Wikileaks video of combat in Iraq

[bush_cheney2004]

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!

That's right waldo....the US went into Iraq over your peanut gallery objections, and it will leave when it jolly well pleases to do so. And there isn't a goddamn thing you can do about it. Not even your legendary whining will help.

[nicky10013]

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.....

The two things have to compute. We have the rule of law for a reason. No soldier, no politician, no citizen is above it. It's the reason why the military is controlled by civilians. That principle is the cornerstone of democracy. I don't doubt that soldiers have it bad, but one can't honestly make the argument that just because it is difficult that soldiers who committ crimes abroad should get a free pass.

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

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....

No, they wouldn't have gotten the whole story. They would've gotten a watered down pentagon version.

Edited April 9, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Also, yes, I was wrong. They didn't postpone an investigation, the postponed the release of the video (for good reason in my opinion). Yet, that doesn't mean there still isn't something weird about this.

The troops on the ground conducted a preliminary investigation which was followed up by a regular one. Only in the second report were weapons claimed to have been found

The U.S. military in a statement issued just after midnight on Thursday described the incident as a firefight with insurgents. It has said the killings were being investigated.

"Our preliminary investigation raises real questions about whether there was fighting at the time the two men were killed,"

Residents and witnesses interviewed by Reuters said they saw no gunmen in the immediate area where Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh were killed in Baghdad's al-Amin al-Thaniyah neighborhood.

If they had found kalashnikov assault rifles and an RPG, you'd think that it would've been obvious from the outset.

Link to the article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1617459520070716

Edited April 9, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Also, why is no one asking the obvious question here. If these guys were WITHOUT DOUBT insurgents, why were the reporters with them? How many reporters have hung out with insurgents without being hostages? Daniel Pearl comes to mind. These guys CLEARLY weren't hostages as they had their cameras with them, are seen walking freely throughout the video.

It doesn't add up.

Edited April 9, 2010 by nicky10013

[Guest American Woman]

Also, why is no one asking the obvious question here. If these guys were WITHOUT DOUBT insurgents, why were the reporters with them? How many reporters have hung out with insurgents without being hostages? Daniel Pearl comes to mind. These guys CLEARLY weren't hostages as they had their cameras with them, are seen walking freely throughout the video.

It doesn't add up.

As I posted previously: 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.

So they may not have been Reuters reporters, from the sound of it. If they weren't the two Reuters reporters killed on the day of the incident, who were they? I suppose there are reporters who side with the insurgents, too. All media isn't 'western media.'

[nicky10013]

As I posted previously: 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.

So they may not have been Reuters reporters, from the sound of it. If they weren't the two Reuters reporters killed on the day of the incident, who were they? I suppose there are reporters who side with the insurgents, too. All media isn't 'western media.'

The link to the article I posted confirms it WAS the two reporters. They recovered the cameras and I would assume the bodies.

[bush_cheney2004]

Also, why is no one asking the obvious question here. If these guys were WITHOUT DOUBT insurgents, why were the reporters with them?

Wouldn't make any difference given the sitch.....they are called "gunships" for a reason.

[nicky10013]

Wouldn't make any difference given the sitch.....they are called "gunships" for a reason.

No, the ironclad claim by mostly everyone here is that these guys were enemy combatants "end of story." My point is that doesn't make sense. Why would reporers be with insurgents? The only way this doesn't make a difference is if you're cool with shooting civilians.

Edited April 9, 2010 by nicky10013

[bush_cheney2004]

No, the ironclad claim by mostly everyone here is that these guys were enemy combatants "end of story." My point is that doesn't make sense. Why would reporers be with insurgents?

To win a Pulitzer Prize for exposing American military "atrocities" and "crimes against humanity" ?

How ironic!

As for the "sanctity" of "civilains"....you gotta be kidding.

Edited April 9, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[nicky10013]

To win a Pulitzer Prize for exposing American military "atrocities" and "crimes against humanity" ?

How ironic!

As for the "sanctity" of "civilains"....you gotta be kidding.

On part A) yeah, because you do that by being taken hostage.

On part Why would I be kidding?

[Guest TrueMetis]

On part A) yeah, because you do that by being taken hostage.

On part Why would I be kidding?

Hostages? Cause your obviously a hostage when you aren't tied up and are walking beside the guys with guns rather than in front of them with the guns pointed at you.

