Yes, according to the screenshots being constantly reposted, they do look like weapons. It seems a bit odd the way the men are holding the weapons, but then who knows, maybe they were weapons and the armed men didn't know how to hold them properly. Yes, the soldiers got permission/clearance to fire.
No, it is not okay for the soldiers to childishly be eager to kill another human being. No, it is not okay for the soldiers to laugh at the misfortune, injury, and death of others. No, it is not okay for the military to try to downplay the incident.
On April 07 2010 05:05 Liquid_Turbo wrote: So if a kid walks into a hotzone and gets blown up, it's justified? Get real.
Not a good argument because he/we aren't talking about kids walking into a hot zone. These were cameramen on an assignment to photograph a couple-hour-old hot zone that got blown up, and then nearby samaritans panicking and bringing in their van to help (with their children in it of course, cause who'd leave their children behind by themselves in Iraq?), thus justified.
If they looked up they'd see a gunship helicopter circling the area aiming their weapons at them. Anyone would stop and not enter the area regardless of how close you are with the victims or how badly they were screaming in pain and yelling for help.
I mean like, why didn't they spend 10 minutes to find paint and draw a big red cross with a white background on their van? Heck, why didn't they wave their arms in the air (or even a white flag!) to signal the American soldiers not to shoot? It's not like they'd get mistaken for waving weapons or anything.
If they went out and called an Iraqi ambulance, it wouldn't get fired upon for sure. Soldiers would never think that 'insurgents' would use an emergency vehicle as cover to retrieve fellow insurgents and weapons.
The soldiers were under stress, so anything could have happened and it wouldn't be their fault. For example, I'm under stress of essay deadlines and I'm surfing teamliquid. I didn't want to do this essay, it was assigned to me. It shouldn't be my fault if I don't make the deadline and I get zero. Likewise being under the stress of protecting the lives of your fellow comrades. You were assigned to follow orders and fight in this country. If your gun happens to kill civilians and two reporters, it shouldn't be your fault that you killed them, and were told to continue firing after they were disabled, and were trying to hold down your laughter while doing it.
-- I was trying not to post in this thread but I guess I can't help it. I'm not saying that the soldiers were mistaken for being cautious and doing a preemptive strike. Things happened, and they happened. All we can do is now try to prevent it from happening again.
Wtf, the helicopter was a mile away. It's almost impossible to notice it unless they were specifically searching for helicopters. For bystanders, the attack could've simply be an isolated incident, why would it be risky to them to help the injured?
About the van being rigged with an IED: Why would the 2 people carry a wounded person to a vehicle carring an IED they want to detonate on enemy soldiers? The Apache was far enough away to remain unnoticed so they didn't think they were live-watched and had to put on a show.
I can't see reasoning behind this. If the van would have been rigged with an IED ... why shoot at it? No allied forces were in proximity, right? No immediate danger to allied troops, right? The van did stop and the driver was outside the van, right?
The guy in the back of the van was planning to blow up the people in the front of van as well as the wounded they stopped to pick up and the journalists. You know, left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and all that.
On April 07 2010 06:27 Boblion wrote: with this kind of strategy it means that they don't really value the lifes of the Iraqi civilians compared to their own soldiers
Which is probably true for every military commander from every country since the beginning of time.
On April 07 2010 07:28 Mothxal wrote: Nice system of justice you have there, being an insurgent equals kill-on-sight?
I have a hard time believing this is a serious question. Can you reference me to any war movie or documentary in which one side didn't try to kill the other side on sight?
Invade a country -> people fight back -> declare them terrorists or insurgents and kill them on sight -> wonder as to why the population doesn't like you.
Those soldiers have no right to be there in the first place, but if nothing else they could at least decide to exercise some humanity and not kill people just because they are "bad"..
On April 07 2010 06:27 Boblion wrote: with this kind of strategy it means that they don't really value the lifes of the Iraqi civilians compared to their own soldiers
Which is probably true for every military commander from every country since the beginning of time.
You clearly didn't understand my post so you have quoted one sentence out of context.( Or probably just wanted to have an argument but i won't fall for it ). My point is that the US army doesn't want any casualties because of public opinion whereas in the past it wasn't such a big issue, so soldiers are allowed to shoot from a long distance at unidentified people even if the zone is full of civilians. You missed the second part of my post where i tried to explain the "distanciation" between soldiers and their targets and why they are avoiding direct encounters ( drones / planes / helicopters instead of infantry work like in previous conflicts ).
For everyone who claims the helicopter is in danger, it's almost impossible to hit a high flying moving helicopter at a mile range with an AK47, let alone an RPG. Another fact everyone overlooks is how hard it would be to even NOTICE the chopper.
