Wikileaks video of combat in Iraq

[Guest American Woman]

....so what you're saying is that there should be censorship? Isn't that what the media is there for to begin with? That if the army screws up and kills a whole bunch of civilians, that in a democratic society the voters should be able to see what their money pays for and who breaks the law?

First of all, he didn't say there should be censorship. He said in this instance, the media paid a high price for their choice to be there.

Secondly, I'm not so sure the media is there just waiting for the army to "screw up." Never thought that was their primary reason for being there. I thought it was to report the news.

Most of the journalists that go don't go to cash in on their "films." For the most part they get paid terribly and are put in horribly dangerous situations so they can file small stories which are buried in the 18th page of a shitty paper or website.

Most people going to Hollywood looking for stardom don't find it, either; they are paid terribly for bit parts and their names are buried in the credits. Doesn't mean they aren't going there hoping for stardom, and the reporters going to war zones are likely not there for the terrible pay, but rather with hopes of 'stardom;' ie: to cash in on the film.

Any reporter going to a war zone knows the risks. They have to dodge the action, not the other way around.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Uhhh, there's been nothing to prove there were any bad guys. Did not see any weapons at all.

Then you weren't looking close enough.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Any reporter going to a war zone knows the risks. They have to dodge the action, not the other way around.

Agreed....Pulitzer Prize seekers don't always get to collect. I just don't like how some of the media is singling out the reporters as extra special "victims". Sleep with dogs....get 30mm armor piercing rounds.

[bush_cheney2004]

Uhhh, there's been nothing to prove there were any bad guys. Did not see any weapons at all.

They aren't bad guys anymore....now they are dead guys.

Secondly, so what you're saying is that there should be censorship? Isn't that what the media is there for to begin with? That if the army screws up and kills a whole bunch of civilians, that in a democratic society the voters should be able to see what their money pays for and who breaks the law?

What laws were broken? Most "democratic societies" have never seen the pointed ends of their killing machines, and don't want to.

[xul]

What did you think combat was going to be like....a clean surgical enviroment...full of sane men taking thier time and making sane decisions ....you got a small visual sample of combat....Murphys law says anything that can go wrong will go wrong....

in the bad guys case thier entire day went to shit....in the medias case should have picked the winning side to film....Bad guys were out to kill some americans....the media guys were there to cash in on that film....both paid a heavy price...

And to answer your question, Canadian ROE's are alot tighter but this scene would be a lawful shoot...

I think American Woman always misses your most informative posts.....

[xul]

Any reporter going to a war zone knows the risks. They have to dodge the action, not the other way around.

I agree with you on this. I also can understand the pilot or the gunners of the helicopter mistaken the camera as a RPG. It's a tragedy but sometime unavoidable in an engagement.

But I just can't help having problem with the second round of shooting. There was a man laying wounded on the street, then there was a van came to pick him up, and obviously the destination was a hospital not the front line. And there were no weapons mentioned before the second round of shooting. Why does the second round of shooting need? Even if they believed the wounded man was a militiaman, but he had been wounded and then some people, maybe doctors or his families who unarmed as the video shows, came to pick him up to hospital. What's wrong with that?

Edited April 8, 2010 by xul

[Guest TrueMetis]

I agree with you on this. I also can understand the pilot or the gunners of the helicopter mistaken the camera as a RPG. It's a tragedy but sometime unavoidable in an engagement.

They didn't just mistake the camera for an RPG they saw actual RPG's.

But I just can't help having problem with the second round of shooting. There was a man laying wounded on the street, then there was a van came to pick him up, and obviously the destination was a hospital not the front line. And there were no weapons mentioned before the second round of shooting. Why does the second round of shooting need? Even if they believed the wounded man was a militiaman, but he had been wounded and then some people, maybe doctors or his families who unarmed as the video shows, came to pick him up to hospital. What's wrong with that?

They didn't want more insurgents picking up the weapons and picking up the other insurgents.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Even if they believed the wounded man was a militiaman, but he had been wounded and then some people, maybe doctors or his families who unarmed as the video shows, came to pick him up to hospital. What's wrong with that?

They didn't want wounded militiaman...they wanted dead militiaman.

