Wikileaks video of combat in Iraq

[Handsome Rob]

Wow. Unless you are legally blind, it is obvious that the camera does not look anything like an RPG.

You're right. But the RPG in the video sure looks like an RPG. The AK looks like an AK too. Because they are. Remarkable.

If you watch the raw tape, you can hear callsign Bushmaster 6 collecting the ordnance after the engagement.

Not to mention that the video we are seeing is not in as good of a quality as what the people in the apache helicopter were seeing.

Cool! You've flown an Apache? Or sat in the cockpit? What was it like?

These young, trigger happy soldiers should release their need to pull the trigger by playing video games. Not by playing with innocent people's lives.

Innocent people carrying large scale weapons?

[naomiglover]

You obviously haven't read the investighation and I see no reason to discuss it with you until you do.

I'm not discussing the investigation. I am discussing the video posted.

The camera looks nothing like an RPG.

Did you get a chance to look into what the ICJ has ruled on Jerusalem? You went silent after the information was passed onto you.

[M.Dancer]

I'm not discussing the investigation. I am discussing the video posted.

Oh okay, so you wish to remain playing with a half a deck ...great.

Now explain if you can why the digital video quality in the cockpit is better than the digital video we see...

Then go read the report.

[naomiglover]

Oh okay, so you wish to remain playing with a half a deck ...great.

Now explain if you can

I will look into discussing this topic with you once you are able to go back to the thread where you ran off after mentioning that you haven't had a chance to read a simple paragraph where the ruling was made by the court.

[bush_cheney2004]

They do. I've noticed a tendency in the forces to view the media as the deathwatch. It's unfortunate, as reporters are as important to protecting democracy as are the troops. And they are pretty critical appendages of the war machine, which is why both the Canadian and US forces have been so eager to embed them.

I'm sure that they think it is, but it is not equally important in the prosecution of a war. The reporters add operational risk, but the tradeoff is acceptable for positive aspects of what is ultimately an exercise in propaganda (good or bad). I absolutely reject any extra sympathy for "innocent embeds", particularly by the (self-serving) media.

[naomiglover]

You're right. But the RPG in the video sure looks like an RPG. The AK looks like an AK too. Because they are. Remarkable.

If you watch the raw tape, you can hear callsign Bushmaster 6 collecting the ordnance after the engagement.

What I see is three people carrying something. One is carrying a gun and two are carrying something that looks nothing like a gun. While the camera of the apache is on them, the soldier announces that 5 of them have weapons, setting the stage for the carnage.

What exactly and why exactly are you trying to cover this blatant screw up?

Cool! You've flown an Apache? Or sat in the cockpit? What was it like?

I'm talking about youtube uploaded videos as compared to what they were seeing. You don't think there is a difference in quality?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8603938.stm

High-quality video

The video, released on Monday, is of high quality and appears to be authentic, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says.

[M.Dancer]

What I see is three people carrying something. One is carrying a gun and two are carrying something that looks nothing like a gun. While the camera of the apache is on them, the soldier announces that 5 of them have weapons, setting the stage for the carnage.

What exactly and why exactly are you trying to cover this blatant screw up?

What screw up? Is the guy with the gun dead or not? Are the people accompanting the guy with the gun dead or not?

Guys with guns are 100% legal targets.

[M.Dancer]

I'm talking about youtube uploaded videos as compared to what they were seeing. You don't think there is a difference in quality?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8603938.stm

High-quality video

The video, released on Monday, is of high quality and appears to be authentic, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says.

That doesn't explain why you think the video in the cockpit is better. And as AW says, if it is better, it explains why they saw guns and a rpg, which are recovered after the event.

[Handsome Rob]

What I see is three people carrying something. One is carrying a gun and two are carrying something that looks nothing like a gun. While the camera of the apache is on them, the soldier announces that 5 of them have weapons, setting the stage for the carnage.

What exactly and why exactly are you trying to cover this blatant screw up?

Not trying to cover up anything. How specifically is this a screwup? They killed guys carrying rocket propelled grenades, something clearly shown in the audio of the 40 minute video, not so clearly displayed in the video itself, and confirmed by the investigation released that it appears you won't read. It was the Iraqi forces that cleaned the site up afterword and dealt with them, surely they would mention something, no?

How can somebody carrying a rocket propelled grenade be deemed an innocent civilian?

As I stated above, there are many well documented failures, people have been punished, others have gone quietly. What specifically makes this video significant, besides the fact that they actually killed the right guys?

I'm talking about youtube uploaded videos as compared to what they were seeing. You don't think there is a difference in quality?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8603938.stm

Absolutely. I think they have it worse. They watch on this:

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/apache-helicopter-49.jpg

Bumping through the air at greater than 100 kts, talking to a whole manner of people on the radio, trying to track everything on the ground, with people shooting at you. They've lost over 50 helicopters, including a couple of Apaches.

