[Onervemurce]

Comment: The US government has denied Freedom of Information requests detailing the gunning down of Iraqi civilians, however, the website Wikileaks obtained the disturbing video, replete with the gunman laughing. At one point one of the gunman radios to command that a van has come to pick up bodies and more weapons (which per the video is clearly a lie). They request permission to engage, and proceed to shoot up the van (that was also carrying two children who were injured).

A crewman begs for permission to open fire on the van and its occupants, even though it has done nothing but stop to help the wounded: "Come on, let us shoot!" After the gunman find out that children had been hit, this is what they had to say:

"Well it's their fault for bringing kids in to a battle," says one. "That's right," says another. Except there was no battle. The men on the ground clearly present no danger to or provoked the helicopter. The helicopter brought the "battle" to the kids.

Two journalists were among those that were killed.

The following UK article has the story:

Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians | World news | The Guardian


Huffington Post contains the video. I have been advised not to directly link to the video so I will not provide a link to the Huffington Post. Warning: Graphic and disturbing.

As if the murder of civilians wasn't bad enough, it was the cover-up that makes it that much worse. The cover-up is conscience of guilt, in my opinion.

The following is the New York Times parrot of the official military version:

The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.


"There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force," said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.
Except the video tells an entirely different story.

[Freedjome]

Comment: The US government has denied Freedom of Information requests detailing the gunning down of Iraqi civilians, however, the website Wikileaks obtained the disturbing video, replete with the gunman laughing. At one point one of the gunman radios to command that a van has come to pick up bodies and more weapons (which per the video is clearly a lie). They request permission to engage, and proceed to shoot up the van (that was also carrying two children who were injured).



After the gunman find out that children had been hit, this is what they had to say:



Except there was no battle. The men on the ground clearly present no danger to or provoked the helicopter. The helicopter brought the "battle" to the kids.

Two journalists were among those that were killed.

The following UK article has the story:

Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians | World news | The Guardian


Huffington Post contains the video. I have been advised not to directly link to the video so I will not provide a link to the Huffington Post. Warning: Graphic and disturbing.

As if the murder of civilians wasn't bad enough, it was the cover-up that makes it that much worse. The cover-up is conscience of guilt, in my opinion.

The following is the New York Times parrot of the official military version:

The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.


"There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force," said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.
Except the video tells an entirely different story.

Truly disturbing piece of video...

[Veronnisa]

I've seen this video. It's worth mentioning that this happened in 2007 when things were much more unstable and violent in Iraq then they are now.

I can't be certain from viewing this on the internet whether any of these guys were armed with an RPG. I would assume that the helicopter had higher resolution optics available than the grainy vid that we have been presented with. And we don't know the context.....did they just spot these guys from the air or did they have intel from the ground that alerted them to look for the group?

On the other hand...when they "cleaned up" after the initial strike, it seemed pretty excessive.

This is war....this is tragic whether those were legitimate armed insurgents in that group or not. An RPG is specifically used to take out ground vehicles or helicopters and helicopters have been lost to rpg fire......if they indeed had one, I would grant the helicopter crew a bit of slack in the expressions of satisfaction b/c they likely perceived that they just defended/protected themselves.

The thing is...we simply can't draw a solid conclusion from this video. What it looks like to any particular person likely isn't exactly what it is.

[mikaelluioy]

Textbook case of war crime. It only makes you wonder how many other videos are out there for other such crimes.

[remstaling]

I saw that video earlier today and it's important to put things in their proper context.

1. The video was from 2007 during the height of the "surge". There were roaming gangs of insurgents everywhere and the group that was engaged squarely fit the profile.

2. The edit on the video does a nice job of pointing out the photographers camera but neglects to point out weapons held by the other group members.

3. The van that was shot up WAS NOT a marked emergency vehicle. Vans like this were used throughout Bahdad to transport weapons, IED's and enemy wounded. It was a perfectly legitimate target ESPECIALLY since occupants other than the ones assisting the wounded guy could also bee seen inside the van.

4. The van was engaged, among other reasons, because a bushmaster team was on their way to clear the area. The van could very easily have been hiding explosives for the purpose of ambushing the team.

5. The one thing that this video DEFINITELY shows is that combat doesn't always work out the same as it appears in the movies or on an X-box.

[amotoustict]

I saw that video earlier today and it's important to put things in their proper context.

1. The video was from 2007 during the height of the "surge". There were roaming gangs of insurgents everywhere and the group that was engaged squarely fit the profile.

2. The edit on the video does a nice job of pointing out the photographers camera but neglects to point out weapons held by the other group members.

3. The van that was shot up WAS NOT a marked emergency vehicle. Vans like this were used throughout Bahdad to transport weapons, IED's and enemy wounded. It was a perfectly legitimate target ESPECIALLY since occupants other than the ones assisting the wounded guy could also bee seen inside the van.

4. The van was engaged, among other reasons, because a bushmaster team was on their way to clear the area. The van could very easily have been hiding explosives for the purpose of ambushing the team.

5. The one thing that this video DEFINITELY shows is that combat doesn't always work out the same as it appears in the movies or on an X-box.

