WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEO. GRAPHIC VIDEO. GRAPHIC VIDEO.
Wikileaks has just released what it describes as classified video from U.S. Apache helicopters in a July 12, 2007 attack on the suburb of New Baghdad, Iraq. The U.S. military has said that the dozen or so casualties were "anti-Iraqi forces" or "insurgents." The nonprofit Sunshine Press, which runs Wikileaks, reports:
Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred.
After losing two of its own people in the attack, Reuters had been trying to get the video using the Freedom of Information Act, the Sunshine Press reports. The footage is tough stuff.
"I think they just drove over a body," one troop says on the video.
"Hah. Did he?" his colleague replies.
"Yeah."
Wikileaks posted the video along with transcripts and documents about what it says is the military's cover-up on CollateralMurder.com. There's also a 39-minute version of the video above. We'll be watching and reading along with you. Hit the comments with your observations. My first? How weird it sounds to hear the pilots and gunners sliding from "keep shooting" tough talk and cackling to the dry sound of military commanders, and then the oddly distant rat-tat-tat of the guns.
Leave a Comment:
You might want to save the video off of YouTube just in case something happens to it to make it go offline.
Unreal - "You mean that was a camera not a weapon O well they were probably guilty of something else" These are not US Soldiers they are CRIMINALS !!!
They were EFFING NEWS REPORTERS you stupid idiot! What is WRONG with you????
Actually they are both... Amongst the public in my country, the US military is best known for killing our soldiers; we are supposed to be allies. America has for a very long time given an impression of shoot first and ask questions later and episodes like this do not help that situation. So, whilst this is sad, it is very far from shocking.
Robyn, I think you misunderstood Bill King's post. He was saying that the US military acted like criminals and that he is strongly against what happened in this situation.
Thank You Troy you got my point it was meant to be sarcastic.
On the topic of civilian casualties, this kind of thing from the military is both unavoidable where there is almost zero ground-level intelligence, and unacceptable from the civilians that support said military and their actions. If the pilots were in a free-fire zone (which I was under the impression was NOT the case in most of Iraq since something like 2005), then personally, I'd have questioned their motivation for opening fire prior to having any kind of visual confirmation of weapons or any intelligence. These pilots will probably be lauded as "heroes" by the Xe/Blackwater-supporting citizens here, but personally, these guys screwed-up. Horribly.
As far as the "dry sound of military commanders", that's what pilots are supposed to sound like. Calm, metered, controlled. It sounds strange, but it's rather pointless to yell and scream and cheer into a microphone when the guy you're transmitting to is literally about two feet behind you.
It's "unnavoidable" until it's your brother that gets shot. How do you expect to gain the trust of people when your own troops are too afraid to face an enemy? They take out air-strikes from hundreds of meters away? How should we trust you if your only reason to shoot is some grainy video? "Unavoidable" casualties are avoided all the time. Why is it only america that gets the "unavoidable" cop-out.
If I walked around with anything over my shoulder, should I be a member of the "collateral damage gang"?
You guys will never win in Afganistan or Iraq because instead of fighting with your eyes on the ground, you somehow came to the conclusion that modern warfare should be a video game, in an urban environment.
-Iraqi who lost hope 6 years ago
well--all of it makes me heartsick--
as much as i know we need a military--i would never want my children/grandchildren to become as cold as some of our soldiers sound.
it almost sounds like they are playing a video game. even as wounded children are carried out of the wreckage, the reality of this has not sunk in.
this is just so sad and sickening.
I know how you feel. The military needs them to be cold, unfeeling and lethal. That is why a lot of our boys come home and go suicidal or go nuts. They just can't adjust back.
The spotters tricked their CO into authorizing this kill with simple phrasing. They see 8 people, one with a shoulder bag and they report "8 armed individuals with AK-47s." They later report an RPG which also seems to be fabrication.
I wish it was a mistake, but I can't believe that it is, based on what we see in the vid.
The journalists didn't have weapons, but others in the group did. This is not the only video of the attack. The audio is of the entire engagement (I think), but there's at least one more helicopter video out there.
That's exactly what I was thinking...they are describing the men not as they are...but as they need them to be so that they can get permission to fire.
...and we wonder why there are insurgents?
It's funny...the teabagger conservative idiots of the world will defend crap like this...call these guys hero's. Then say something like "that's what war is, you libturds don't understand" then they get their wittle panties all in a bunch because of healthcare.
Sociopaths.
Link it please! I'd love to see justification for this, rather than sitting here thinking we put trigger-happy idiots in Apaches.
@JosephNobles
Good thing we don't have Apache's flying over Tea-Party demonstrations...or now that I think about it...the HUGE Gun show that happened this weekend...or hovering over the Starbucks next to the Wal-Mart by my house.
It's OK for us to carry weapons and assault rifles, but no one from any other country should have that right.
I agree. I was in the military and I had to ID things that were very difficult to ID at a distance and I always made it known that I saw something or not. I would ID it as what it was and if I didnt know I would ID it as unknown. If someone started to add to what I was looking at but I could not verify I would report it.
Looked like laziness to me. None of those people were scrambling for position on the chopper, none of the appeared to have defensive positioning to indicate they were preparing for a gunfight.
To kill with such disregard for positive ID of the enemy is shameless in my opinion. There is no honor in this fighting.
@defendr_of_freedom
The soldiers were watching that area for a reason. The journalists were there seeking a story for a reason. Might the two reasons be related?
When you see teapartyers carrying around RPGs, you let me know, OK?
