Wikileaks Video Released!!

Originally posted by seagull
These sorts of videos have been proven wrong in the past. Or edited to show a point of view out of focus, sorry 'bout that, with what actually happened. This one apparently wasn't. I think he has allowed that past to color his view of this incident. That's all. Nothing nefarious, just mistaken.
[edit on 4/6/2010 by seagull]

I must respectfully disagree. The video is very clear. It is mass murder. Someone who cannot see that chooses not to see that.

Originally posted by MajinRoshi
reply to post by Kram09

 

But I do know that in the video the Americans wern't fired on.

You have no way in hell of knowing that. NONE. Again, you're just manufacturing facts to fit your pre-conceived notions.

No. Not manufacturing anything my friend. I see both of your points in skimming through this article but I have to call you out on this claim. Why is he right? Well, because if our (I'm an American vet) troops in the air were fired upon they would have fired right back before needing any authorization. Period. So he is NOT manufacturing anything.

My opinion on the visual weapons? First, the 'tri-pod' could have been mistaken as an AK. And the camera around the edge of the building, while they were freaking out, could have appeared to be an RPG. I cannot fault the pilot on that account.

Where I really begin to see MURDER instead of a military conflict is after the initial volley. Especially when they all brag about the nice shooting. Then double time when the gunner BEGS for the journalist to find a weapon so he can finish him.

Let alone the fact that a van showed up clearly unarmed trying to aid a wounded man. Then the sick remorseless remark about bringing kids into a battle. Just to soothe his own conscience.

That is where I have issues with how my soldiers representing ME went about this attack. Period. It was disgusting to hear the blood lust in their voices. The relishing of killing people that showed up to help their fellow man.

That's where I am sickened. Not propoganda. The title calls it what it is. It was murder.

reply to post by Kram09


It can be explained, I think, in two words: Combat Fatigue. Months of unremitting combat operations can't be easy.

Doesn't excuse it, but does explain it.

reply to post by Kram09


SkepticOverlord helped us in Denying Ignorance by amending the OP with links to the HD version of the 18 and 40 minute versions of this video.

I recommend using Downloadhelper or something to get a copy saved to your HD.

Hard to wrap myself around.

I have a brother on his third tour with special forces in Afghanistan.

Ask me what I would opt for if I had a choice between him not comming home and some innocent civilian getting killed.

I would tell you that war is stupid, it is not romantic and that everyone who sees real combat sees things they wish they had never seen...and they do things they wish they had never had to do..War is inhumane to everyone involved. No one returns from war unharmed..

Ask me to answer the original question...and I still won't answer you, but I will know the answer.

Innocent people die in war. These guys were thinking to themselves that anyone that survived might very well kill a US soldier in the following hours or days.

Were they wrong? Yes. But how would that gunner have felt if he had hesitated and an RPG struck the chopper killing his friends? Well he wouldn't have felt much...he would be dead....and his last thoughts as that RPG headed for the chopper would have been...my hesitance just killed my friends.

Hard choices that most of us will never have to face.

From a tactical perspective...they could waited for better visuals and confirmed the threat...they could have just disabled the van and survivors mean "intelligence".

I don't think these soldiers knew they were killing civilians.

They were not looking to kill civilians.

They were trying to do thier "job".

I do think it was a sloppy tactical assesment and it costs innocent lives.

I do think the footage is heartbreaking and war sucks.

Soldiers (by neccessity) err with a bias of safety toward themselves and fellow soldiers...and that bias means innocent civilians will die.

We can debate protocol, proceedure and tactics for limiting civilian casualities, but there will always be civilian casualities in wars and frankly the USA does a decent job compared to other armed forces of having protocols in place to limit civilian casualties.

My answer?....we shouldn't be there...those soldiers shouldn't be there...war is stupid...but if your son/daughter, brother or sister is there in that combat zone...will you tell them to assume everyone is a non-combatant until they open fire or explode? Or will you ask them to do whatever they need to do to stay safe and survive and come back home to you from that hell-hole?

Who killed those civilians?

The soldier that thought they had an AK-47 and RPGs? Who thought they were gathering to mount an offensive against US troops nearby?

Yes...He killed civilians.

The pilot that that confirmed the erroneous threat and relayed the authority to fire?

Yes...

The commander that gave the Pilot the ok to engage?

Yes..

The military personel that trained them and put this gunner behind the trigger?

