Support NeoGAF

[Hari Seldon]

It's not very likely an rpg (the typical insurgent kind), would be able to hit an apache from a mile away.

they are notoriously inaccurate + the pilot would see it coming from a mile away, and take evasive action

You mean the stingers we "made it rain" on the afghans during the soviet invasion that were designed specifically to blow up their Hinds?

 

[mello]

So, what you're saying is. Don't trust american media?

That's not what I'm saying. There is probably an explaination as to why these outlets aren't reporting this pretty major story. I just thought I'd point out a potential component to that reason.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I still don't understand how they mistaken cameras for Ak-47's and RPG's. Seriously, damn.

 

[Talas]

Damn those guys and their AK-shoulder-strap and AK-tripod.

 

[jorma]

Haha, it looks like msnbc is censoring searches for "wikileaks".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

Try anything else then wikileaks :lol

Well they are reporting the incident on the main site so that makes no sense.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36182383/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

It seems that youtube has stopped updating viewcount on the video though. It's been at 359 for a good while now.

edit: ah, the msnbc search says "powered by bing"
that's a search engine i wont be trusting anytime soon.

 

[Pandaman]

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/1790/rpg3.jpg[/IMG]

yes that is a camera, now how was it mistaken for an rpg? it certainly doesnt look like one.

 

[Hari Seldon]

yes that is a camera, now how was it mistaken for an rpg? it certainly doesnt look like one.

Lol how the fuck would you know that was a camera unless you were told before hand?

 

[DogWelder]

Well they are reporting the incident on the main site so that makes no sense.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36182383/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

It seems that youtube has stopped updating viewcount on the video though. It's been at 359 for a good while now.

It is not a real-time viewcount, it updates only a few times per day.

 

[Josh7289]

Military should only ever be used as defence or helping people. That's what I thought they were there for.

Ah, understood. Defense is all right. It's still evil, but a necessary evil. But anything else, especially including offensive militaries and invasions, etc. are absolutely evil.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

Well they are reporting the incident on the main site so that makes no sense.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36182383/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

It seems that youtube has stopped updating viewcount on the video though. It's been at 359 for a good while now.

Good on MSNBC. Now let's hope this becomes first page news on all the major American sites.

 

[Scipius]

I will say it was not "concrete". And the van is certainly a grey area, but I'd say given the circumstances it was in the wrong place, wrong time. Given the options: van is some random civilian helping wounded (where you just unleashed hell), or given the circumstances, someone who knows the guys you just opened up on. If I were in their shoes I'd open up on the van too once I got the green light. But that's just me of course.

That's far too callous. Like I said, this occured in the middle of a city; for all we know the van was just driving around in its own neighbourhood and decided to do the civil thing, not aware of the initial cause of the attack or that there was still an Apache hovering a mile away and targeting them. It seems to me the soldiers forgot this was not just a "war zone" or "kill zone", but also a city filled with civilians.

While a rescue vehicle is not supposed to be seen as hostile if identified as such (though exceptions have occured), that doesn't mean that any vehicle that comes to a rescue is necessarily hostile. Given the non-threat they seemed to pose, the soldiers should have refrained from firing if they were following the RoE.

 

[OriginalThinking]

Lol how the fuck would you know that was a camera unless you were told before hand?

Or how the fuck would you know it was an RPG unless you were told beforehand? Of course the killing of all these people so befits the language of the internet.... 'lol' indeed.

 

[Pandaman]

Lol how the fuck would you know that was a camera unless you were told before hand?

the shape.

 

[poppabk]

Whilst laughing and generally acting in y'know the serious manner that the killing of multiple people deserves.

Its their job to kill people - how would you deal with it? Do you think doctors go through their lives being eternally serious about all the horrible things they see? It seems heartless on tape, when you don't know the people at all, and you know that they just ripped some innocent guys to shreds, and its possible they are just heartless - but light-hearted banter about something so disturbing and serious is probably the norm.