There was no RPG, there was a camera. The camera LOOKS NOTHING LIKE AN RPG. There was no one firing on them, no reason to rush even if he couldn't identify what was clearly a camera and not a weapon so quickly. THERE WAS NO RPG. Stop saying there was.
I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Joseph Nobles here above. Look at this clip I produced by repeating seven times the section from time = 3:39:07 to 3:46:43.
Right click the video and choose Zoom -> Full Screen.
If those aren't AK47s, what are they? Camera tripods?
Please don't let this story die. Cover it like you did C Street...until there is action. We need to end these immoral wars. If we don't, there will be more murder of innocents.
All in our names.
Rachel, yes, you must report this "for realz". It would be cowardly not to, especially now that you've acknowledged the story here. This is real news and it is horrifying and the only thing worse is that our televisions are silent on the subject!
As an Army officer it makes me sick to watch this video. I understand the outrage and I'm not condoning the actions taken but I'm not condemning either. But until you've been put in that position it's hard to understand and having spent 30 months deployed in this combat zone I understand. RPG to a helicopter is kryptonite to Superman. It is the ultimate low-tech weapon against those birds and decisive action needs to be taken to eliminate the threat. It's their ass on the line. At that point it's a them or me, fight or flight scenario. They shouldn't have continued shooting once the threat is eliminated. Just because someone is picking up bodies doesn't make them a threat either. There were a wide number of assumptions made and it was a horrible mistake.
You also need to add context. This is July 2007 in the middle of the infamous "Surge" and this is Rustamiyah one of the major hotspots of fighting in Iraq. They literally had IEDs big enough to destroy tanks buried underneath the road. So, going into this city you are on high alert and have little time to analyze and eliminate threats and all the armchair quarterbacking in the world won't change that.
Thanks for this information. On the van, I'm thinking the soldiers were trying to hit it because insurgents would clean up attack sites and pretend an innocence that wasn't there. Is that the case?
Thanks to our military, I will probably never be in a combat zone, so I can't understand what its like to be there. That said, if our soldiers get to the point where they see what I'm seeing on this video, and they elect to kill everyone on the ground, I think they need a break/vacation.
If you're not condoning this type of unlawful engagement, particualary where the RPG is totally fabricated, I'd hate to see it what you do condone. Your piece sounds like nonstop excusing of a non-threat, non-rule-of-engagement engagement where a significant number of innocent people were killed or hurt. Including 2 little girls. The courts martial of these two are long overdue and will never happen because it will make their commanders, all the way to the Theater Commander look bad. Heavens no! We can't tarnish those stars now can we?
Next time you try to take a critical look at a situation and analyze it, you need to leave your bent towards excusing out!
Scarlet Pimpernel,
I obviously would bend towards protecting the soldiers which is why I disclosed the fact that I am an Army officer and I have spent 30 months in theater. 15 of it doing convoy escort/PSD in Ramadi during the bloodiest part of the war and I have been in those situations and I have been in the situation to mak the wrong decision that could have cost lives but, fortunately, I always made the right one. And if I made a decision that cost lives, Iraqi or American, there is a process to investigate it and see if I am at fault.
What you're implying is that this is premeditated murder and these soldiers went out with the mindset to kill innocents and children, which I think is far from the reality. I think many mistakes were made as it is hard to distinguish weapon from camera 500-1000 feet off the ground moving at 100-120 mph. They should have had better eyes on target to establish legitimate targets. I had to watch it three times to distinguish that the guy did not have and RPG-7 and my adrenaline wasn't pumping and I wasn't controlling a 10 million dollar aircraft while watching the video so it had all of my attention.
The mistake the Army made was in not disclosing the fact that this was a horrific mistake and then trying to cover it up. The cover up is always worse than the incident itself. The Army always makes the mistake of assuming it's soldiers are perfect. Well, we're not perfect, we're human and capable of human error and emotion.
And I think my explanation is much more objective and shows a different viewpoint than the people on here calling those soldiers murderers and wanting to throw them in jail and toss away the key.
mdbyrne -- it would have helped their case (and yours) a little bit if instead of saying "it's their fault for bringing their kids to a combat zone" they said (and thought) something like "oh my god we hit kids! I didn't see any kids there? where did they come from?"
I have a lot of respect for those that serve in the armed forces, but there are too many in the armed forces who do not have respect for anyone outside their world (be it U.S. civilian or foreign anybody). And today we're doing the same thing in Pakistan where we only hit Taliban, never civilians, and blame the parents for having their kids near them if they are killed when we blow up their houses.
The horrible fact is that the US military is turning these men in sociopaths and psychpath. They could not wait to shoot at the men then at the people that are rescuing them. Then they could not wait to shoot at the injured person to kill him. They laughed at the bradley driving over the body and when they knew about the kids being in the car they shamelessly blamed the victims.
Everyone with a conscience can see that these are murders are wrong. What i think is just as reprehensible is having an army person such as yourself fien sadness for the victims then in the same breath act as an apologist for the US army by spreading more disinformation. As an army person you should know that the pilots were bit further away because they are zooming in on the target. 1.We both know that that hitting a moving apache at 3000-5000 ft that is moving at 150 miles an hour is impossible. Given the effective range of an RPG hitting a moving target(tank/car) is 900 ft.
