And I get this?

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/

Stinks, what's going on here? Certainly not what I expected to find at that URL.

 

[$tinkle]

dude. wasn't ready for that. next time, gimme a bulldog tickle first

 

[dante]

i sure wish there were recovered images from one of the dead fotogs' camera showing their complicity in helping the insurgents gather intel or develop propaganda

That's your idea of "gathering intel"? Please never become a spy, I don't think our intelligence offices could deal with the sheer awesomeness of the picture that you posted.

 

[$tinkle]

That's your idea of "gathering intel"? Please never become a spy, I don't think our intelligence offices could deal with the sheer awesomeness of the picture that you posted.

it certainly measured up in your camp when this was considered "outing":

 

[dante]

Awwwww, what's the matter, can't defend a simple libelous post of yours?

 

[$tinkle]

libelous?

do go on...

 

[dante]

libelous?

do go on...

i sure wish there were recovered images from one of the dead fotogs' camera showing their complicity in helping the insurgents gather intel or develop propaganda

So, you're saying you have proof of that statement?

 

[$tinkle]

So, you're saying you have proof of that statement?

you have odd & bending standards on 'proof', like this

(post #25)
The military was flat out lying about what happened, and now there's video proof of that.

but they weren't.
and there isn't.

if they weren't for intel/propaganda, what other reasonable purpose would reuters stringers have to tag along w/ a band of [what are now known to us & can reasonably assume to be known then by apache crew] active insurgents? get a scoop?

for someone who purports to be objective & truth-detecting, you don't seem to find wikileaks as anything but on the up-and-up. again, i find your claim to objectivity odd.

 

[dante]

you have odd & bending standards on 'proof', like thisbut they weren't.
and there isn't.

if they weren't for intel/propaganda, what other reasonable purpose would reuters stringers have to tag along w/ a band of [what are now known to us & can reasonably assume to be known then by apache crew] active insurgents? get a scoop?

for someone who purports to be objective & truth-detecting, you don't seem to find wikileaks as anything but on the up-and-up. again, i find your claim to objectivity odd.

So what you're saying is... no, you don't have any proof. Thanks!

 

[$tinkle]

had the apache not engaged or never discovered these gents, what do you think would have happened? i'm curious to know if this is more than just you working out getting bullied all your life and can't stand anything less that a 'fair' fight, or if you see our troops as face-blinking xtian rednecks

 

[dante]

had the apache not engaged or never discovered these gents, what do you think would have happened? i'm curious to know if this is more than just you working out getting bullied all your life and can't stand anything less that a 'fair' fight, or if you see our troops as face-blinking xtian rednecks

What's the matter, get called out on something you can't back up and so you have to try to change the topic to somehow predict what would've happened?

My guess is that since they were reporters with cameras, my guess is they would've reported and taken some pictures. Then they would've gone home to their families, just as the Good Samaritan would have as well.

 

[$tinkle]

What's the matter, get called out on something you can't back up and so you have to try to change the topic to somehow predict what would've happened?

your lounge-like taunts ring hollow when you don't address your false claim the gov't was "flat out lying"

My guess is that since they were reporters with cameras, my guess is they would've reported and taken some pictures. Then they would've gone home to their families, just as the Good Samaritan would have as well.

unquestioned speculation for thee, but not for me?

your standards of branch davidian zeal aren't unnoticed.

 

[dante]

your lounge-like taunts ring hollow when you don't address your false claim the gov't was "flat out lying"
unquestioned speculation for thee, but not for me?

Cute. I'll repost what I posted earlier:

In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.

We know for a fact that there were NOT 9 insurgents killed (particularly the Good Samaritans killed in the van, which no one has claimed had any weapons).

 

[MikeD]

Get a room!

 

[dante]

Interesting article with quotes from troops on the ground:

http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378

Yes, it's from an anti-war website, but I'd say the soldiers' testimony speaks for itself.

"I remember one woman walking by," said Jason Washburn, a corporal in the US Marines who served three tours in Iraq. He told the audience at the Winter Soldier hearings that took place March 13-16, 2008, in Silver Spring, Maryland, "She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."

...

"During the course of my three tours, the rules of engagement changed a lot," Washburn's testimony continued, "The higher the threat the more viciously we were permitted and expected to respond. Something else we were encouraged to do, almost with a wink and nudge, was to carry 'drop weapons', or by my third tour, 'drop shovels'. We would carry these weapons or shovels with us because if we accidentally shot a civilian, we could just toss the weapon on the body, and make them look like an insurgent."