[Handsome Rob]

But I just can't help having problem with the second round of shooting. There was a man laying wounded on the street, then there was a van came to pick him up, and obviously the destination was a hospital not the front line. And there were no weapons mentioned before the second round of shooting. Why does the second round of shooting need? Even if they believed the wounded man was a militiaman, but he had been wounded and then some people, maybe doctors or his families who unarmed as the video shows, came to pick him up to hospital. What's wrong with that?

They didn't want more insurgents picking up the weapons and picking up the other insurgents.

The greater reason is that the bodies are often rigged with traps and IED's, not allowed to touch.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The greater reason is that the bodies are often rigged with traps and IED's, not allowed to touch.

I did not know that.

Edited April 8, 2010 by TrueMetis

[BCMan]

Accidents in combats are acceptable but the soldiers in this video are just looking for a reason to shoot. An accident would be if there was a weapon and those Iraqis were from the national Army. If this incident is even close to an accident then what is stopping those soldiers to just go around killing civilians and declare it an accident.

Furthermore; if it was an accident there would be no censorship of the video and the US army would not attempt to cover it up. Many US Army officers have said that this was a total violation of ROE and not an accident (check reports on Google News).

If I had seen someone shooting as called by one soldier in the video, my comments would have been different but it’s clear that there was no offensive from the ground. The chopper was in the view for a while and insurgents would have responded.

You seem to have no knowledge of the dangers that journalists face in warzones. Would you put your life on the line every day if I pay you a million dollar or would you let your son take the job?

My comment about the Canadian Army was in reference to the handling of the Afghan prisoners by the Canadian Army.

What did you think combat was going to be like....a clean surgical enviroment...full of sane men taking thier time and making sane decisions ....you got a small visual sample of combat....Murphys law says anything that can go wrong will go wrong....

in the bad guys case thier entire day went to shit....in the medias case should have picked the winning side to film....Bad guys were out to kill some americans....the media guys were there to cash in on that film....both paid a heavy price...

And to answer your question, Canadian ROE's are alot tighter but this scene would be a lawful shoot...

Edited April 8, 2010 by BCMan

[Guest TrueMetis]

If I had seen a weapon or someone shooting as called by one soldier in the video, my comments would have been different but it’s clear that there was no weapon at the scene.

I'm going to post this one more time though IMHO everyone should have been able to pick up on this the first time.

My link

If you say the thing it shows in that clip is not an RPG you're a liar.

You could also read the investigation that I linked either. I am so freaking tired of this there were no weapons at the scene crap.

Edited April 8, 2010 by TrueMetis

[KeyStone]

It seems that most of you haven't watched the entire video.

Let's discuss the first round of shooting.

There have been insurgents in the area. They see some men walking in Baghdad, with what appears to be guns and they open fire.

While it's understandable that the reporters are killed given that they were not wearing proper press attire, and given that they were embedded with weapon carriers, it does seem odd that the rules of engagement allow for the killing of anyone with a weapon. At no point do the shooters verify the identity of the shooters, or suggest that they have committed some sort of crime. The only information that they seem to have is that they have weapons, and they are not US soldiers. Other than that, they don't seem overly concerned about their lives.

If the US military is to cowardly to get within range of the alleged insurgents to confirm either their involvement in wrongdoings or their ill intentions, then they should not be in Iraq. When you are trying to win hearts and minds, that sometimes means putting yourself in additional danger to gather the information necessary to avoid killing innocents and offering the enemy a chance to surrender.

In the second shooting, they open fire on people that clearly have no weapons, and are just loading the wounded into the van.

To open fire on these people is simply inexcusable and cowardly. The general US attitude seems to be that they are the 'bad guys', and therefore killing them, or their supporters is completely acceptable. Neither the wounded man crawling on the ground (while the shooters pray he finds a weapon so they can justify killing him) or the people loading wounded into the van, posed a threat of any kind. The rational thing to have done here would have been to have US ground soldiers advance on the position, secure the area, and then assist the wounded.