2.Well then, it must have been hard to identify the people at the range/speed ? We both know that the video quality availble to the pilots is better than the one leaked,The apache has excellent optics(if you don;t know ask a pilot). Given that i could see most were unarmed or were holding camera's(definetly not an RPG which is 4 ft long)
3."I had to watch it three times to distinguish that the guy did not have and RPG-7 and my adrenaline wasn't pumping and I wasn't controlling a 10 million dollar aircraft while watching the video so it had all of my attention".Your last excuse is almost as moronic as the last two. The person controlling the aircraft is not the one identifying and targeting, that is the gunner.
What are you defending?. Are you defending the massacring of the unarmed civilians. Are you defending the massacring of their rescuers?. Are you defending shooting the injured? Are you defending denying the children American medical care? Are defending the cover-up? Or are you defending the two innocent families muredred later that day in their home by the same pilots?
The only thing your defense does is shed a light on how morally bankrupt you and the US army are, by murdering these innocent people then dancing on their graves by giving half baked excuses.
Ps to you side kick joseph geobels you are same kind of idiot who when shown pictures on the holocaust would say "well, how do we know its real"
MURDER! Nothing less! Run it on air Rachel...Just run it all of it. Sit back and let it air out...reserve commentary...let it ring out in the name of the innocent
Battle scenes are always going to look inhuman so you have to watch it realizing that you're not there and not under the daily threat of being shot down yourself. The seemingly heartless comments ("I just ran over a body.. heh") are also the soldiers' coping mechanism.. don't be too hard on them for that.
Nevertheless, I hope TRMS and the mainstream media make a big deal of this; it's time people see for their own eyes what our occupation is doing in the Middle East and why it's long past time to reassess the mission. It's also a great example of why we should never believe the official military accounts of such episodes; propaganda is a very important part of waging any war.
Nobody likes to see innocent civilians killed, but I won't fault these pilots for their aggressive behavior. They made a decision to engage based upon what they saw, which is something that they were trained to do and is in accordance with every decision made in a combat zone. They requested permission from higher and were granted that permission. What happened is unfortunate, but not criminal per the rules of engagement, which state that US forces can engage when they have positive ID and imminent threat/danger (RPG & AK-47s in the open). The fact that the individuals carrying those weapons were not firing them at that moment does not mean that the threat wasn't imminent--everyone carrying an RPG has intent to threaten or cause death/damage to an opposing force.
Well, I don't know what to say other than that I disagree. I don't know where you are drawing your conclusions from that allow you to make the statements that the pilots didn't have enough training or went straight to 'kill' or that they were 'looking for an excuse to fire.' With just this video, it is impossible to draw those conclusions. We cannot know what they knew or what they're frame of mind was at the time. What I saw was some friendlies who believed they identified a hostile threat and took appropriate measures to neutralize that threat.
And yes, while helicopters are mostly used as a support resources, that does not preclude them from direct engagement without ground troops. In fact, there are times when it is safer and better to use the resource at hand rather than wait for ground support. In this case, one can argue that it may have been a completely different scenario if the helos had requested the Bradleys to recon the area first, but again: I will not fault these pilots for making a decision based off of their judgment (and training).
Regarding 'trigger happy', I think we need to make a distinction. What I think you are saying is that they were very eager to engage. The other possibility is that you're saying that once given permission, they went rampant. I don't think either is the case. About the prior, I think they remained calm and cool until they were given permission and, as is the case with most things in combat, were operating under time constraints. They had a moment and they seized it. About the latter, they used a sufficient amount of rounds to kill the ID'd people and no more.
My bottom line point is that we shouldn't be so quick to judge these pilots. What we see is a 20 min video clip of one day of their lives. We have to trust their judgment as those on the ground and rely upon the fact that we have given them the best training we could have given them. If mistakes were made, then an investigation should be started--but not a witch hunt. There is no perfection in war, unfortunately, and I think we are too quick to fry our own based off of too little information and understanding of the situation.
@ Fog..There was no threat. But thanks for the rationalization of murder. I am sure Mc Veigh thoght the murrow building was an imminent threat
Did you really just compare McVeigh to the entire US military? It seems your problem is with killing other people, so of course any action that results in death would be wrong to you. I am not here to debate the moral argument against / for killing. I am trying to get everyone to understand that these pilots did nothing wrong within the confines of armed conflict under to hospice of an established military operating in a combat zone.
@FOG>"They requested permission from higher and were granted that permission. What happened is unfortunate, but not criminal per the rules of engagement, which state that US forces can engage when they have positive ID and imminent threat/danger (RPG & AK-47s in the open). The fact that the individuals carrying those weapons were not firing them at that moment does not mean that the threat wasn't imminent--everyone carrying an RPG has intent to threaten or cause death/damage to an opposing force."
What RPG?. If you can make out an AK 47 you can certainly make a distinction between a camera and an RPG...These guys wanted to fire. They were hungry to kill. They laughed about running over the dead. This is not the "FOG of WAR. It is the willful murder of unarmed people by an aircraft 5000 ft away. What imminent threat? Mcveigh saw himself as a soldier and he saw no moral problems doing what he did..Both yours and his rationalization of mass murder are sick. Dont shade this psychopathy into rules of engagement. When it is your daughter lying dead on the ground you will not care about your self justification of murder and call it FOG OF WAR.
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower
War settles nothing.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower
God hates violence. He has ordained that all men fairly possess their property, not seize it.
~Euripides
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificually induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear.
~General Douglas MacArthur
As far as I am concerned, war itself is immoral.
~General Omar Bradley
My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military.
~General Smedley Butler (USMC, Ret.)
I can tell you this: If I’m ever in a position to call the shots, I’m not going to rush to send somebody else’s kids into a war.
