NFSW (very graphic) :Wikileaks releases video footage of journalist killings

[DukeN]

http://collateralmurder.com/

This is really, really sad and depressing.

The initial part is (by a very long stretch) marginally justifiable, but the attack on the rescuing van is just gut wrenching. The cover up is possibly a bigger story here, but this one just makes your heart go out.

I've always felt the need to support the troops even if you disagree with the cause, but if this is the general kill-happy reactions that the soldiers embody as their only goal then they share the blame.

I'm sure the Iraqis are enjoying their "freedom" from their rescuing soldier heroes. [\sarcasm]

 

[Sclamoz]

Wikileaks has lost all credibility with me after this stunt. The initial engagement was 100% correct, engaging the van was questionable, but its common to engage people trying to save wounded enemy as they have intelligence value. As far as the journalists go I'm sure they were aware they were in a warzone.

 

[yllus]

Assuming the information coming over the audio of the provided video is correct, how is the initial engagement not justifiable? They had a group armed with rifles and one man with an RPG, taking position at a corner and peeking out at apparently a small detachment of U.S. soldiers in Humvees (roughly at the 4:20 mark of the video).

If these were noncombatant Reuters staff why were they literally running around Baghdad with a bunch of men with AK-47s and an RPG? Holding a camera doesn't mean soldiers won't (or shouldn't) shoot at you.

 

[Praxis1452]

Assuming the information coming over the audio of the provided video is correct, how is the initial engagement not justifiable? They had a group armed with rifles and one man with an RPG, taking position at a corner and peeking out at apparently a small detachment of U.S. soldiers in Humvees (roughly at the 4:20 mark of the video).

If these were noncombatant Reuters staff running around Baghdad with a bunch of men with AK-47s and an RPG? Holding a camera doesn't mean soldiers won't (or shouldn't) shoot at you.

I think that the argument put forth was that the rpg's are camera or something. That's not my position, but it's what I've read.

 

[theflyingpig]

Assuming the information coming over the audio of the provided video is correct, how is the initial engagement not justifiable? They had a group armed with rifles and one man with an RPG, taking position at a corner and peeking out at apparently a small detachment of U.S. soldiers in Humvees (roughly at the 4:20 mark of the video).

If these were noncombatant Reuters staff why were they literally running around Baghdad with a bunch of men with AK-47s and an RPG? Holding a camera doesn't mean soldiers won't (or shouldn't) shoot at you.

Any opportunity to turn the US military into murderers is reason enough to post.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

On that note...

U.S. Admits Role in Killing of Afghan Women
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/asia/06afghan.html?hp

 

[PJABBER]

From watching the video, it is clear that the attack helicopters were perfectly justified in shooting at the group. Carrying weapons in a war zone, much less aiming them at troops or civilians, subjects you to the possibility, the likelihood, that you will be attacked and killed.

If you have watched any other gun cam videos of similar engagements you would see multiple instances of insurgent support vehicles attempting to gather up survivors, dead and weapons. They are all subsequently engaged as well, if possible.

Please note that the wounded individual in the video was not engaged so long as he did not reach for a possible weapon. If he did he would have been killed.

Being a journalist embedded amidst enemy combatants carries a very high risk that you will be killed along with the insurgents. That happened in this case.

The occupants of the Bongo van should not have attempted to enter the area to pick up the insurgents. It is criminal that they did so carrying children and putting them at risk.

The military was justified in the attack, showed restraint in the engagement, followed established procedures and did exactly what they were there to do - close with and destroy the enemy.

That non-enemy persons were hurt in the process is the sole responsibility of those who chose to be there amongst the insurgents and those who chose to bring children into the engagement. The latter must be condemned without reservation.

 

[Sclamoz]

Assuming the information coming over the audio of the provided video is correct, how is the initial engagement not justifiable? They had a group armed with rifles and one man with an RPG, taking position at a corner and peeking out at apparently a small detachment of U.S. soldiers in Humvees (roughly at the 4:20 mark of the video).

If these were noncombatant Reuters staff why were they literally running around Baghdad with a bunch of men with AK-47s and an RPG? Holding a camera doesn't mean soldiers won't (or shouldn't) shoot at you.

The guy peeking around the corner actually had a camera. I had to watch it twice to see that because it really looks like hes holding an rpg over his shoulder.

I'm guessing these "journalists" are locals paid by Reuters to do their dirty work. During the Iraq war western journalists were to scared of leaving the greenzone without American soldiers so they paid locals to do the job. Some of them were jihad types who used the camera equipment they got to shoot the jihad movies of humvees getting hit by IEDs and the like.

This has been portrayed by wikileaks as coverup yet here is a news article about the incident in 07:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[thehstrybean]

The guy peeking around the corner actually had a camera. I had to watch it twice to see that because it really looks like hes holding an rpg over his shoulder.

I'm guessing these "journalists" are locals paid by Reuters to do their dirty work. During the Iraq war western journalists were to scared of leaving the greenzone without American soldiers so they paid locals to do the job. Some of them were jihad types who used the camera equipment they got to shoot the jihad movies of humvees getting hit by IEDs and the like.

This has been portrayed by wikileaks as coverup yet here is a news article about the incident in 07:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Actually, one of the journalists was a pretty-well known reporter in Iraq. His father had been a reporter, so was he...it's wasn't some "dirty work" thing...

While the attack was justified, it's very hard to watch, still. Civilians died. What's gets me is "I just ran over a body...hahaha"...

As for the coverup: Read up a little bit more on the history of this engagement. Reuters wanted the video and the gov't FIRA-blocked them. The initial articles all said that "journalists die in a clash with militia". Just from reading different things throughout the day, it seems like Reuters pursued this pretty hard, despite the Pentagon calling this a "militia attack". Props for the journalism to Reuters for hounding the gov't.