It's far easier to analyze after the fact.

[M.Dancer]

I will look into discussing this topic with you once you are able to go back to the thread where you ran off after mentioning that you haven't had a chance to read a simple paragraph where the ruling was made by the court.

This is the thread deflection zone. Defend you position. So far you ahave shown you arfe clueless, vacant and prone to fantasy.

[dizzy]

I'm sure that they think it is, but it is not equally important in the prosecution of a war. The reporters add operational risk, but the tradeoff is acceptable for positive aspects of what is ultimately an exercise in propaganda (good or bad). I absolutely reject any extra sympathy for "innocent embeds", particularly by the (self-serving) media.

I won't get into a pissing match about who best preserves democracy for fear that the bureaucrats, politicians and lawyers on here jump in for their stake. Point is, like for soldiers, some become journalists because they care about protecting or improving life for their compatriots, some do it for the paycheque and others to fulfill their delusions of grandeur. But, like soldiers, most do it for a complex mix of the three.

[waldo]

Guys with guns are 100% legal targets.

and the van... and the 2 civilians attempting to collect the, at that point, injured Reuters journalist... and the 2 children?

Gonna get me sum! Good shoot... all that "Call of Duty" puter time put to heroic result... in hitting a stationary van. Hooah!

The military investigating itself? Yup, who could ever doubt the outcome... just like this little 'fog of war' ditty - hey? After denials, US admits Feb. killing of Afghan women

[dizzy]

What I see is three people carrying something. One is carrying a gun and two are carrying something that looks nothing like a gun. While the camera of the apache is on them, the soldier announces that 5 of them have weapons, setting the stage for the carnage.

What exactly and why exactly are you trying to cover this blatant screw up?

It goes against everything I believe to say this, but this type of rhetoric justifies the reluctance of armed forces to share the realities of combat with common folk. You simply can not relay the urgency of war or the antecedents and compiled intel that lead up to a particular moment, such as is seen in this video. Most people are not capable of digesting what is being done to protect their quality of life.

[bush_cheney2004]

and the van... and the 2 civilians attempting to collect the, at that point, injured Reuters journalist... and the 2 children?

What about them? Did you call "cease fire" from your keyboard?

Gonna get me sum! Good shoot... all that "Call of Duty" puter time put to heroic result... in hitting a stationary van. Hooah!

Moving or still, the M230 chain gun is an effective anti-personnel weapon.

[waldo]

and the van... and the 2 civilians attempting to collect the, at that point, injured Reuters journalist... and the 2 children?

Gonna get me sum! Good shoot... all that "Call of Duty" puter time put to heroic result... in hitting a stationary van. Hooah!

The military investigating itself? Yup, who could ever doubt the outcome... just like this little 'fog of war' ditty - hey? After denials, US admits Feb. killing of Afghan women

What about them? Did you call "cease fire" from your keyboard?

ceasing the "about them fire"... requires actual fire - or in your zeal did you project your own "get sum" around their imaginary fire? Hooah!

[bush_cheney2004]

ceasing the "about them fire"... requires actual fire - or in your zeal did you project your own "get sum" around their imaginary fire? Hooah!

This confused spasm implies that "fire" from the perps was essential for engagement, when this is not the case at all. This is not complicated...it is not an episode of "Cops" with dash cams of resisting crack addicts.

[waldo]

This confused spasm implies that "fire" from the perps was essential for engagement, when this is not the case at all. This is not complicated...it is not an episode of "Cops" with dash cams of resisting crack addicts.

if the ROE to kill innocent civilians doesn't require "fire"... did your own confused spasm cause you to mention "ceasing that fire"? Yes, it really isn't that complicated when you fall over your own one-quip pony trick... Hooah!

[bush_cheney2004]

if the ROE to kill innocent civilians doesn't require "fire"... did your own confused spasm cause you to mention "ceasing that fire"? Yes, it really isn't that complicated when you fall over your own one-quip pony trick... Hooah!

Not at all.....you stumbled in on the ass-end as usual and cocked it up. Go light a candle for the "innocent civilains".

[waldo]

Go light a candle for the "innocent civilains".

the symbolic candle is being lit across the world - the reactions appear to care little for your trumped up ROE. Ah yes, more of that vaunted U.S. military winning the hearts and minds. Hooah!

[Guest American Woman]

What I see is three people carrying something. One is carrying a gun and two are carrying something that looks nothing like a gun. While the camera of the apache is on them, the soldier announces that 5 of them have weapons, setting the stage for the carnage.

From the wikileaks site: "some of the men appear to have been armed," and since "men" is plural, evidently your "seeing three people carrying something, one is carrying a gun," would indicate that you aren't seeing even what wikileaks sees.