~George H. W. Bush
AND FINALLY ONE FOR THE GUY WHO SAYS "KILLING IS NOT KILLING"
I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.
~George W. Bush
yeah, yeah. killing is not killing was a typo. look at it; it's pretty obvious. what i meant to say is that not all killing is necessarily wrong or immoral or illegal. context is everything--and thus no one should be so quick to judge as you are. if all killing were absolutely wrong, then there would be no need for any further criminal proceedings related to manslaughter/murder charges. throughout history, every society has dealt with the issue of taking others' lives. it is a part of our history, as a species. complete removal of all homicidal acts from humanity is an ideal that would be nice to achieve, but ultimately i think it is impossible. this reality does not excuse all killing, but to say that there is a universal truth about this is illogical. so, we must examine each act independently and within context. that is what i ask with respect to these pilots. you're too quick to grab on to what your raw emotion tells you is 'right'.
To understand that people kill is not "Truth"
The fact that history shows the human potential for killing and violence, does not mean that the tolerance of it today , for any reason, is logical.
It is not raw emotion that leads us astray. It is the equivocation of killing that is a sickness that the host can not self diagnose.
It is the intellect that makes murder ok.
Whether or not the men in this video meant to kill armed men or unarmed civilians is the illogical point. They intended to kill!
My point is that there are places on the planet where the inhabitants live peacefully. Often they are over run by aggression. At this we are aghast!
When it is we who are the aggressors, we equivocate.
"Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle." US soldier after US medical evacuation was denied for a young child he had just gunned down. Universal attribution theory at work in "war."
This is really bad on so many levels. Best trained murderers that money can buy. They were so eager to shoot the wounded man and his would be rescuers, that they overlooked the children or did not care about the children.
I can see if you were on the ground fighting that a camera may look like an rpg in the heat of battle but what excuse do these pilots have standing off at a safe distance and in no immediate threat.
Imagine that was an Iraqi helicopter and the plaza was in your hometown.
The war in Iraq is only making more terrorists. We are throwing gasoline on an fire in an attempt to put it out.
But that wasn't an Iraqi helicopter in my hometown. It was an American helicopter in an area designated as a combat zone. And as long as we're playing the 'imagine that' game, why don't we just imagine that the AK-47s that those people were carrying were going to be used to (try to) kill Americans later that day? I understand your anger, but creating fictitious scenarios born from raw emotion, usually anger or outrage, adds nothing but angst.
The point, you jackass, was to try and get you to put yourself in their shoes for a sec. If that were YOUR f-ing kids or family trying to rescue AMERICANS who were just gathering to take pictures, you WOULD BE LIVID. Your insensitive outlook and ignorant disregard for ANY life other than your own is EXACTLY what creates terrorists' desire to strike all of your kind. Sadly, that means us Americans who don't follow your excuse-laden mentality still get confused with the dumb thugs who do. Which means people like YOU are more of a threat to peaceful existence than ANYONE. Guess where my rage will be directed?
@fog. It was a neighborhood. Not a combat zone.
Designated a combat zone so it was ok to shoot them? So if the Iraqi army invaded America, designated Boulder, CO a combat zone, it would then be ok, in your eyes, for them to fly helicopters over Boulder and open fire with machine guns on anybody that looks like they might have a gun? And the ambulance that comes to assist the people they shot?
You are an idiot, Fog of War.
@pavana: Insurgent warfare takes place in neighborhoods. That's the reality. The definition of combat zone is no longer limited to a 'front line'.
@evolve: I got 'the point' and my response was simply to say that it is an invalid one. Put yourself in the pilot's shoes, my shoes, any one else's shoes. Now where are we? Nowhere. If everyone's point of view is correct, then no one's point of view is correct. Research logical fallacies.
I don't get how you draw your conclusion that I have zero regard for ANY life other than my own. You are letting your rage cloud your thinking. Also, name calling (jackass, thug) reinforces my point that people need to realize what actually happened before they make judgments against these service members.
@ FOG You are delusional. These people live there. We Illegally started a war in their neighborhoods and declared them "Insurgents"...Your rationalization is thin.
You fog the truth with truthiness...If I started insurgent warfare in your neighborhood, I would be called a terrorist...Why do you defend terrorism Fog?
@pavana: I do not defend 'terrorism'; I defend the actions of the pilots. You keep trying to make this into a moral argument about killing or take it to an argument about this war or war in general or to put me in the shoes of someone else (you, them, someone else?). I am looking at this video and drawing the conclusion that what they did was lawful, UNLESS it is proven that they had the intention to kill innocent people. Clearly, they did not. They identified a threat, requested permission, and acted only after that permission was granted. If you have a problem with the method of identification or requesting permission, that is something completely different and if you have a better way perhaps you can start to write doctrine and/or suggest how the military should operate in its daily tasks.
The fact of the matter is that we're there and have been there for nearly a decade. We do not label every person in that environment as an insurgent. We identify enemies based off of their actions, whether it be what they communicate (plans to attack) or what they carry (weapons). Do not confuse 'insurgent warfare' with labeling everyone as an insurgent. In fact, it is almost the complete opposite. It is naming everyone as a civilian/non-threat and trying to figure out who the insurgents are, which is a laborious and intel-heavy task.
The actions of the pilots was terrorism. Why did they shoot at an unarmed van?