[bush_cheney2004]

On part A) yeah, because you do that by being taken hostage.

Still doesn't matter....once the decision was made to fire upon that group, even Patty Hearst couldn't have saved them.

On part Why would I be kidding?

Beats me....you seem to think that civilains are special, even when associating with insurgents or combatants...NOT!!

[Guest American Woman]

The link to the article I posted confirms it WAS the two reporters. They recovered the cameras and I would assume the bodies.

The article you linked to is dated Mon Jul 16, 2007. It therefore couldn't confirm that it was the two Reuters reporters that were killed on the video, as they hadn't even seen the video at that time. My quote is from an article dated Tuesday, 6 April 2010.

[nicky10013]

Still doesn't matter....once the decision was made to fire upon that group, even Patty Hearst couldn't have saved them.

So? Does that mean all responsibility should be absolved? Jesus, with that kind of reasoning, I could do some pretty horrible things.

Beats me....you seem to think that civilains are special, even when associating with insurgents or combatants...NOT!!

Ah, so I guess 9/11 victims got what was coming to them. Furthermore, the second part (associating with insurgents) doesn't make sense as directly earlier in the same post, you claimed that whether they were insurgents or not didn't matter.

[nicky10013]

The article you linked to is dated Mon Jul 16, 2007. It therefore couldn't confirm that it was the two Reuters reporters that were killed on the video, as they hadn't even seen the video at that time. My quote is from an article dated Tuesday, 6 April 2010.

Reading through the military report, it fully admits that the video shows the death of the reporters in question on page 2 or 3. The question I have is this:

"Our preliminary investigation raises real questions about whether there was fighting at the time the two men were killed,"

From a pentagon spokesperson.

Yet, the second, full report, says that not only were weapons found at the scene, but that they came under small arms fire to the extent that they couldn't complete a full investigation at the scene. Considering the fact that at the end of the video, a group of soldiers were standing around doing nothing (the only active people it seemed to me looked to be the people giving first aid to the wounded children), I have to wonder how accurate that is. Forgive me if I sound ignorant but it didn't look like they were being shot at. The people running from the apache gun fire, to me, looked like they were being shot at.

[waldo]

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?

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?

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!

That's right waldo....the US went into Iraq over your peanut gallery objections, and it will leave when it jolly well pleases to do so. And there isn't a goddamn thing you can do about it. Not even your legendary whining will help.

you shouldn't be so defensive over a little premature "Mission Accomplished" jab

I note you're a little shy with your pat one-quip pony trick responses to this earlier linked article... what ROE covers this one? After denials, US admits Feb. killing of Afghan women

[Army Guy]

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.

I will admit that i have run into a few journalist's who are there to report the news good and bad, as it happened without the personal or policitcal twist...And these people have perhaps done more for the war or mission than most of our polictical masters have . And i respect them for that, as it is important to get that story out to the public ensuring they have the info required to make informed decisions on world events...

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.

Thanks for this one...it explains it much better than i could, Reporting the news is one thing, getting the general public to understand what they are seeing is another....it's this misunderstanding that gives the Military the grief in war....Such as this incident at hand...There has to be some common ground where both sides can meet in the middle to discuss...not argue...this situation...to explain it...Maybe if we educated the gerenal public about war...would be the answer...

[bush_cheney2004]

So? Does that mean all responsibility should be absolved? Jesus, with that kind of reasoning, I could do some pretty horrible things.

Responsibility is not resolved...thr gunship crew debriefed their mission and lived to fight another day. What do you want? A confession to a Canadian Human Rights Commission? LOL!

Ah, so I guess 9/11 victims got what was coming to them. Furthermore, the second part (associating with insurgents) doesn't make sense as directly earlier in the same post, you claimed that whether they were insurgents or not didn't matter.

Correct....the totality of the situation sealed their fate. Choosing to join in the fun was their poor (and last) decision. Again, why are you focusing so much on the "journalists"?

[bush_cheney2004]

you shouldn't be so defensive over a little premature "

I'm not....the mission was accomplished...and President Bush was re-elected! LOL! :)

I note you're a little shy with your pat one-quip pony trick responses to this earlier linked article... what ROE covers this one? After denials, US admits Feb. killing of Afghan women

The same one that permitted Canadian forces to fire on Afghan civilians that violate security perimeters and checkpoints. But that isn't as sexy as American guncam videos...BOOOOOOOOOOYAH !! I guess we'll just have to settle on cell phone videos of Robert Dziekanski getting tazed to death in Vancouver!