 

[PJABBER]

The guy peeking around the corner actually had a camera. I had to watch it twice to see that because it really looks like hes holding an rpg over his shoulder.

I'm guessing these "journalists" are locals paid by Reuters to do their dirty work. During the Iraq war western journalists were to scared of leaving the greenzone without American soldiers so they paid locals to do the job. Some of them were jihad types who used the camera equipment they got to shoot the jihad movies of humvees getting hit by IEDs and the like.

You see people carrying slinged tubes in the vicinity of an active engagement and you can interpret those to be weapons very readily. The way the identified journalists were carrying the cameras slung and the relatively short length, however, would not be indicators of an RPG. But this opinion is based on a second careful viewing, my first impression was that they were carrying slung RPG launch tubes.

There was a guy in the background walking behind the identified journalists that had a long object that was the right length for an RPG and the way he was moving the weight around would be as well. Right next to that guy was someone carrying what appears to be a wire stock AK. Can't tell if they are part of the group that gathers at the corner a few seconds later.

Obviously the pilots and gunners thought the group was hostile and were about to engage the ground troops and Bradleys down the block.

The attack helicopters have an overwatch responsibility which they take very seriously and which they did professionally. That "innocent" people died is a tragedy but not an uncommon one. There are untold numbers of such tragedies in every war, they are part and parcel of war.

There are lessons to be learned here as we debate and judge without adrenaline pumping through our veins and without the immediate concern the aviators had for the lives of fellow soldiers that are coming under fire and might be further engaged by a gathering enemy. The lessons, however, are not those implied by the WikiLeaks web site.

 

[xj0hnx]

Who ever added the closed captions to that video is a tool, or a fool. Where he says "Fucking Prick", it is actually saying something "Break", it's two sets of radio traffic, and they turned up the volume on that call just to make it sound like they said that. Also, towards the end I can clearly hear someone relying that the hospital they were going to take the children to was closed for some reason, but the video kind of drown it out, and then tries to make you think they just decided to send them to a civilian hospital.

 

[Sacrilege]

You can damn well be sure the attitude of the soldiers on the front lines is: better a million Iraqis, and a million Reuters "journalists" embedded with insurgents die before one American soldier.

And if you think this is bad, go watch some video of the convoys shooting up Iraqi cars on the roads.

 

[theflyingpig]

You can damn well be sure the attitude of the soldiers on the front lines is: better a million Iraqis, and a million Reuters "journalists" embedded with insurgents die before one American soldier.

And if you think this is bad, go watch some video of the convoys shooting up Iraqi cars on the roads.

Sounds like the right attitude to have.

 

[xj0hnx]

Sounds like the right attitude to have.

And yet we still have a great record of balancing force protection, and collateral damage.

 

[jpeyton]

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Sacrilege]

And yet we still have a great record of balancing force protection, and collateral damage.

We should be fighting like we did in romantic WWII, and firebomb them from 25,000 ft. And don't bring any cameras, so people at home won't get outraged.

 

[PJABBER]

Absolutely disgusting.

I agree. It took way too long to get clearance to engage. By the time the guy was aiming around the corner the primary attack helicopter was blocked from firing and the guy could have sent his round downrange. Which is why the pilot and gunner were so pissed.

()

 

[alchemize]

Absolutely disgusting.

Just pretend they were teabaggers. It will make it a wonderful experience for you.

 

[theflyingpig]

We should be fighting like we did in romantic WWII, and firebomb them from 25,000 ft. And don't bring any cameras, so people at home won't get outraged.

That strategy worked well. Look at Japan now, there making synthetic women! How much more emasculated could they be?

 

[Genx87]

We should be fighting like we did in romantic WWII, and firebomb them from 25,000 ft. And don't bring any cameras, so people at home won't get outraged.

There is plenty of video of our bombing raids in WWII, including the almighty nuke.

 

[manowar821]

Sounds like the right attitude to have.

Yeah dude, and you know who else had the right idea? The nazis! /dripping-sarcasm

You people think you have some kind of fucking "god-given" pedestal to stand on, over the rest of the human population, but you don't.

You're one of the... What do they call them..? Oh yeah, "bad guys"!

 

[CitizenKain]

What, the rightwingers blindly defending murder of innocents? How typical.

For a supposed group of insurgents, they sure seemed to be standing around awfully casual like, and also didn't have any weapons.

 

[cubeless]

man those stabilized cameras work good for a smooth picture, but the resolution just isn't good enough to see exactly who's holding what... and i wonder if the guys even saw the kids, since they were probably kind of focused on the people outside the van...

a lousy situation...

the question seems to be "did the rules of engagement change after this?"... are they still allowed to engage people doing a pickup if they aren't carrying a weapon? touch a weapon and you doom your whole group, though...

 

[PJABBER]

What, the rightwingers blindly defending murder of innocents? How typical.

For a supposed group of insurgents, they sure seemed to be standing around awfully casual like, and also didn't have any weapons.

You haven't a clue, have you?

Sigh, these gun cam videos and audio are regularly declassified to act as a deterrent and to inform the public. If you are a bad guy and you see them on the Internet you hopefully get the idea that you have a good chance of facing death from above and stop your activities.

There are hundreds of these videos available for viewing if you are interested. Watching one, particularly one with the agenda commentary the WikiLeaks have, hardly makes you an informed commentator yourself.

The above video was the lead on Al Jazeera today though the engagement was from 2007. Don't think that enemy propaganda doesn't use the embedded WikiLeaks site commentary on video like this, and on their own videos where their actions are portrayed as heroic, to sway public opinion.

FWIW, Another Apache Gun Cam Video From The Same Time Period

 

[OCGuy]

War is hell.