You seem to want to be the teller of truth here but your foggy vision limits your perception. You cannot support killing without a moral argument for it. You are as bad as those pulling the trigger.When you know this was a terroristic act if it happened in phoenix. Equivocation of your rules does not apply unless you would be willing to put your children on this razors edge. Jai Hanuman
@dlwchico: You misunderstand, so you may want to re-read. I am not saying that just because it is a combat zone that it is OK to shoot people; however, within a combat zone is where hostile fire takes place. So, if I were in a designated combat zone as declared by a superior and aggressive force, then I would be cognizant of that fact. If one day any foreign Army is able to invade the US and declare a certain region as hostile, then I won't be there carrying weapons unless I was willing to be killed by them.
@pavana: Good question. Without an affirmative and concrete answer we cannot label the pilots as terrorists. You're too quick in your judgment, which is what I have been saying all along. All you know is what you saw and heard on this very limited tape. Let a tribunal judge them. Also, I have no issue with military operations and its use of force to kill identified enemies. I am sure that my 'moral argument' would fall on deaf ears with you, so I won't waste either of our time. As a combat Marine who has deployed in support of OIF twice and will probably deploy in support of OEF soon, I understand that I may be killed and that I may have to kill. Finally, Phoenix is not a combat zone or an otherwise hostile area as labeled by any opposing force, so your scenario is invalid. If Phoenix were invaded by the Iraqis and they controlled the area and made it known that anyone who is perceived to carry out actions against them will be killed, then the tables would truly be turned. Of course that would be awful, but it would be hard for me to fault any Iraqi that killed someone who looked like they were a threat.
This msg was in reply to someone else, however you seem to have the same morally fogy outlook. so its relevant. this is not an isolated incident there are hundreds more.
The horrible fact is that the US military is turning these men in sociopaths and psychpath. They could not wait to shoot at the men then at the people that are rescuing them. Then they could not wait to shoot at the injured person to kill him. They laughed at the bradley driving over the body and when they knew about the kids being in the car they shamelessly blamed the victims.
Everyone with a conscience can see that these are murders are wrong. What i think is just as reprehensible is having an army person such as yourself fien sadness for the victims then in the same breath act as an apologist for the US army by spreading more disinformation. As an army person you should know that the pilots were bit further away because they are zooming in on the target. 1.We both know that that hitting a moving apache at 3000-5000 ft that is moving at 150 miles an hour is impossible. Given the effective range of an RPG hitting a moving target(tank/car) is 900 ft.
2.Well then, it must have been hard to identify the people at the range/speed ? We both know that the video quality availble to the pilots is better than the one leaked,The apache has excellent optics(if you don;t know ask a pilot). Given that i could see most were unarmed or were holding camera's(definetly not an RPG which is 4 ft long)
3."I had to watch it three times to distinguish that the guy did not have and RPG-7 and my adrenaline wasn't pumping and I wasn't controlling a 10 million dollar aircraft while watching the video so it had all of my attention".Your last excuse is almost as moronic as the last two. The person controlling the aircraft is not the one identifying and targeting, that is the gunner.
What are you defending?. Are you defending the massacring of the unarmed civilians. Are you defending the massacring of their rescuers?. Are you defending shooting the injured? Are you defending denying the children American medical care? Are defending the cover-up? Or are you defending the two innocent families muredred later that day in their home by the same pilots?
The only thing your defense does is shed a light on how morally bankrupt you and the US army are, by murdering these innocent people then dancing on their graves by giving half baked excuses.
Ps to you side kick joseph geobels you are same kind of idiot who when shown pictures on the holocaust would say "well, how do we know its real"
@freespeech: So...because I don't have the same outlook on this scenario as you I am morally bankrupt. That's right, attack the person, not the argument. You, too, need a lesson in logical fallacies. I am defending the actions of the pilots, who identified a target, requested permission to fire, waited for that permission, then engaged when granted permission. And yes, people died. I think you need to understand the purpose of the military and how it accomplishes its mission(s). Killing the enemy or his will to fight is what the military does. So, knowing that, people who join the service should naturally have no issue with the use of violence. That does not make us sociopaths. On the contrary, we learn to use violence judiciously and within the ROE. Sociopaths and psychopaths do not. Lastly, I don't know what other incidents you are referring to--I am sure there are times when laws have been broken--but they have no bearing on this particular incident.
This line of Fog of War is evidence of moral bankruptcy.
"Killing the enemy or his will to fight is what the military does. So, knowing that, people who join the service should naturally have no issue with the use of violence.
There is nothing natural about murder...You are sick
Because the US Military Murderers make a statement of declaration, these citizens of Iraq are not compelled by US Military law...Your illegal invasion of Iraq is criminal as is the defense of military actions
Taking my statement out of context and acting as though it was said in a vacuum shows that you have some sort of agenda and cannot stay on focus with the argument at hand. I hope you can realize that the world does not bend to your interpretation of morality. If you think I am sick, so be it. Your opinion does not sway me. I have thought about the issue of killing probably just as much as you and I have come to the conclusion that there is no black and white. If you don't think killing is 'natural', as you have labeled it, I encourage you to review all of history and all that occurs around you. Good luck with your agenda, but you have failed to convince me of anything--and obviously you know it since you resort to name calling and labeling.
If this was in my neighborhood? Yes, let's go there... If this was in my neighborhood, I would try to get my hands on one of the RPG's and shoot it at the helicopter to save my life and the lives of the wounded. It is war. If it was in my neighborhood, during a war? I would do whatever I could to protect my loved ones. And that would be picking up the weapons and ammo and the still living to try to have a fighting chance... Does that make sense? I'm not a murderer, but I would protect my loved ones... I also wouldn't bring my children anywhere near the sound of gunfire - but that is me. That is my opinion - and my opinion is right to me - as yours is right to you.