Let's give your assertions the benefit of the doubt (the "gang" didn't look threatening at all). What about the cover-up? If everything was on the up and up, why the need to fabricate a story?

[maonnjtip]

I saw that video earlier today and it's important to put things in their proper context.

1. The video was from 2007 during the height of the "surge". There were roaming gangs of insurgents everywhere and the group that was engaged squarely fit the profile.

2. The edit on the video does a nice job of pointing out the photographers camera but neglects to point out weapons held by the other group members.

3. The van that was shot up WAS NOT a marked emergency vehicle. Vans like this were used throughout Bahdad to transport weapons, IED's and enemy wounded. It was a perfectly legitimate target ESPECIALLY since occupants other than the ones assisting the wounded guy could also bee seen inside the van.

4. The van was engaged, among other reasons, because a bushmaster team was on their way to clear the area. The van could very easily have been hiding explosives for the purpose of ambushing the team.

5. The one thing that this video DEFINITELY shows is that combat doesn't always work out the same as it appears in the movies or on an X-box.

Yet the killers are talking and laughing as if it is precisely that.

Andrew

[Kilaoksrsa]

I have seen the video twice, minus the extra garbage in the first 3 minutes put in by the host that is.
With an open mind, I can clearly see how/why the initial attack took place. Clearly you can see a man carrying an AK-47, another with what does appear to be an RPG.
In the middle of this is two guys carrying cameras with a strap. It is not difficult to mistake the two cameras for weapons.
Especially when one of them huddles down against a wall/partially hidden and points the camera directly at the Apache Helicopter...HELLO??? That is beyond stupid!
A cameraman in the midst of two armed men...points his camera at a distant war bird...are you friggin' nuts?

The second shooting is harder to determine. It appears like the gunner might have believed that one of the men were picking up the weapon...who knows.
But again - how f*cking stupid is it to drive an unmarked van filled with children into a fire fight...beyond irresponsible...it is reprehensible.

[MADwanker]

There was a visibly armed group with ak-47's. What were the two journalists doing with them? Unless of course, they were security detail. Than they wouldn't be insurgents. Also though, who knew that they weren't insurgents. You can argue about rules of engagement if thats the case. But also, how many other engagements occurred liked this that were similar that were insurgents. It's easy to see how they are similar. Two days ago : Group of hardcore insurgents. Today : armed group with ak-47's (where apparently a journalist was nearby).

I'm still divided on who they were. But they were armed. And it goes to show, the US military isn't gonna fire warning shots, and you are not going to get away. Even if your crawling your gonna be assumed hostile. It's that 30 second engagement window, that doesn't quit. After the dusk settled, you can see the visibly wounded guy, and the Apache crew watching his intent. Then a van pulls up. With people running out. It is true, this is nothing like hollywood or xbox. Graphic.

[Franchise]

Looks like war to me, it's horrible, but that's what war is. I don't see any misconduct here.

[XarokLasa]

I have seen the video twice, minus the extra garbage in the first 3 minutes put in by the host that is.
With an open mind, I can clearly see how/why the initial attack took place. Clearly you can see a man carrying an AK-47, another with what does appear to be an RPG.
In the middle of this is two guys carrying cameras with a strap. It is not difficult to mistake the two cameras for weapons.
Especially when one of them huddles down against a wall/partially hidden and points the camera directly at the Apache Helicopter...HELLO??? That is beyond stupid!
A cameraman in the midst of two armed men...points his camera at a distant war bird...are you friggin' nuts?

There is no indication that any of them were carrying weapons.

And really, how stupid are the people in the helicopter? do they really think that a bunch of insurgents would be calmly milling about in the middle of a street with an Apache hovering overhead? The fuckers in the helicopter saw exactly what they wanted to see so they could get some killin' done. This is murder, plain and simple.

The second shooting is harder to determine. It appears like the gunner might have believed that one of the men were picking up the weapon...who knows. But again - how f*cking stupid is it to drive an unmarked van filled with children into a fire fight...beyond irresponsible...it is reprehensible. No. It was clear that the murderer in the helicopter desperately wanted the man crawling and dying on the ground to pick up a weapon. That is why he said: "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." Apparently murder is so much fun and apparently funny that he was not quite satisfied yet. Maybe he was just going for a high score?

You sound like the idiots who justify shooting children by stating that they should not bring their children to battle? Huh? What fucking battle? The van was clearly picking up wounded and dead obviously to assist them, it was not threatening in any way whatsoever.

And to top it all off, after they discover the wounded children they decide to send them to some local hospital rather than giving them the same treatment that a wounded soldier would get.

Andrew

[kaysions]

There was a visibly armed group with ak-47's. What were the two journalists doing with them? Unless of course, they were security detail. Than they wouldn't be insurgents. Also though, who knew that they weren't insurgents.

I'm still divided on who they were. But they were armed. And it goes to show, the US military isn't gonna fire warning shots, and you are not going to get away. Even if your crawling your gonna be assumed hostile. It's that 30 second engagement window, that doesn't quit. After the dusk settled, you can see the visibly wounded guy, and the Apache crew watching his intent. Then a van pulls up. With people running out. It is true, this is nothing like hollywood or xbox. Graphic.

