55 replies to this topic

[Libains]

I doubt there are many of you who have not seen this in the news of late:

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

It's all rather simple - in 2007 two Reuters employees were killed in Baghdad. Nobody really knew why - the US military killed them, but the situations surrounding it were such that it got nicely covered up, as the US military seems to be pretty damn competent at doing these days. Eventually, somebody somewhere got ahold of the video feed from an Apache helicopter that was involved in the 'skirmish'. By 'skirmish', I mean cold blooded murder of about a dozen civilians, and the severe wounding of two children. Yeah, children.

So what happened? Apparently, the people recruited for the US army these days are so uttely incompetent that they cannot determine the different between a camera, and an AK-47. Nor between bare hands, and an AK-47. Nor between a camera, and a Rocket Propelled Grenade. So, thinking that unarmed civilians, and two unarmed Reuters employees were carrying weapons, the US military gave a green light to the Apache gunner, who must honestly be deemed Trigger-Happy. There is a point in the film where he is seen urging one of the injured Reuters employees to pick up a weapon so he can shoot him. Anyways, so most people were killed pretty instantly, there was one person who remained alive, as stated above. He crawls away, and reaches the pavement, all the time being urged to go for a weapon. Then, a little van comes upon the area, the driver stops, and he and the passenger go to help the injured man.

Whatever happened to removing war wounded from battle? Let alone removing civilians from the battlefield. That died out in the history books it seems, because this was reason enough for the Apache to open fire again. This time, killing the injured man, along with the two people who had gone to his aid. The cannon also tore the little van to pieces. Inside were two children, who can be seen to poke their heads out of the van. You'd have to be blind to miss it. And yet the cocky, arrogant man behind the gun of the Apache failed to see them, whether it be bloodlust or otherwise. This, this is what you get for throwing 18-year olds behind the gun of an Apache. It's a slaughter. They don't know why they're there - hell I'd bet half don't care - they just want to kill some terrorists. .

People could defend this on the grounds of it being war. Of it being a mistake. Of it being their own fault for being in a warzone. Of it being the fault of the family of the children fr bringing them into there (as pointed out by a US soldier). So tell me why it was covered up, if it was a mistake, or a legitimate act of self defence. Tell me why the ground forces entering the area managed to run over two bodies. Tell me why the seriously injured children were refused access to proper medical facilities at the nearby American base, and were instead left with the Iraqi police to deal with. Tell me why the pilots fired on unarmed personnel who at worse, were removing an injured man from the scene. Tell me why they lied and said they detected small arms fire from AK-47s.

And tell me where all of those identified weapons were? Cameras are capable of producing images that bring down governments, but I would hardly class that as a reason as to why photographers should be shot. I leave you with this image from the Vietnam War. It was another war America could never win.

Edited by AJ, 06 April 2010 - 23:56.

[Ion Cannon!]

Seems if the US military sees a blur on a blurry screen they now have enough evidence to shoot you. I would say invest in better cameras in that case, if you give the capability to kill accurately from such range at least be able to identify your targets properly. Oh and that gunner? he should be court marshalled and discharged, he genuinely wanted to shoot him and his " Go on pick up a gun " comment was frankly horrible. Sure you expect collateral damage in a war, but thats with bombs and the like. Not weapon systems that are accurate and able to identify their targets from several miles away. Whats the point in investing in such targetting technology if you ignore what its telling you anyway? And how does a van picking up wounded people qualify as a target? I'm fairly certain theres a breach of law there... and then after all that, the US government cover it up - Its despicable.

[Jok3r]

Please, let me preface what I'm about to say here with this: what happened was wrong. Fucked up is a gross understatement here, and I'm by no means blinded to what happened here by patriotism. I'm embarrassed and ashamed by what happened here. However, I'd like to say that the fault really falls with a combination of the helicopters crew, the system of the helicopter itself, and the doctrine and training under which he was operating. Now, I could be wrong, as this is only what I remember and I cannot find a specific source to back it (though I cannot find any that suggest it's wrong). My understanding is that the doctrine for gunship operators is not to take prisoners. Does this condone firing on unarmed civillians? By no means. However, it does mean that in a combat situation, gunners are trained to fire at anything that moves. Is it the right choice? Maybe, that's not really the point, though.