This whole video is taken out of context. It was analyzed after the fact. You didn't watch the video with the fear for your life in your hands I assume. If you did, I don't know why you would still be sitting here on internet.
I gather not many agree with my mentality just by reading the comments on here. There are many reasons for war - I may not necessarily agree with this one, but there have been many situations where war was necessary. If not, the US would be part of England and we'd still have slavery (those are two unrelated statements). We may not have California or Hawaii - or any of the Coastal states for that matter. None of it may be right, but much of it was fought for our freedom.
That being said, do I think this war should be going on to the extent that it is? Absolutely not. But, we are there and in order to come back home in one piece, we need to protect our own lives. That is the nature of war - that is what happens in a war - you try to do your job and live. I cannot fault these soldiers for doing their job and trying to make it home in one piece.
I love how the belligerent wipe away the criminality of this war and justify killing in the name of "Freedom". There was no RPG in this video. Two cameras with telephoto lenses. Maybe a couple guys with rifles and ground forces nowhere near. You and Fog want to sanitize these murders with military precision. At the time of fire, the men were circled in the street and I am sure they were aware of the copters above. Since they were making no aggressive actions against the US forces and no aggressive actions at all, really. They were simply murdered for being Iraqi... There is your bigotry!
I particularly love the comments about how it was their own fault for bringing children into war and laughing about desecrating the dead. This is the current day military's idea of honor. If for some reason someone leaks a video of our psychopathic killing, we will claim it to be an isolated incident and attack the messenger and the context so as to distract from war crimes.
Macnamara claimed that we would be guilty of war crimes had we lost WWII in his book "Fog of War"...The US has lost it's moral compass, militarily.
Pavana, do you serve the country you are from?
You don't have to agree with me. I really could give a rat's ass if you did. I'm just giving my opinion of what I would do if this was in my neighborhood. As far as the camera? I am saying what I saw - ignoring the "labels" - because they did not have labels telling them what they were seeing in the video. I do believe pointing the "camera" at the copters above is an aggressive action. Do you know what an RPG looks like? He didn't hold the camera in profile - he pointed it at the helicopter.
ROE does not allow the elimination of enemy medics and persons not identified as combatants.
All persons are friendly unless determined to be a direct threat or are currently firing.
Furthermore, once an enemy combatant has been wounded and disarmed ROE prevents any further actions (no executions). The video clearly shows soldiers break ALL three rules and more.
Marine corps U.S. Military ROE as of 1999
Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.
Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.
Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.
Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.
Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT FOR OPERATION RESTORE HOPE
(U) Rules of Self-Protection for all Soldiers.
(U) US forces will protect themselves from threats of death or serious bodily harm. Deadly force may be used to defend your life, the life of another US soldier, or the life of persons in areas under US control. You are authorized to use deadly force in self-defense when--
(U) You are fired upon.
(U) Armed elements, mobs, and/or rioters threaten human life.
(U) There is a clear demonstration of hostile intent in your presence
(U) Hostile intent of opposing forces can be determined by unit leaders or individual soldiers if their leaders are not present. Hostile intent is the threat of imminent use of force against US forces or other persons in those areas under the control of US forces. Factors you may consider include--
(U) Weapons: Are they present? What types?
(U) Size of the opposing force.
(U) If weapons are present, the manner in which they are displayed; that is, are they being aimed? Are the weapons part of a firing position?
(U) How did the opposing force respond to the US forces?
(U) How does the force act toward unarmed civilians?
(U) Other aggressive actions.
It's important to note that ROE does allow helicopter gunners to engage when a CLEARLY defined threat of RPG fire is in view. However, once the threat is neutralized (if it was a threat at all) then ROE prevents any further fire. i.e. the execution of the crawling man and the destruction of the van all break ROE.
I find it fascinating that "Fog of War" has responded to oodles of comments, but not the one that actually spells out the ROE and points out where the pilots appear to have gone wrong. from this video, they appear to have almost gleefully bent or ignored the ROE.
But Fog of War wants us to be "in their shoes," to create some phantasmic empathy with the pilots. What is actually required is not that but an analysis that examines what they did and what the effects were, and how those actions did or did not follow established guidelines. I don't see this commenter dealing with that, merely arguing that if we were there we would minigun and rocket several groups of people not engaged in hostile behavior into oblivion. I think that's sad, because the "empathy" is one that condones violence and slaughter as valid in a situation that we engineered and exacerbated with the invasion of another country. That is a manipulative kind of empathy to engender in others.
Fair enough, here's my response: this poster's ROE is clearly identified as those from Operation Restore Hope. So, they may be the same ROE as the ones used at this particular time of OIF--or not. Also, s/he posts something that's labeled as USMC ROE from 1999. Technically, those seem to be measures of escalation of force, which apply but are not ROE per se. Using you own word, 'appear', is the heart of the matter. What 'appears' is not necessarily the 'truth'. My issue with all these comments of immediate abhorrence is precisely to that point: what we see in the video is not the end all be all, but it is the only thing we know as viewers. So, I can kind of understand the knee-jerk reaction that most people have had, but I don't agree with it. My argument is that it is not fair to use (only) this video, which I believe has no real context assigned to it, and to also input the (admittedly overwhelming) opinion that this is an unjustified war as the sole factors used to judge these pilots. They did not themselves decide to invade Iraq, but what they are doing is operating militarily, which is a special circumstance. If you do not agree with that, then we will have a hard time seeing eye to eye on anything. I think they deserve a fair trial, if it comes to that, and I think it's sad that everyone is so so quick to judge them (out of context).