Yes..

The US politicians that sent them there?

Yes..Big yes.

War sucks. My heart breaks for those civilians that died and thier family, but I also have sympathy for the gunner that pulled the trigger.

Suicides among United States military veterans ballooned by 26 percent from 2005 to 2007, according to new statistics released by the Veterans Affairs (VA) department

Of the more than 30,000 suicides in this country each year, fully 20 percent of them are acts by veterans,'' said VA Secretary Eric Shinseki at a VA-sponsored suicide prevention conference on Monday. "That means on average 18 veterans commit suicide each day.

ipsnews.net...

Even after returning home, many soldiers don't survive war.

War sucks...we shouldn't be there.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 6-4-2010 by maybereal11]

I've seen a post here, Somwhere in the long list of posts to this topic, that says 'Why did the people just keep walking why the Helicopters were flying around them. Surely they would've heard them", or something similar. I can't find the Actual post.

To me the Helicopter or Gun ship was quite a long way away from them. You can tell this by looking or hearing the gun fire and the time the Bullets hit.

I guess that the Soldiers were far enough away from them, they didn't think they were in Danger. The Victims, didn't even show signs of fear and didn't even run for cover after the Shots were fired.. I think they never hear the Shots Fired..

If you also look at the Camera that the Guy is holding from around the Corner of the Building, it has a pretty big Zoom Lense attached to it. I think this is while he was kneeling. It was in order to change the Lens.

Someone here must be able to calculate how far that Gunship was away from the Victims by calculating the time that the firing is heard til the time the bullets hit?

I have no idea how fast a 50mm round is. Someone must know?

I'd like to know, myself, just how far those Soldiers were from the Victims.

reply to post by rizla


We agree to disagree there I think. I disagreed with him, you may have noticed?

Accidents, which I hope to God this was (if that makes any sort of sense), don't equal a war crime.

If it was deliberate? Then yes, you may have an argument.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Kram09

 

It can be explained, I think, in two words: Combat Fatigue. Months of unremitting combat operations can't be easy.

Doesn't excuse it, but does explain it.

I can explain it. The shooter wanted to kill people. We have seen many examples of this with, I am sad to say, the American military, but of course it exists as a danger in all armies.

How many cases of friendly fire have been reported? I recall British soldier being attacked by Americans. The British soldier said at the time that the shooter (he was in a plane of some sort) was "on a jolly".

All this talk of the rpg / camera / tripod is pointless. Look at what happened afterwards with the van. There was no suggestion of threatening behavior. The shooter was crying out for permission to shoot. He was beside himself to kill those defenseless rescuers.

What a sick, sick man.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by rizla]

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by rizla

 

We agree to disagree there I think. I disagreed with him, you may have noticed?

Accidents, which I hope to God this was (if that makes any sort of sense), don't equal a war crime.

If it was deliberate? Then yes, you may have an argument.

I respect your opinion, but I believe you are giving troops too much leeway. The shooter is a mass murderer, taking advantage of his uniform. He should be imprisoned for life.

Ok, I've just read that a Soldier was able to kill a Taliban Combatant at almost 1.5 miles away.

The .50 BMG cartridge is also used in long-range target and sniper rifles, as well as other .50 machine guns. The use in single-shot and semi-automatic rifles has resulted in many specialized match-grade rounds not used in .50 machine guns. A McMillan Tac-50 .50 BMG sniper rifle was used by Canadian Corporal Rob Furlong to bring off the longest-range confirmed sniper kill in history, when he shot a Taliban combatant at 2,430 meters (2,657 yards) during the 2002 campaign in Afghanistan

en.wikipedia.org...

That's really amazing.

So, does anyone think they, the people who got shot, heard the (Helicopter or whatever Aircraft) and the Shot's being fired?

reply to post by rizla


"What a Sick, Sick Man"

My sentiments, Exactly..

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Yes, I will look into that.

Thanks.

At the end of the day I've watched a video showing a group of people being butchered.

Either way you look at it, that can't be good.

To me it's not right, whether they are the "enemy" or not.

Originally posted by Damian-007
I've seen a post here, Somwhere in the long list of posts to this topic, that says 'Why did the people just keep walking why the Helicopters were flying around them. Surely they would've heard them", or something similar. I can't find the Actual post.