The second problem, in my opinion, is exactly what we're doing before we put people behind the guns of these aircraft. The MOS for this is 1A7X1 - Aerial Gunner. Look at the training and requirements for it. They're by no means thorough. I'm not saying here that the men who fill this role are largely incompetent, not by any means. What I intend to say with this is that it's quite possible for someone incompetent, even, as we see here, "bloodthirsty" to get in. Between the loose requirements for Aerial Gunners, and the tremendous desensitization of our entire generation, coupled with the even greater desensitization of pilots (they are trained to kill targets not people, and it's always clear on that matter, from what I know).

All that said, if this man isn't court martialed for these actions, well, I'd be a little scared. And I'd like to point out that while they may have said nothing happened and they were acting under the laws of war, it wouldn't be beyond belief to see the individuals punished quietly as to keep the record quiet. The only justification I can possibly see for this is mistaking the mans camera for an RPG or Ground-Air missile of some sort, and then assuming the rest were armed along with that. And I will admit, I can kinda see where they initially thought they were armed from. But that kind of response, without any more intelligence or knowledge about the targets, is, truth be told, disgusting. All in all, it's this sort of crap that makes me ashamed of my country, the handful of idiots making fools of all of us.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

The whole system of CAS missions are messed up, IMO. It works in world war, where your enemy is clear, but proven in Vietnam its not working in this kind of situation. They are just making issues worse with gunners like this.

[Kalo]

Hey, be pissed all you want. Scream at a wall. Because it's what you're doing right now. This is what you know about, that implies more then it means. These are what we are allowed or have had the luck to see.. And here's the kicker. You can't do shit about it, the Military will deny it or decide they're right. Here's another ; Every country does it. There's nothing you can do to change it from where you are. I am not suggesting apathy I am stating fact. Could I change this and make a difference I would. But I can't. And neither can any of us.

Edited by Kalo, 07 April 2010 - 05:25.

[Wizard]

I have seen this already and I was as appauled now as I was then. The simple fact is this is a horrible event. Horrible events happen during occupations, of which this actually is. As far as I can see from this video the rules of engagement were clearly broken and that constitutes murder in my eyes, chain of command or not.

[Chyros]

I'm disgusted by the whole event. I've been in a fierce debate about this already on the SWR forums and I stick to what I said there: the clear lack of any form of evidence of them being combatants, let alone enemy ones, is cause for considerable worry IMO.

Kalo, on 7 Apr 2010, 7:02, said:

Hey, be pissed all you want. Scream at a wall. Because it's what you're doing right now. This is what you know about, that implies more then it means. These are what we are allowed or have had the luck to see.. And here's the kicker. You can't do shit about it, the Military will deny it or decide they're right. Here's another ; Every country does it. There's nothing you can do to change it from where you are. I am not suggesting apathy I am stating fact. Could I change this and make a difference I would. But I can't. And neither can any of us.

I don't know tbh. Don't forget it was exactly this that brought the US to its knees in Vietnam.

[Ekalb]

Although the fact that there were innocents killed is a tragedy the initial engagement is fully justified.

Those 'civilians' were armed with Ak47s and RPGs in a hot area a few hundred metres from a US HMMVW guardpost a few blocks away. I haven't seen a single media outlet actually mention it but in the videos they are clearly there. One of them (who peered around the corner) was seemingly scouting out the guardpost so in my opinion the decision to engage these people, who were carrying weapons used by the insurgency, was justified and carried out properly.

My only moral objection is to the second engagement on the van. But even then it was reported through to their commanding officer and all protocols were followed to engage.

I also have a problem with the people who are saying that the pilots/infantry attitudes is so disgusting - It would be in a normal peacetime context but in a warzone such as this it's a perfectly regular coping mechanism.

[Wizard]

Ekalb, on 7 Apr 2010, 10:32, said:

It would be in a normal peacetime context but in a warzone such as this it's a perfectly regular coping mechanism.