Edited April 9, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[M.Dancer]

and the van...

Sure...trying to remove insurgents? Why not. Was the van marked with a red crescent? A red cross....was the van an Ambulance in disguise? Did they have kids strapped to the hood waving don't shoot signs?

Now who brings kids to a gunfight?

[M.Dancer]

Also, why is no one asking the obvious question here. If these guys were WITHOUT DOUBT insurgents, why were the reporters with them?

Pubicity.

How many reporters have hung out with insurgents without being hostages? Daniel Pearl comes to mind.

Perarl wasn't in Iraq, wasn't hanging out with insurgents and wasn't arab.

These guys CLEARLY weren't hostages as they had their cameras with them, are seen walking freely throughout the video.

It doesn't add up.

Embedded journos...adds up fine

[M.Dancer]

No, the ironclad claim by mostly everyone here is that these guys were enemy combatants "end of story." My point is that doesn't make sense. Why would reporers be with insurgents? The only way this doesn't make a difference is if you're cool with shooting civilians.

Guess again. 2 journos...a bunch of insurgents. When a Journalist in a Lav gets hit with an EID, do you ask the same questions>

[Army Guy]

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

Your right i am, and perhaps your not reading enough into my comments....

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.

Many have said they have in the past nincluding yourself, and yet they've investagated it and you have found thier findings suspect, based on that fact you percieved....What makes you think that the UN is going to do a better job. Something that has been said before this is not CSI....this is a threater of war....and the level of proff is not the same...

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.

We all now by this stage the circumstances...US forces had been in the area all day conducting various operations, they had been engaged...meaning trading shots in anger...2 appache helos where assigned as over watch...thier job was to be on station provide direct fire and observation when required and also to fire up targets of oportunity....meaning they did not have to be requested to open fire, but could fire on targets they found on thier own....

Part of the ROE this is important although not explained in the report as it is assumed ....Any soldier that percieves his life or any other American or colaitions life, is in imediate danger may engage targets...This is made clear in the vidio...and vioce over....The key here is percieves....If a soldier thinks and believes there is a danger he may fire...One does not have to have 100 % proof that the camera is a wpn...but rather that in this case the gunner thought he was about to fire on US service persons an RPG....then he is free to engage...In this case an AKM and RPG where found at the scene along with serveral RPG rockets....

Yes there was unarmed civilians killed...but you do not have to be armed to be an insurgent....taking part in combat operations or being with those that that are not only places you at risk but also places you in the combatant catogory....The media guys...are also supposed to have thier persons clearly marked, for just this case in piont...and should have separated themselfs from the insurgents....sometimes that is not possiable...such as the Young Canadian media person killied in AN IED attack in Afghan ...my piont is they assume the same risk as the soldiers they are traveling with....and become a target as well....no special passes in combat ...

Picking up the wounded....the only people that have any special protection under any laws are medical personal that are clearly marked with armbands or red cross or cresent and ministers , clerics etc ...everyone else touching a wounded comrad is a combatant....trying to save is buddy from being captured...and while it is illigal to deliberatly target wounded soldioers if they've been disarmed...it is not illegal to engage the veh trying to wisk them off the battle field to fight another day....the order was to disable it....once again hard to do with a 30mm cannon with out shreding most of the van....but that is what was done....the tragic thing here was the idiot in the van brought along his children into a live combat zone to save a few of his buddies...if he is alive today his wife is going to kill him...

War has few rules....it is filled with death...civilians suffer more cas than the enemy does that is a fact of life...there are certain targets that are not to be engage ....targets that should be avoided...Civilians are one of them....key word here is SHOULD BE AVOIDED....it does not say avoided at all costs....just should be....Sound cold and heartless welcome to WAR baby ....leave your tissues and CSI kits , morals and values at the door, here you have split second to make decisions that will effect lifes around the globe....and it's done every second of everyday...and Man still loves to go to War....and people love to watch it on TV....

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.

Is it an emotional response...tell me about human rights in a war zone...what rights do i have or for that matter civilians or the enemies....i can tell you there are few, and that is the reality of war...And it's not because of my long service or seeing my comrads die on the battlefield...