Jason Hurd served in central Baghdad from November 2004 until November 2005. He told of how, after his unit took "stray rounds" from a nearby firefight, a machine gunner responded by firing over 200 rounds into a nearby building.

"We fired indiscriminately at this building," he said. "Things like that happened every day in Iraq. We reacted out of fear for our lives, and we reacted with total destruction."

Hurd said the situation deteriorated rapidly while he was in Iraq. "Over time, as the absurdity of war set in, individuals from my unit indiscriminately opened fire at vehicles driving down the wrong side of the road. People in my unit would later brag about it. I remember thinking how appalled I was that we were laughing at this, but that was the reality."

Jason Wayne Lemue is a Marine who served three tours in Iraq.

"My commander told me, 'Kill those who need to be killed, and save those who need to be saved'; that was our mission on our first tour," he said of his first deployment during the invasion.

"After that the ROE changed, and carrying a shovel, or standing on a rooftop talking on a cell phone, or being out after curfew [meant those people] were to be killed. I can't tell you how many people died because of this. By my third tour, we were told to just shoot people, and the officers would take care of us."

 

[$tinkle]

reads much like that congressional testimony given by lt kerry

recently picked back up "on killing" by ltc dave grossman. give it a tumble. he's got other stuff too that LEs & cadets study

 

[$tinkle]

of more interest: The Slight of Hand at Wiki Leak and the Missing 20 Minutes of Video

What was on the video? Here's a key bit from a sworn statement about that days firefights which might shed some light:

While team was providing security for H26 at the first engagement area H26 informed the team that they were recieving small arms fire from the S/SW and wanted to team to recon the area for AIF. CZ18 then located 5xAIF with AK-47's and 1xRPG. Team was given clearance to engage by H26. I then observed a child and some other noncombatants in the vicinity of the AIF so decided to hold off on the engagement until the non-combatants were clear. After the non-combatants were clear CZ18 the engaged the AIF with 20x30mm. There were 2 possible WIA and I observed the individuals run into a large multistory building. The team then searched the area for more AIF. CZ19 reported a red SUV that has possible AIF in it and team followed and observed the vehicle but could not get PID on any weapons. The team then returned to the engagement area.

This is not shown on the video, but the next segment in the statement is where the video seems to picks up -- the engagement of Mahdi Army terrorists holed up in a building with 3 hellfire missiles:

Upon arrivai I observed building was a 4 story building that looked abandoned and half finished and possibly still under construction. We then asked H26 for clearance to engage the building with hellfire missiles. H26 granted the team clearance to fire. The team proceeded to engage the building with 3 hellfire missiles. CZ18 fired 1xK2 and 1xN missiles. CZ19 fired 1xN missile. There were approximately 10 AIF KIA during this engagement. Team then did BHO with CZ03/04 because the team needed to refuel at the FARP.

When children were observed near AIF (anti-Iraqi Forces) they chose to hold fire --> Not shown on video.

oh, in case anyone thinks no one has an agenda, look at the only photo of the van after the attack that wikileaks chose to post:

funny, it's no longer backed up against the building where it was first disabled, and the left side is crushed, which isn't how it appeared during the final minutes of the skirmish. propaganda much?

i'm not terribly impressed w/ wikileaks handling of this

 

[rockofullr]

Interesting article with quotes from troops on the ground:

http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378

Yes, it's from an anti-war website, but I'd say the soldiers' testimony speaks for itself.

Now that's how you win hearts and minds!

 

[$tinkle]

colbear rapport i'view w/ wikileaks co-founder: Julian Assange | April 12, 2010 - Julian Assange | ColbertNation.com

 

[$tinkle]

screwed

 

[dante]

Manning was turned in late last month by a former computer hacker with whom he spoke online. In the course of their chats, Manning took credit for leaking a headline-making video of a helicopter attack that Wikileaks posted online in April. The video showed a deadly 2007 U.S. helicopter air strike in Baghdad that claimed the lives of several innocent civilians.

dumbfvck.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Tip to potential whistle blowers: The best course might be to keep your actions on the DL.

 

[$tinkle]

smoke 'em if you got 'em:

WIKILEAKS DEADLY AFGHAN CIVILIAN MASSACRE VIDEO COMING SOON

in upcase, so you know this is da shiz