The final thing to consider is the ramifications of this. Firstly, the people shown on the video show a complete disregard and detachment for the lives they are taking. They seem to be having fun killing people, as if they are playing a video game. At no point in the video, does anyone suggest being cautious about killing innocent people, offering a chance to surrender, or attending to the wounded. If this video is any indication, that would seem to be standard operating procedure for the US military.

I would be curious to know if any punishments were doled out as the result of this video. Clearly, the US military has had this in their possession for some time. If these actions are out of the ordinary, then it would stand to reason that someone would be punished. But, it would seem that is not the case, as I have seen US military figures defend every action taken on this video. This is how the US military operates. This is not how hearts and minds are won. The US seems to consistently need reminding that its current reason for being in Iraq is for the people.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It seems that most of you haven't watched the entire video.

Let's discuss the first round of shooting.

There have been insurgents in the area. They see some men walking in Baghdad, with what appears to be guns and they open fire.

While it's understandable that the reporters are killed given that they were not wearing proper press attire, and given that they were embedded with weapon carriers, it does seem odd that the rules of engagement allow for the killing of anyone with a weapon. At no point do the shooters verify the identity of the shooters, or suggest that they have committed some sort of crime. The only information that they seem to have is that they have weapons, and they are not US soldiers. Other than that, they don't seem overly concerned about their lives.

Insurgents had been shooting at a convoy in the area that's why the apaches were out there to provide support. In those circumstance anyone with a weapon is a threat. The problem with the video is that even though it is long it doesn't give context in what happened beforehand.

The final thing to consider is the ramifications of this. Firstly, the people shown on the video show a complete disregard and detachment for the lives they are taking. They seem to be having fun killing people, as if they are playing a video game. At no point in the video, does anyone suggest being cautious about killing innocent people, offering a chance to surrender, or attending to the wounded. If this video is any indication, that would seem to be standard operating procedure for the US military.

You do realize this is a coping method right? If they didn't do this nearly every soldier in the military would quickly go insane.

I would be curious to know if any punishments were doled out as the result of this video. Clearly, the US military has had this in their possession for some time. If these actions are out of the ordinary, then it would stand to reason that someone would be punished. But, it would seem that is not the case, as I have seen US military figures defend every action taken on this video. This is how the US military operates. This is not how hearts and minds are won. The US seems to consistently need reminding that its current reason for being in Iraq is for the people.

Read the investigation. It essentially states the pilots and gunners were justified in their actions.

Edited April 8, 2010 by TrueMetis

[dizzy]

We've lost reporters' lives on both sides. Press badges and red crosses no longer have any value on the frontlines. One of the challenges with covering war today is the requirement to embed. On both sides it forces a sort of stockholm syndrome, a close sympathy with the group in which you are embedded. I only say that to provide some context for the seemingly casual engagement between Namir Noor-Eldeen and the rest of the group in the video. He was a fair target but not a bad guy.

Just like soldiers, reporters know the risks involved with working/living in a theatre of war.

This was an unfortunate event, but understandable. Asking for american forces to take the time to positively confirm the identity of the targets is based on another syndrome - CSI syndrome, the belief that technology and capability exists as it does on TV. It doesn't. Decisions have to be made quickly with the best possible info available in the moment. Most of the time, this leads to correct outcomes. But we also have to remember that this is a war environment, not a hollywood movie.

[bush_cheney2004]

....If the US military is to cowardly to get within range of the alleged insurgents to confirm either their involvement in wrongdoings or their ill intentions, then they should not be in Iraq. When you are trying to win hearts and minds, that sometimes means putting yourself in additional danger to gather the information necessary to avoid killing innocents and offering the enemy a chance to surrender.

Nope...that's not how it works...the enemy is to be engaged and killed based on previous experience. "Chance to surrender" is wishful thinking...even the enemy would laugh.

I would be curious to know if any punishments were doled out as the result of this video. Clearly, the US military has had this in their possession for some time. If these actions are out of the ordinary, then it would stand to reason that someone would be punished. But, it would seem that is not the case, as I have seen US military figures defend every action taken on this video. This is how the US military operates. This is not how hearts and minds are won. The US seems to consistently need reminding that its current reason for being in Iraq is for the people.

Nope again....the US military is in Iraq for US interests....this guncam video will not result in "punishments"....but it may result in some medals!