To me the Helicopter or Gun ship was quite a long way away from them. You can tell this by looking or hearing the gun fire and the time the Bullets hit.

I guess that the Soldiers were far enough away from them, they didn't think they were in Danger. The Victims, didn't even show signs of fear and didn't even run for cover after the Shots were fired.. I think they never hear the Shots Fired..

If you also look at the Camera that the Guy is holding from around the Corner of the Building, it has a pretty big Zoom Lense attached to it. I think this is while he was kneeling. It was in order to change the Lens.

Someone here must be able to calculate how far that Gunship was away from the Victims by calculating the time that the firing is heard til the time the bullets hit?

I have no idea how fast a 50mm round is. Someone must know?

I'd like to know, myself, just how far those Soldiers were from the Victims.

You are quite right the gunship must have been at least 500m to a 1000m away. And they usually fly quite high when they scout the aria. The reason the people didn't react to the gunship is because of its distance and heading. They wouldn't see were the gun is pointing. And the rounds will hit them before the sound does.

These people were never a threat to the chopper. But the chopper was a threat to the people.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


In that case the Americans can't have been fired on as they claim in the video?

Can they?

Or am I mistaken?

reply to post by Archirvion

Originally posted by Archirvion To be honest,i dont see the bad thing in this video. I am also a former Elitesoldier and been in war.

Firstly I must point out that one of my best friends in the British army had done SAS selection and he went by the nickname of “Trig” because no person could map read like this man could and if you ever got lost with him around then you were obviously not on Earth anymore.

He was a member of this unit 264 signals squadron

Anyway the reason I respond to only a selection of your original post is that he told me once while both of us were very drunk in Salisbury that the way to determine those who are morally debased enough to play the game of “stolen valour” is quite simple.

A former elite soldier, American or British would never admit he was an elite soldier and he would never admit he had been in war (even to civilian friends) and would certainly never admit his past on some forum. Something about their training or esprit de corps Trig told me forbids them so I have to call a fat load of nonsense on your post not for this reason mainly but because you also seem to have forgotten about something that is fundamentally important to all soldiers – even elite soldiers.

ROE – it is not just a little card my friend, they are extremely important rules of engagement that will make sure you never get to experience a court martial and when you say...

Originally posted by Archirvion If you are uncertain of your life,shoot. Because if you dont,i promise you that they will. They WILL kill you.

That sets off alarm bells and indicates very strongly to me that you have never been a soldier and you have no idea what ROE means because if you have “been in war” and had you lived by the rules you just posted you would be serving hard time or you would be dead or your friends would be dead.

I must say to you that I am disgusted that you would use a thread regarding a dreadful war crime (in my opinion) to try and massage your ego!

I come here for truth I do not come here to be fed a load of festering “codswollop” by a someone who says he is a psychologist one day and a former elite soldier the next so as I cannot in good faith take your word in any further posts I will class you as part of the background noise in future.

I am sorry for the derailment but I felt it important enough to be addressed in public rather than private and will take the hit I assume I will take for going OT.


[edit on 6-4-2010 by SmokeJaguar67]

reply to post by rizla


Too much leeway? On that we are in total and complete agreement.

It's up to an investigation to decide whether or not it was an accidental shooting, or deliberate. One video, no matter how clear, doesn't prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything.

My whole point in this very long, and drawn out, thread, has been...it should never have happened, period. ROE's are too loose.

I know many of you are not going to agree as to how much proof that video constitutes... It's damning, yes... But we don't know what was going on before it starts. It needs investigation, not rhetorical flourishes...

reply to post by SmokeJaguar67


That must also go for all the other people who come on ATS and bang on about how they were in Armed forces and did this and that.

Good post though.

I am wondering how the pilot and gunner are feeling now with this video being out? What are the reactions of all those military personnel who've been there, in similar circumstances, where one or more of them went on a killing spree for the sake of it? What are they feeling now?

It will be interesting to see what comes out of this release? Will anyone be held accountable? Will any changes be made?

If more of these get out maybe the war will even be ended sooner than planned. One can only hope.

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by spy66

 

In that case the Americans can't have been fired on as they claim in the video?

Can they?

Or am I mistaken?

No they never did. I have tried to see if there is any engagement by the people on the ground towards the chopper, but i cant see any hostile aggression from them at all. They only know that the chopper is there, but they dont seam to know that they are a target of observation. That's why they are so relaxed.