Also, forgot to add: since most people keep telling me to put myself in the Iraqis' shoes and/or to pretend that I had a child that was killed and then to imagine how that would feel, I think it only fair to ask the same in return. I think my request is inherently harder because most people will automatically say that they could never imagine themselves pulling the trigger and even if they could they wouldn't be able to do it as a military pilot in that situation. Putting oneself in the shoes of someone who is at an emotional low point (because a family member was just killed or died) and/or scared and/or angry is perhaps a little easier to do because it is more common.
On this I agree with Fog of War...@!$%#in Iraqis..".Thats what they get for bringing children into a war zone."..Damn Fog you are right that was easy.
Let me try again.
"I think I just ran over a body..Heh Heh".
Wow you are right
One more. This one was directed at the wounded photographer crawling for his life while the helo target officer took aim.
"Cmon buddy. Gimme a reason"
@!$%#in A Fog! Now that I have empathized with the pilots and ground crew, I completely agree with you that it is easier to be the family member of the dead. If only because there are so many of the dead...
The fact that most people could never imagine pulling the trigger is because they are in touch with their humanity. They have not displaced it in deference to some @!$%#ed up Hoo Rah mind set that the USMC installs, enforces and then covers up from the top down...
When I work with veterans of wars, their scars are so @!$%#ing embedded they can not open their bodies without deep emotional outpouring...While the work I do is designed to heal this emotional wounds that men suppress, it is dangerous ground for most of them to tread.
While you decry the weakness of "emotion", it is my work to till the soil that their time on earth has buried in their bodies. Dont give me lectures about burying my emotion in order to be objective. If you were not so emotionally dead, you might have seen the dying man on the side walk and thought of saving him. Instead, you sought a reason to kill...This is diseased thinking
The USMC sent my father to Chosin. That @!$%#ed up "Police action" ruined him and many more service personnell. This is what your precious USMC does. They build efficient soldiers and really @!$%#ed up individuals. The common solution in that day was alcohol. The men that will come home today will have to find their own solution and it won't be through rationalization. It is rationalization that creates the illness.
There was no "Fog of War" in his video, but a trained (culture of) indifference to human life. I now fear these men who will walk among us now. SHAME on the architects of this war, for they are guilty of turning our good sons into murders.
"Fog of War" does not only apply to what you can see at the moment in the moment. It is the idea that you can never know everything and you have to make decisions based upon imperfect and/or incomplete information and operate while trying to control your emotions, feelings, and mental/physical fatigue.
The second half of your statement I cannot disagree with.
Fog of war was what Macnamara used as his rationale for Viet Nam. He also said we would be guilty of war crimes , had we lost WWII.
Fog of War the author is an apologist for murder
I don't know why they didn't zoom in to make sure they had a gun, and if those were children in that van. Seems to me they had plenty of time to do that when waiting on the ok to shoot them. In every video I have seen when insurgents move in to recover their wounded they would have pulled that van in with the door facing the injured. These people opened the van door wide open and left it open in full view, and they were not running to grab that wounded man as if they only had seconds. I think that should have been a clue for the military. Unfortunately; our soldiers are brainwashed, and I have no idea what similar situations with real insurgents they have been in. Those people on the ground didn't seem to know the helicopters were there. I think they should have made sure they were insurgents before they killed them all. What a horrible tragedy.
This is not the fog of war but the reality of it. These soldiers were so intent on shooting the wounded man that they never saw the children in the front seat. What rules of engagement tells them to kill the wounded or anyone trying to help them.
The reason it seems so easy and perhaps funny is because they were trained to think of these people as less than human and so long as it was not their family below them they would still act the same.
They had the time and the technology to tell the difference between a camera and an RPG if the bothered to use it.
I am frankly at a loss for what to comment, but this is exactly what I was thinking...Our country must do better than this...
I agree
On April 19th there will be a gathering near Washington DC with Americans brandishing guns and calling for a revolution,.....can we say they are insurgents and shoot their asses? No, and I don't ascribe to that. The thing is, I would be one of those people on the street in Baghdad carrying a weapon and wanting to take my country back from oil profiteers. The point is, the Iraqi army consisited of old Toyota trucks with 100 year old rifles on board. We look like video game bullies for Christ sake.
"On April 19th there will be a gathering near Washington DC with Americans brandishing guns and calling for a revolution,.....can we say they are insurgents"
Yes. Armed groups at the Nation's capitol calling for the end of our government could be considered insurgents.
Tea Party dolts.
That is HORRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.. this ISNT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgMOOwlOsnM
I've been calling US news agencies all afternoon - no one will be covering this story.
Thank you for posting on this, Rachel.
The outrage here is not that civilians were killed/injured. That is an unavoidable truth of warfare. Now matter how foolish the identifying mistake may seem, the rest of what is shown in this video is by the books. The outrage is the cover up!
The outrage is the cover up ? If this statement is made by jeofrey dohmer maybe i could understand. The murder of innocent civilians is ok with you? How about wanting to shoot the injured man(not even bothering to keep him for intelligence)?. How about shooting the unarmed rescuers ? thats a war crime, but in your world its ok. How about denying the little girl American care after they saw she was injured? is that kosher in your world. You should seek psychological help, you need to be medicated because it seems you live in a frightening world.
Yup, saw this video and knew in a heartbeat Rachel would be on it. This video is flat out awful.