Canada is not on a humanitarian mission in Afghan , i want to make this very clear...it's a combat mission, Canadian soldier are activily seeking out and destroying the enemy as dictated by our government...and while there be be some humanitarian programs ongoing with this function it is not our prime objective....As for the allegations i have the utmost confidence that our soldiers have conducted themselfs well within the rules and laws our nation has signed up for.

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?

No i'm a soldier that had recieved his marching orders from our government, and did his job, hoping that our government and it's people thought this mission through from beginning to end....and made the right decision before risking our lifes....

I want to explain some of the gung ho ness displayed on the video...It's a cover up...meant to cover thier own fear...the fear of dieing, not seeing your love ones , not being able to see the rest of the day with your comrads....fear of pissing your pants...fear of letting FEAR over come you and taking over your entire thought process....which if this happens you can kiss all that training goodbye...and fight or flight takes over....Watch a couple of you tube video's of our troops in action...and you'll see what i'm talking about...watch and look for fear, you'll see it in their eyes, you'll be able to see who has control and who is scared shitless...and who's pissed thier pants....remeber the bad guys want to kill us just as bad as we want them ....Combine this with dozens of other emotions, feelings, actions, adrinalin and you might be able to see exactly what these soldiers are thinking and why they are doing it...

As for the WE part i do have a problem with it...And this is not just my opinion but shared by many soldiers....we feel abandoned on this mission, most Canadians could not give a rats ass about the entire thing until a soldier screws up, or a detainee complains....or how much the mission costs....Canadians dropped the mission long ago....they don't want anything to do with it....and yet this entire conflict can not be won without thier support....they know that or atleast should know that...It is our Nations soldiers that picked up the ball, really because we had no choice....Canadians don't support it, and yet will not or choose not to press our government into anything other action....they are happy with our close out date....and will life with that ....

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.

I'm Paraniod....really let we ask you this, How many schools have been built by Canadain military personal, how many wells, how many firehalls, hospitals....how many fire trucks and Abulances have been donated to Afghan communites out of funds collected by troops...how many dam projects have we completed...how many miles of hyway have we laid...

I'll bet everyone can tell you how many soldiers have died.....How many detainees have filed complaints, how many have been tortured....

No not paraniod, just used to attend alot of the press briefs...then watch the news...and shake my head how they spun the story that way...maybe tainted is a better word...

[GostHacked]

So I saw a news article that linked to the video at the top of this page:

http://wikileaks.org/

What do others here think?

Definitely not fired from a drone, it's most likely a helicopter, or a small plane, but not a drone.

Those 'weapons' they carry seem to be quite small for RPG launchers. But with some of the cameras being over the shoulder and looking like an RPG, the mistake can be made. The shoulder bags they were carrying were small. I'd even go to say that the cameras mistaken for RPGs are a lot fatter and shorter than an RPG, At least the ones being thrown at US forcers.

http://www.dvshop.com.au/images/products/multi_shoulder/multi_shoulder_sample.jpg

The other individuals were carrying AK47s or some type of rifle. That seems quite obvious. I saw guns, but nothing that is definitive of an RPG. I will say the assumption about the 'rpgs' were answered only when they saw AKs,

Alright let's do a comparison

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php someone posted this link and well, it does show one person carrying an RPG. The two others who were thought to be carrying RPGs were cameras. Without a doubt. Camera short, fat, rpg long skinny.

Conclusion - wrong place wrong time. I will say they knew it would be a heat score.

[GostHacked]

Army Guy

I want to explain some of the gung ho ness displayed on the video...It's a cover up...meant to cover thier own fear...the fear of dieing, not seeing your love ones , not being able to see the rest of the day with your comrads....fear of pissing your pants...fear of letting FEAR over come you and taking over your entire thought process....which if this happens you can kiss all that training goodbye...and fight or flight takes over....Watch a couple of you tube video's of our troops in action...and you'll see what i'm talking about...watch and look for fear, you'll see it in their eyes, you'll be able to see who has control and who is scared shitless...and who's pissed thier pants....remeber the bad guys want to kill us just as bad as we want them ....Combine this with dozens of other emotions, feelings, actions, adrinalin and you might be able to see exactly what these soldiers are thinking and why they are doing it...

A soldier is trained to keep that all in check, correct?