Ditto.
It is ugly, it is horrific, it is unfortunate...and it is war.
It is all too easy for us, sitting in our comfy chair wondering how much beer we have left in the fridge to play armchair quarterback and second guess decisions. Add a general hatred of the military, and fierce hatred of the Iraq war...then it is a simple step by calling it "murder" and make it out as a war crime.
Whatever.
People were dying everyday then by roadside bombs, RPG attacks etc. - In the middle of all of this you are walking around carrying weapons???...your asking for a quick end to your life.

[xresultsearch]

Textbook case of war crime.

No it isn't. It's an excellent example of how difficult things can be to sort out in a combat zone, we have the luxury of not being in a helicopter with people shooting at us and can spend longer questioning if what was being carried was a weapon or not.

[crycleascentyv]

There is no indication that any of them were carrying weapons.

Other then the objects slung over the soldiers of a few of the men and the object being held by the guy hiding behind the corner of the building.

And really, how stupid are the people in the helicopter? do they really think that a bunch of insurgents would be calmly milling about in the middle of a street with an Apache hovering overhead? How worried did the men in the van look about the APACHE helicopters when they came to fetch folks laying about? Did you notice the crowd of 20 or so very quickly became a crowd of only 8 or so? The men in the helicopters don't have time to review the tapes before acting.

[Gcromqgb]

No it isn't. It's an excellent example of how difficult things can be to sort out in a combat zone, we have the luxury of not being in a helicopter with people shooting at us and can spend longer questioning if what was being carried was a weapon or not.

You can make up all kinds of excuses, but this, but that, etc. Law is law, simply refer to Fourth Geneva Convention P1 Article 3a. There are no provision for the excuses you have just given.

Even Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said on national TV, "the rules of engagements were not followed." He explains, when air power is involved, you need to use minimum force. and second, you need to capture and interrogate.

[Rapiddude]

Well....

My take is;

I didn’t see but 2 guys with AK’s and one possibly with a machine gun or hes just really short ( he is standing next to someone a lot taller and when he put the butt of the weapon down it stood up looked like a MG.

There is no way I see a man with an RPG. I think the vid is clear enough. The guy at the corner crouching down, had a large long lens camera against his chest, there is no round in the “rpg” , it would be clearly seen as it is conical and comes to a point, an RPG is approx. 4 feet long, has a overhead/side mounted sight and a bulbous rear end....when they initially walked up the street before the chopper went behind the building and lost them for a second there is NO RPG visible, anywhere, I don’t know how the pilot made that leap. No one is wearing a bandoleer with rpg rounds, or any web gear for that matter.

The pilot also said he had a guy shooting just before they move behind the building, I didn’t see any muzzle flashes, smoke or recoil.

The audio appears incongruous to me actually, something’s off.


I played it a coupla of times without the audio, if I had to make a call what I was watching sans audio, I’d say they thought these guys on the street had intel on an ambush or something going down, were going to observe an ambush or IED explosion via ambush and were setting up for a camera shot. They wanted to take them out as sympathizers/collaborators etc.

All after the initial firing etc. well, the van is unmarked and could have been pulling up to render assistance and had hostile intent, having kids in the van rolling up to an area that just scant moments before had been hit, is, well beyond stupid, they apparently didn’t see or hear what hit the other grp. and did not even stop to think the chopper or whatever had done that damage was still in the area? Tragic, and it could have been avoided by at least, dumping the kids off further back.

[averkif]

You can make up all kinds of excuses, but this, but that, etc. Law is law, simply refer to Fourth Geneva Convention P1 Article 3a. There are no provision for the excuses you have just given.

Even Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said on national TV, "the rules of engagements were not followed." He explains, when air power is involved, you need to use minimum force. and second, you need to capture and interrogate.

They did use minimum force.
They don't carry stun guns up there.

[SzefciuCba]

And really, how stupid are the people in the helicopter? do they really think that a bunch of insurgents would be calmly milling about in the middle of a street with an Apache hovering overhead? The fuckers in the helicopter saw exactly what they wanted to see so they could get some killin' done. This is murder, plain and simple.

It's not easy to tell how far away a helicopter is when you can't see it, particularly one designed to have a low noise footprint.

Here's video of several individuals planting an IED. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUsu9SKz7zk

Notice how unconcerned they are about the helicopter. Just for interest, notice how concerned they are about the child the IED crew brought with them.

Clearly, your assumption that the helicopter would be easily heard and that insurgents wouldn't "mill about" is a bit divorced from reality.

Matt

[bebeacc]

And whoever kept on asserting that July 2007 (time which the said event took place) was one of the most violent times in Iraq since it's occupation, a simple fact check reveals it to be untrue.

U.S. Casualties in Iraq

July 07 did not come even near the top ten most violent months, nor was 2007 the most violent year. It fell pretty much on the average. So there is really no need to make stuff up to overdramticize how bad it was.

[MeeveStesia]

They did use minimum force.
They don't carry stun guns up there.

yeah, pumping another dozen rounds of 30 mm into an unarmed, wounded guy crawling on the floor is turely minmal at its best.