Edited April 8, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Army Guy]

Uhhh, there's been nothing to prove there were any bad guys. Did not see any weapons at all.

DId you even read the report the US army filed on this incident ...someone provided for your veiwing pleasure in this topic....read it...but first let me ask you this...All day the Americans had been conducting operations within the area....lots of shooting, troops all over the place....I know my first reaction would be call up a buddy grab my RPG and go take a look...better yet answer this for me...During hunting season do you dress up like a deer and talk walks in the woods....Why is that...because someone will pop a cap in your ass...shit we even wear bright orange just so we can see the other hunters....so in this case this civilians as you called them dress up and look like deer and in a war zone thats not a really good idea...in dact in borders on retarded....

Secondly, so what you're saying is that there should be censorship? Isn't that what the media is there for to begin with? That if the army screws up and kills a whole bunch of civilians, that in a democratic society the voters should be able to see what their money pays for and who breaks the law?

I did'nt say anything about censership....i said shit happens in combat...we already covered the civilian aspect i think....in a combat zone YOU CARRY A WPN openly your a target read the genva convention....You stop being a civilian and become a combantant play with the big boys and you'll get dead....

Most of the journalists that go don't go to cash in on their "films." For the most part they get paid terribly and are put in horribly dangerous situations so they can file small stories which are buried in the 18th page of a shitty paper or website.

Don't tell me that shit....they are human just like the rest of us....sure it is thier job to report the news...but what will pay more sitting in a Bradly thats gets an IED strike....or filming an maerican unit getting shot up by insurgents....they're after the peice of news that will be shown world wide....or they would of all been home doing special interest stories....I've been in combat and seen these guys in action...we call them bullet magnets...nobody wants to be the guy next to the film guy....becuase at 300 meters it looks like a huge sniper scope...

[Army Guy]

I think American Woman always misses your most informative posts.....

I'm a big fan of her as well....

[Army Guy]

Accidents in combats are acceptable but the soldiers in this video are just looking for a reason to shoot. An accident would be if there was a weapon and those Iraqis were from the national Army. If this incident is even close to an accident then what is stopping those soldiers to just go around killing civilians and declare it an accident.

Read the US army report....and you'll find it was not a accident it was a legit shooting....If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quakes like a duck odds are it's a FUUUking duck...

If I had seen someone shooting as called by one soldier in the video, my comments would have been different but it’s clear that there was no offensive from the ground. The chopper was in the view for a while and insurgents would have responded.

There was a military operation on going....as for the chooper they like to strike at a distance, so they may have heard it or got a glance at it....but thats was it....

You seem to have no knowledge of the dangers that journalists face in warzones. Would you put your life on the line every day if I pay you a million dollar or would you let your son take the job?

Ya, i'm complete clueless about the dangers in a war zone...and about the money if it was all about the money ....i'd of never served 3 tours in Afghan....but a million dollars...i'd do a 4 th tour....

My comment about the Canadian Army was in reference to the handling of the Afghan prisoners by the Canadian Army.

Been reading the papers again i see....Ya your nations military are brutes, who spit on the conventions that this great nation signed on to....is that the speach you read....or was it that our soldiers have kept thier end up of the conventions, and it was alittle higher up the chain of command your shooting at....

Edited April 8, 2010 by Army Guy

[nicky10013]

DId you even read the report the US army filed on this incident ...someone provided for your veiwing pleasure in this topic....read it...but first let me ask you this...All day the Americans had been conducting operations within the area....lots of shooting, troops all over the place....I know my first reaction would be call up a buddy grab my RPG and go take a look...better yet answer this for me...During hunting season do you dress up like a deer and talk walks in the woods....Why is that...because someone will pop a cap in your ass...shit we even wear bright orange just so we can see the other hunters....so in this case this civilians as you called them dress up and look like deer and in a war zone thats not a really good idea...in dact in borders on retarded....

Considering the US Army, before the video even came out, denied this even happened, it would be prudent to call into question the voracity of the document.

I did'nt say anything about censership....i said shit happens in combat...we already covered the civilian aspect i think....in a combat zone YOU CARRY A WPN openly your a target read the genva convention....You stop being a civilian and become a combantant play with the big boys and you'll get dead....