Warzone? Iraq isn't a warzone. It hasn't actually been a warzone since the invasion. US and other forces are currently in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi Government. I would like to see someone actually officially declare war on the insurgents. What you have here is civil insurection. I do not know the actual ramifications of that on the rules of engagement, but I do know one thing. The people killed do not appear to have fired on the Apache, nor could they as they had no weapons on them. That is not to say that there weren't insurgents in the vicinity, but unless fired upon, the rules of engagement state you cannot fire, and I am pretty certain of the next part, on unarmed non-combatants.

Edited by Wizard, 07 April 2010 - 09:41.

[Ekalb]

Wiz, they (members of the initial group) were armed and the reason the apache was there was because of previous hostilities. They were also a few blocks away from a guardpost which one of them was clearly scoping out.

They were seen to be a threat and I'd say they were. I don' think the rules of engagement are as simple as that. And if it was against RoE then the CO's shouldn't have authorised it.

[Wizard]

Granted there are people there with weapons but also unarmed civilians. Whichever way you look at that it's wrong.

[Ekalb]

If they didn't do anything about it we'd have either ended up with a shot down apache, a blown up HMMVW and its squad or both.

It's about association aswell, if you're hanging out with a bunch of insurgents and you haven't let the other guys actually know you're with them then you can't expect it to go well.

[Chyros]

Ekalb, on 7 Apr 2010, 11:44, said:

Wiz, they (members of the initial group) were armed and the reason the apache was there was because of previous hostilities. They were also a few blocks away from a guardpost which one of them was clearly scoping out.

They were seen to be a threat and I'd say they were. I don' think the rules of engagement are as simple as that. And if it was against RoE then the CO's shouldn't have authorised it.

And they shouldn't have. They were a UK news group, of course they're going to check out a theatre of operations, that's what reporters do ffs. What happened was an Apache that saw a few people on which they opened fire without any direct reason. They weren't doing anything and the helicopter just shot them. When there is no real reason to open fire, it's quite likely you're going to hit civilian targets and that is exactly what happened. Anyone should have suspected them of being civilians; if they didn't they are morons and if they did, they're cold-blooded murderers. I'm frankly appalled by what is apparently the training and entry requirements for such crews.

I'm not placing the sole blame on the soldiers here, I'd like to stress. I'm viewing this as an inevitable outcome of a flawed military system and an illegal war.

[Ekalb]

But if they were all simply civilians why did they have AK's and RPGs a few blocks away from a military post?

I'd like to chip in also that I acknowledge it's a terrible tragedy that they were children killed and possibly even people who had nothing to do with them but these reporters could have done things a bit better too - like actually letting people know they'd be there in a hot zone with suspect people.

[Chyros]

Ekalb, on 7 Apr 2010, 12:01, said:

But if they were all simply civilians why did they have AK's and RPGs a few blocks away from a military post?

Even if they did have AK-47's and RPGs they shouldn't have been shot at. For all they knew they could be Iraqi soldiers.

[Ekalb]

Assuming they're probably soldiers is a bit of a stretch isn't it?

Letting them go would have been so much worse.

[Chyros]

Ekalb, on 7 Apr 2010, 13:26, said:

Assuming they're probably soldiers is a bit of a stretch isn't it?

Letting them go would have been so much worse.

What do you mean?

[Ekalb]

If they were iraqi soldiers they'd be in formation and their positions would be known to the US. They weren't iraqi soldiers, they were more than likely insurgents who were about to attack the US outpost and the apache pilots actions prevented that.

That's how I see it anyway

[Wizard]

I know this is a bit extreme, but you could take that logic to the extent that anyone who carries a gun, in a country that allows people to have them, could be about to potentially attack a US outpost. It doesn't make it right.

[Ekalb]

but if a bunch of guys are walking up to the whitehouse with RPGs and assualt rifles and lining up the oval office or lining up the presidents car or something you're going to think someone would be cleared to shoot them?

[Wizard]

In that specific situation those protecting the President would give them a chance to drop their weapons and be arrested. Those guys who were mown down by the Apache didn't even know it was there.