On April 07 2010 08:42 Mothxal wrote: Invade a country -> people fight back -> declare them terrorists or insurgents and kill them on sight -> wonder as to why the population doesn't like you.
Those soldiers have no right to be there in the first place, but if nothing else they could at least decide to exercise some humanity and not kill people just because they are "bad"..
I guess refusing to kill someone that is trying to kill you can be called humanity, but I'd more quickly call it stupidity.
Edit: don't forget that the main way insurgents fight is not through gunfire but with IEDs. I'm sure it makes the soldiers much more eager to kill insurgents when they get the chance because if they let them get away, they aren't going to meet later on a battlefield. Instead it will be a car bomb that blows up taking out some soldiers or civilians. That's probably what people don't realize when they say this insurgent is no "threat" to any of the coallition forces. So let the insurgents live to go make IEDs, that's obviously not a threat to anyone.
My God, I love this forum so much more. I'm on this other forum on the same exact topic, and this bloke is just like "WELL HITLER TOLD GERMANS TO SEND JEWS TO DEATH IN FEAR OF THEM, SO HOW'S THAT ANY DIFFERENT FROM THIS?" -_-
First off, watch the full, unedited one, without the political editorializing:
A little background is given in this one that is absent from the edited one. First off, the Apache's mission was to support that infantry platoon. A few minutes before the video starts, that platoon takes RPG and small arms fire in that vicinity, so the Apache is called up to find the guys doing it. Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hsNUgILqRcy2oq1uFmVilJ1iQeAAD9ET6UK01 the 12th paragraph.
Our video starts. They see a large group of people, all adult males, several of whom are armed. You can see 2 AK's and at least one actual RPG around 3:30-3:45 . Next, they see a man peeking around the corner and pointing what looks like an RPG at the infantryman about four blocks away. Here is the third to last picture that the photographer took on his camera, believed to have been taken when he peeked around the corner and was identified by the Apache.:
Ya guys see why the pilots were so nervous? Armed men? Check. Immediate threat to American lives? Check. They get permission to fire, and as soon as they have a shot, they take it. (For what it's worth, the actions of this group of people are very suspicious looking, especially in a combat zone mere minutes after US forces have been fired on. Including having the RPG firer simply poke around the corner and fire while everyone else hangs back to avoid backblast. See here for a slightly humorous example:
. Obviously one example does not a trend make, but I'm just bringing it to your attention) Secondly, I have yet to see anyone say that the group of guys with the reporters were NOT insurgents. For extra emphasis, at 30:45 there is more small arms fire. At 31:10 you see guys with AK's and body armor running away from the area. There was DEFINITELY a battle going on in this area, something that Wikileaks biased editing job carefully omits. It wouldn't be the first time that Reuters stringers were hanging out with insurgents for some good pictures. For instance, this picture: was taken by none other than Namir Noor-Eldeen, one of the photographers killed in this attack. Wonder how he got that? How about THIS one: http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/18/losses-in-the-family/
Here, Namir is obviously standing about 10 feet away from insurgents as they commit an act of violence. I'm not passing judgement on him, I actually think it's good to have reporters as close as possible to the conflict, but I'm merely pointing out that hanging out with insurgents is something that Noor-Eldeen had been doing for a few years prior to his death. Anyways, back to the video. At 19:20, someone reports finding an RPG round. At 32:54, someone asks if it's been defused yet, and is told "no, it's still live" Even if everyone in Iraq has an AK, only the bad guys have RPG rounds. The discovery of an RPG round among the bodies makes me believe that Namir Noor-Eldeen was yet again hanging out with an insurgent group looking for great shots. He and the other photographer were almost certainly innocent of actual wrongdoing, but the armed men they were with were in all likelihood some of the ACTUAL insurgents who fired on US troops before the video started. As for the van that was attacked, I'll admit that it's slightly sketchier, but I'll clarify that by pointing out that the SAME VAN is seen AT the engagement site at 00:40 of the full video.
The pilots notice it and mention it as a possible target. And then somehow, by some coincidence, the group of adult men in that van magically appear shortly after the airstrike to give aid to insurgents? That's absolutely suspicious enough to make a case for engaging it. I don't know that I personally would have engaged that van, but I find in totally understandable that they did. Although, the video leaves out a lot of context. Yes, this video is disturbing simply for the sheer violence and immediate destruction. But think about it before mindlessly jumping to conclusions regarding what actually happened that day.