When you say "that's what you get when you don't cover the good guys" it's kind of implied that the reporters should be covering one thing only. That in itself is censorship.

Don't tell me that shit....they are human just like the rest of us....sure it is thier job to report the news...but what will pay more sitting in a Bradly thats gets an IED strike....or filming an maerican unit getting shot up by insurgents....they're after the peice of news that will be shown world wide....or they would of all been home doing special interest stories....I've been in combat and seen these guys in action...we call them bullet magnets...nobody wants to be the guy next to the film guy....becuase at 300 meters it looks like a huge sniper scope...

Whatever your opinion of them may be and just because you don't like the implication, that doesn't change the fact that what I said was right. The public deserves to know if the military is shooting up civilians adn deserves to know why.

[nicky10013]

First of all, he didn't say there should be censorship. He said in this instance, the media paid a high price for their choice to be there.

Secondly, I'm not so sure the media is there just waiting for the army to "screw up." Never thought that was their primary reason for being there. I thought it was to report the news.

I think it's to report the news as well. I don't think they're waiting for the Army to screw up either, but when it does happen, it should be reported on. That's all my point was.

Most people going to Hollywood looking for stardom don't find it, either; they are paid terribly for bit parts and their names are buried in the credits. Doesn't mean they aren't going there hoping for stardom, and the reporters going to war zones are likely not there for the terrible pay, but rather with hopes of 'stardom;' ie: to cash in on the film.

Any reporter going to a war zone knows the risks. They have to dodge the action, not the other way around.

It doesn't mean that they don't at least act with journalistic integrity.

[M.Dancer]

When you say "that's what you get when you don't cover the good guys" it's kind of implied that the reporters should be covering one thing only. That in itself is censorship.

He didn't say that either. Do try to frame your arguments withouit strawmen.

Whatever your opinion of them may be and just because you don't like the implication, that doesn't change the fact that what I said was right. The public deserves to know if the military is shooting up civilians adn deserves to know why.

What exactly have you said that was right?

[M.Dancer]

Considering the US Army, before the video even came out, denied this even happened, it would be prudent to call into question the voracity of the document.

Given they investigated the incident, long before the video came out, what you claim is most likely in the category of bovine bidegradable fertizer.

[Handsome Rob]

Considering the US Army, before the video even came out, denied this even happened, it would be prudent to call into question the voracity of the document.

No they didn't.

A direct quote, "There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force." -Spokesman Lt. Colonel Scott Bleichwehl

Whatever your opinion of them may be and just because you don't like the implication, that doesn't change the fact that what I said was right. The public deserves to know if the military is shooting up civilians adn deserves to know why.

They didn't shoot civilians. Unless you're suggesting that they had a legitimate reason for a Sunday stroll with an RPG, and a very tactical peak around a corner with what may or may not be that said RPG in hand, at a US HumVee parked up the road. Have to be a heck of a reason in a place like that.

It isn't counterstrike. If you don't pull the trigger, you don't get another life after he does.

[Army Guy]

Considering the US Army, before the video even came out, denied this even happened, it would be prudent to call into question the voracity of the document.

So you did'nt read it....Thanks for coming out...you've made up your mind and thats that...nothing anyone says or does will change that...for you it was all about holding someone accountable....right and wrong....appling the same standards we have here at home in our towns and cities to over there in combat...the two do not compute, are not compatiable...are not the same...In combat you have split second decisions to make, the gunner thought they were going to fire so he did and the right people died... ...end of story....and now he will live with that the rest of his life...his government investagated and found nothing it was a good shooting....but this soldier will live with this the rest of his life.....

When you say "that's what you get when you don't cover the good guys" it's kind of implied that the reporters should be covering one thing only. That in itself is censorship.

Thats not what i said i said thats what you get when you don't do it for the cover of a bradleys ....

Whatever your opinion of them may be and just because you don't like the implication, that doesn't change the fact that what I said was right. The public deserves to know if the military is shooting up civilians adn deserves to know why.

And thats what these reporters died for so you could have your news....from a different prespective...had they down it from a US bradlys think the story would have changed....