[CJ]

Frankly I have to agree with Ekalb, if you are carrying a gun on the street, then you're probably going to use, and if you're carrying an RPG, it's not for goddamned self-defense...
Even if I do not approve at all of the soldiers attacking the van and driving over the bodies, it was clearly right that they had the right to shoot these guys as they were armed, and by that represented a threat (especially if they really were near a US outpost... As for them being Iraqi soldiers, that doesn't make any sense as the US troops would have been aware of their position then, and they wouldn't be carrying heavy weapons if they were simple policemen...

Also, the death of the reporters is part of their job's risks, when you're actually a reporter in a Warzone (and yeah Wiz, Iraq is still a warzone, no matter what you say since there are skirmishes happening each day between the two camps), you're supposed to warn the local authorities of your actions and movements if you don't want to get shot, especially if you're going to hang out with the "bad guys".

EDIT : cleared a misunderstanding...

Edited by Argetlam, 07 April 2010 - 12:50.

[Wizard]

Argetlam, on 7 Apr 2010, 13:31, said:

Also, the death of the reporters is part of their job,

You have to be joking? Being a reporter in a conflict means you that have to die???? The problem here is that, the pilots either deliberately or mistakenly did not notice that there were civilians mixed with those carrying firearms. They opened fire on unarmed civilians who attempted to provide medical assistance (pretty sure that breaks the Geneva Convention a few times) and did so whilst openly enjoying it. That is why I am sickened by this illegal cooperative occupation of this country that lead to the untimely and completely avoidable death of several civilians.

Edited by Wizard, 07 April 2010 - 12:45.

[CJ]

Wizard, on 7 Apr 2010, 13:44, said:

Argetlam, on 7 Apr 2010, 13:31, said:

Also, the death of the reporters is part of their job,

You have to be joking? Being a reporter in a conflict means you that have to die???? The problem here is that, the pilots either deliberately or mistakenly did not notice that there were civilians mixed with those carry firearms. They opened fire on unarmed civilians who attempted to provide medical assistance (pretty sure that breaks the Geneva Convention a few times) and did so whilst opening enjoying it. That is why I am sickened by this illegal cooperative occupation of this country that lead to the untimely and completely avoidable death of several civilians.

That's not what I meant, I was trying to say that dying is one the risks of being a reporter. Also I totally condemn the attack on the van, that I consider as a real murder, but the attack on the armed group was justified on the other hand, if you're not a "terrorist", then why are you hanging out with them? I'd personally avoid being at the same place than someone who's carrying a gun...

[Wizard]

Argetlam, on 7 Apr 2010, 13:49, said:

Wizard, on 7 Apr 2010, 13:44, said:

Argetlam, on 7 Apr 2010, 13:31, said:

Also, the death of the reporters is part of their job,

You have to be joking? Being a reporter in a conflict means you that have to die???? The problem here is that, the pilots either deliberately or mistakenly did not notice that there were civilians mixed with those carry firearms. They opened fire on unarmed civilians who attempted to provide medical assistance (pretty sure that breaks the Geneva Convention a few times) and did so whilst opening enjoying it. That is why I am sickened by this illegal cooperative occupation of this country that lead to the untimely and completely avoidable death of several civilians.

That's not what I meant, I was trying to say that dying is one the risks of being a reporter. Also I totally condemn the attack on the van, that I consider as a real murder, but the attack on the armed group was justified on the other hand, if you're not a "terrorist", then why are you hanging out with them? I'd personally avoid being at the same place than someone who's carrying a gun...

I think perhaps you might be misunderestimating how life is in Iraq and how people go about their daily lives. What about the people who lived in the house/shack they were standing in front of? Did the Apache pilot think of that when he was letting loose on them? Where we they supposed to go? Also, when you're hiding behind a wall the chances of being shot by your attackers around the corner are normally reduced. Had they known that there was an Apache hovvering a mile a way with a 30 aimed at them I doubt they would've been so close. Or perhaps they thought that it was obvious that they were civilians as they were carry CAMERAS!!!