This video must be shown to the US public. We must be made to understand what war truly is. The decision to start a war cannot be made lightly or via false evidence as this one was.
Thud, you call this warfare? Shooting unarmed civilians is not warfare. While bombs blasted Iraq durng "shock and awe", Our media sanitized the assault. Independent TV showed the images of children burnt to a crisp, limbless and decapitated. The outrage was that the surviving children had to watch this horror Iraq, , as a country was invaded and destroyed for no reason. Similar abuses are happening in Afghanistan right now. Stop this madnes and go after the criminals who perpetrate crimes like 9/11 U.S. should wage war on them, not a whole country. Did Timothy McVeigh represent the U.S. in his attack on Oklahoma City? No more phony ass wars, please.
Yep, you got me, i just looooooove Timothy McVeigh. It's comments like that that make us liberals look like idiots.
When you're circling and very specific location in a helicopter because intel says something or someone that is a target is suspected to be in the area... when journalists show up in the same exact location for the same exact reason... the second you see any armed persons, your immediate thought is "these are the guys." ...And what did they see?
Of course this is wrong. Of course they shouldn't have assumed that this group was their target. Of course, of course, of course. There is no defense for killing civilians. Yet, at the same time, I can't help but think put into the same situation, I would have done the same thing. They got their target wrong, a lot of people would have including myself. It takes a special breed of person to override the most basic of human psychological instincts to NOT have assumed that group was the target they were looking for.
So what's the takeaway?
Was the wrong person put behind the trigger?
Is there even a right person?
Are our troops so worn down from a long, dragged out war that's been full of mistakes and dragging on seemingly forever, indefinitely, without end or purpose that maybe even the best of our soldiers, those who would not have pulled the trigger so quickly, are cracking?
Tim McVeigh saw a perceived enemy and destroyed it.
This gunship crew saw a perceived enemy and destroyed it.
It might be an idiotic comparison to you, but killing is killing.
Killing is not killing. If you don't agree with that, then of course you can't possibly see this video objectively, thereby increasing the probability that your judgments are skewed by emotion. Everyone will likely agree that taking life is a sad and difficult thing, but that does not mean that it is wrong in all instances.
"KILLING IS NOT KILLING"~Fog of war
Fog, you are psychopathic.
You think because your intellect can equivocate, that somehow makes you rational and me emotional. Blow it out your fog pipe.
YOUR VIEWPOINT IS SO ARROGANT...If I dont agree with your views then I am not objective? Blow me! Killing is wrong in all instances
I am curious, pavana tanaya, as to how you stand on abortion?
I happen to believe that life begins before conception. Whats that to you?
That life is what we are, not what we posses or own. Birth is the opposite of death. Life is what we are. Simply being.
So Wisdomsdoor. Your question is unfounded or is it an attempt at a strafing shot?
Just a strafing shot. I just wanted to make sure that you are being consistent in your abhorrence of killing. I find it very frustrating when people take a position similar to yours about killing, and then espouse that murdering life that is invariably a human baby is okay.
OK So is the death penalty.
The war mongers here like fog of war defend the killing of others as rules of engagement. This sick mentality is no different than McVeigh's.
I am no saint, but I am not one to knee jerk kill even a spider.All beings quiver at the face of death. All beings. Respecting life is my aim. and I wont back down from cowardly warriors who kill civilians from 5000 ft above and then justify it as "within the rules". As though morality takes a vacation to intellect. These phony baloney warriors like FOG OF WAR have not made a single point here for the justification of these murders.
ah, the name calling. if you are going to argue that there is a morality that exists that cannot be bent, then present your argument. comparing apples to oranges (talking about motives here), name calling, and typing raw emotion do nothing but discredit you. i am eager to read your interpretation on the absolute sanctity of all life and how you reached that conclusion--and then show me why I necessarily need to reach your same conclusion. if you need to simply list your sources, so be it.
@Fog. I don't expect you to reach a conclusion you disagree with. You believe killing is not killing. You indeed are morally bankrupt. If not bankrupt, you are pathological about violence and killing human beings.
"KILLING IS NOT KILLING"~Fog of war
The only justification for this is criminal insanity.
Mohandas Gandhi
A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave.
I believe that a man is the strongest soldier for daring to die unarmed.
Violent means will give violent freedom. That would be a menace to the world and to India herself.
Violent men have not been known in history to die to a man. They die up to a point.
When restraint and courtesy are added to strength, the latter becomes irresistible.
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
You wanted some resources.
It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
~Albert Einstein
Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.
~Benjamin Harrison
The dangerous patriot...is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory.
~Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps
All forms of violence, especially war, are totally unacceptable as means to settle disputes between and among nations, groups and persons.
~Dalai Lama
Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.
~Donald Rumsfeld
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower
I'm so effing sick about this @!$%#. Not just this video, the whole war. All of 'em. This is bull@!$%#! What the hell are they doing over there! @!$%#ing STOP murdering innocent people! Cryptome has a ton of photos from the war and from U.S. air strikes. This isn't the only incident. @!$%#ing stop it. God damn it. @!$%#ing stop it.
There are dozens of elaborate comments on this issue. Yet this response sums up my feelings about this the best. :(
Mohandas Gandhi
A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave.
I believe that a man is the strongest soldier for daring to die unarmed.
Violent means will give violent freedom. That would be a menace to the world and to India herself.
Violent men have not been known in history to die to a man. They die up to a point.
When restraint and courtesy are added to strength, the latter becomes irresistible.
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.