I'm talking about youtube uploaded videos as compared to what they were seeing. You don't think there is a difference in quality?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8603938.stm

I read your link. Seems as if it brings up a major inconsistency. The wikileaks video says: The stories of most of those who were killed are unknown. But among the dead were two Rueters employees. Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen.

Yet your link says: Two journalists working for Reuters were killed on the day the incident took place in July 2007.

A spokeswoman for the news agency said they were not sure if the individuals in the footage included those two Reuters journalists.

Edited April 8, 2010 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

the symbolic candle is being lit across the world - the reactions appear to care little for your trumped up ROE. Ah yes, more of that vaunted U.S. military winning the hearts and minds. Hooah!

Good luck with that....how did their "reactions" against the actual invasion of Iraq work out for ya?

[BCMan]

ArmyGuy, you are becoming emotional and over reading my comments.

SO everyone in the US army has lied to you in the past, no one is to be trusted....including this report...what about the dozens of court cases now before the US courts chargeing us service personal of crimes of some sort or another....are they to be believed...or are they the exception.....

I never said that the US army has always lied; I said they did not tell the truth in this instance and a 3rd party, like the UN should have done the investigation.

Let me make this clear to you this shooting was no accident...it was a military operation which ended with the killing of minimum 2 insurgents....Can you say that those that were not armed with 100 certainity where not insurgents...would not have assisted in some way in the deaths of americans....but you've made up your mind anyways...

I am open to reading your view if it’s logical. Would you support 38 civilian kills per maybe/maybe not 2 insurgents if those were insurgents? What makes you think those 2 were in fact insurgents, the early investigation concluded that they were all insurgents.

ever been to a war zone Billy.....step on to the battle field and the clock starts ticking....and when your time is up....it does not care if your black, brown, white, or pink with warts on your dick...or if your a warrior or civilian, firefighter, or journalist...something is going to find you and kill you sure as shit....there is very few rules, no honor, no glory , nothing but death and more death....step on to the battle field and you pay the price....

Again, I didn’t say warzone for soldiers is not harsh…War zone is a dangerous environment. It’s just that soldiers always have backup and stay together, journalists are alone and don’t have any equipment to call for help or defend themselves. You did indicate that you would serve a 4th term as a soldier but not as a journalist, you know better.

Another first someone from BC lecturing me about human rights....OK , i'd like to clearify some thing first....when you say "we" in the sentence "we dont have a clean record either" are you refering to me and you or just Canadian soldiers, because i don't want to taint you with any of "our" bad deeds, or suposed bad deeds becuase unless i'm wrong those very same rights you gave me a lecture on ...well those also refer to those accused of those very crimes....and as of yet nothing has been proven in court ...so until they do i would say our record is clean....unless you have other examples....

I can feel that due to your long service and possibly the loss of your team members, your feeling is that there is no meaning to human rights in a warzone situation…that is more of an emotional response than a logical one. Canada is on a humanitarian mission to restore the lives of those people, it shouldn’t be involved in anything that violates human rights…I just hope the allegations are not true.

You are a patriot and believe that all Canadians would support Canada’s mission, FAIL. I support Canada’s mission but I wouldn’t want them to act like the soldiers in the video. By saying ‘we’, I was referring to Canadians, anything wrong with that?

I love the media, i love how the same story can be given out at the same time at the same place, and spin in dozens of directions....and have nothing to do with the orginal briefing.....I hate the fact that very few will report the news , and not twist it to sell papers....i hate the fact that blood sells and good will does not rate....

It seems that you are paranoid about the Canadian media. CBC is a lot more balanced than Fox or CNN. They do report on successful missions and I appreciate that.

[waldo]

Good luck with that....how did their "reactions" against the actual invasion of Iraq work out for ya?

work out for me? Of course, you can personally ignore the world reaction against the U.S.; however, many in the U.S. took "some" of that world reaction to heart in casting your favoured namesakes and GOP to the curb. How did that work out for ya?

[bush_cheney2004]

work out for me? Of course, you can personally ignore the world reaction against the U.S.; however, many in the U.S. took "some" of that world reaction to heart in casting your favoured namesakes and GOP to the curb. How did that work out for ya?

Worked out fine....foot stompin' temper tantrums are no match for President Obama's continuation of Dubya's policies in Irak and Afghanerrrstan. You just make sure that Maher Arar keeps geting his checks...y'hear?

[waldo]

Worked out fine....foot stompin' temper tantrums are no match for President Obama's continuation of Dubya's policies in Irak and Afghanerrrstan. You just make sure that Maher Arar keeps geting his checks...y'hear?

Maher Arar? Oh my - you don't normally whig out this soon. As for the Afghan, Bush never had any policy there ... something bout being distracted with the Eyerak! But c'mon, buddy - you'll be out of the Eyerak soon enough... or at least as far as 50K troops left, "gets you out". Mission accomplished - Hooah!