A little background is given in this one that is absent from the edited one. First off, the Apache's mission was to support that infantry platoon. A few minutes before the video starts, that platoon takes RPG and small arms fire in that vicinity, so the Apache is called up to find the guys doing it. Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hsNUgILqRcy2oq1uFmVilJ1iQeAAD9ET6UK01 the 12th paragraph.
Our video starts. They see a large group of people, all adult males, several of whom are armed. You can see 2 AK's and at least one actual RPG around 3:30-3:45 . Next, they see a man peeking around the corner and pointing what looks like an RPG at the infantryman about four blocks away. Here is the third to last picture that the photographer took on his camera, believed to have been taken when he peeked around the corner and was identified by the Apache.: Ya guys see why the pilots were so nervous? Armed men? Check. Immediate threat to American lives? Check. They get permission to fire, and as soon as they have a shot, they take it. (For what it's worth, the actions of this group of people are very suspicious looking, especially in a combat zone mere minutes after US forces have been fired on. Including having the RPG firer simply poke around the corner and fire while everyone else hangs back to avoid backblast. See here for a slightly humorous example: . Obviously one example does not a trend make, but I'm just bringing it to your attention) Secondly, I have yet to see anyone say that the group of guys with the reporters were NOT insurgents. For extra emphasis, at 30:45 there is more small arms fire. At 31:10 you see guys with AK's and body armor running away from the area. There was DEFINITELY a battle going on in this area, something that Wikileaks biased editing job carefully omits. It wouldn't be the first time that Reuters stringers were hanging out with insurgents for some good pictures. For instance, this picture: was taken by none other than Namir Noor-Eldeen, one of the photographers killed in this attack. Wonder how he got that? How about THIS one: http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/18/losses-in-the-family/
Here, Namir is obviously standing about 10 feet away from insurgents as they commit an act of violence. I'm not passing judgement on him, I actually think it's good to have reporters as close as possible to the conflict, but I'm merely pointing out that hanging out with insurgents is something that Noor-Eldeen had been doing for a few years prior to his death. Anyways, back to the video. At 19:20, someone reports finding an RPG round. At 32:54, someone asks if it's been defused yet, and is told "no, it's still live" Even if everyone in Iraq has an AK, only the bad guys have RPG rounds. The discovery of an RPG round among the bodies makes me believe that Namir Noor-Eldeen was yet again hanging out with an insurgent group looking for great shots. He and the other photographer were almost certainly innocent of actual wrongdoing, but the armed men they were with were in all likelihood some of the ACTUAL insurgents who fired on US troops before the video started. As for the van that was attacked, I'll admit that it's slightly sketchier, but I'll clarify that by pointing out that the SAME VAN is seen AT the engagement site at 00:40 of the full video.
The pilots notice it and mention it as a possible target. And then somehow, by some coincidence, the group of adult men in that van magically appear shortly after the airstrike to give aid to insurgents? That's absolutely suspicious enough to make a case for engaging it. I don't know that I personally would have engaged that van, but I find in totally understandable that they did. Although, the video leaves out a lot of context. Yes, this video is disturbing simply for the sheer violence and immediate destruction. But think about it before mindlessly jumping to conclusions regarding what actually happened that day.
Should be put into the OP so people don't waste time reading through this thread of judgments on biased journalism.
oh no some journalists died. that's a risk they chose to take going to iraq. over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
THIS IS UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE! SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO OUTRAGING OVER THINGS THAT AREN'T OUTRAGEOUS!
On April 07 2010 09:36 dNo_O wrote: oh no some journalists died. that's a risk they chose to take going to iraq. over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
THIS IS UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE! SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO OUTRAGING OVER THINGS THAT AREN'T OUTRAGEOUS!
This is the kind of post that makes me disgusted. Some people here in US dont care about peoples lives that arent american! Just 8 innocent people died in this incident OH NO! Big deal what if some of those 8 people were your family members would you make a big deal? What if other people say the same to you when your family members died in an incident? American lives worth more? on what scale are you measuring? By the way over 1 million iraqis have died since the beginning of the invasion how many US soldiers died? a couple thousands... this is the kind of things they dont usually report! These kinds of incidents need to be brought into daylight! The new media in the US make such a fuss about couple US soldiers being killed every so often but they dont even report the millions of iraqis that have died... and people are crying propaganda and brainwashing without knowing that they themselves are bring brainwashed.
EPT
).![[image loading]](http://duckbar.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/c7/c76f1e685afea0b6172abd701e69a42d890d2bd5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq318/ChristoffTravel/Insurgent_RPG_Fail-c01.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i41.tinypic.com/343tb0j.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QtbCj.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SjcDF.png)