 

[daw840]

B, buu, buu but what? You seriously can't justify this? You are the kind of enabler who actually makes this kind of thing possible, y'know sort of shrugging your shoulders and accepting that nearly a dozen people died, but hey shit happens right? Wrong. The complete lack of verification on the ground or from any other source that these people were a threat and the fact that deadly force was authorised on the basis of somebody staring from a mile way and thinking that a camera was an rpg should raise questions about military protocol. But fire first, ask questions later right?

What do you think they should have done? There are two scenarios here.

1.) They wait 10 minutes making doubly sure that these are in fact insurgents, when it's fairly likely that they are by the assessment that the soldier made. 5-6 men with AK-47s and what appeared to be an RPG. Wait though, lets wait for a while and try to hover closer to get a better look. Now they see us and shoot that RPG at us and we die. Or, the convoy gets close enough to them that those insurgents have now blown up the convoy and killed many US soldiers.

2.) Be reasonably sure that they are a threat to the convoy you are covering, in a warzone, and dispatch them neutralizing the threat and any additional threat that comes along.

I'll give you a hint, it's always option 2 that is picked and 999 times out of 1000 it is the correct option. That saves lives whether you want to believe it or not.

Well that much is obvious.

Make up your mind; were they hostiles "providing cover" for other completely unseen mystical invisible hostile soldiers killing other random U.S. soldiers, or was it a case of mistaken identities? You're contradicting yourself. Are you justifying the attack because they were potential hostiles or are you justifying it because the chopper gunner thought they were potential hostiles? And what does "but..." imply? But what? But that's what happens when a war is going on? But they shouldn't have been out in the street looking like arabs? But the soldiers "thought" they were hostiles so it's unfair to blame them because of their poor judgment? Where were you going with that?

No, I said the CHOPPER was providing cover for other US Soldiers. Not this group of supposed insurgents. The "but..." referenced that this happened, it happens in every war, it's unfortunate and there is not much that can be said about it, except we shouldn't have gone to war in the first place. Which I agree with.

 

[dogmaan]

You mean the stingers we "made it rain" on the afghans during the soviet invasion that were designed specifically to blow up their Hinds?

there is a massive difference between an RPG and a MANPAD, and I definitely said RPG

EDIT: also the batteries ran out on the stingers years ago

 

[Hari Seldon]

Or how the fuck would you know it was an RPG unless you were told beforehand? Of course the killing of all these people so befits the language of the internet.... 'lol' indeed.

I'm loling at internet sleuths who can honestly say that a helicopter pilot called in because the troops on the ground were fired upon seriously think that that pilot should have known that a dude hiding suspiciously around the corner of a building is holding a camera instead of a stinger that would have killed that helicopter. It is the exact same situation as a cop popping a kid with a realistic looking toy gun.

 

[SlipperySlope]

Murder innocent people? No.

So your country's military never killed anyone on accident.

Gotcha. Is everyone in your country as deluded as you?

 

[Brera]

First off, a human is a human. You can't tell if they're an innocent or a combatant especially because there is no uniform code over there. Good try though.

He "deserved" to die when they initially opened fire on the group. It was his fortune that he was still alive. And had others not put him (or attempt to) in the unmarked van rolling into a killzone, depending on his wounds he may have survived the entire encounter. But because he was a "combatant" who was already meant to be killed and was pulled into a situation where he was no longer in view and the party that picked him up was not identified as a rescue vehicle he unfortunately (in hindsight) was killed. I'm sure if that was a white vehicle with a big red cross on it they wouldn't have opened fire.

You call it a killzone as if it was sign posted.

It was an ordinary Iraqi street. The Apache was miles away. It was obvious it was some civilians driving by and finding a guy half dead on the road. Anyone would do the same thing.

 

[Dabookerman]

Ah, understood. Defense is all right. It's still evil, but a necessary evil. But anything else, especially including offensive militaries and invasions, etc. are absolutely evil.

The military as an entity is not "evil" :lol

It's what they are used for that is evil or not.

Even if it isn't self defence against another country. How about, why don't we go far out and say aliens started attacking. They would be our only means of defence. Defending something is certainly not evil.

 

[Xabora]

Good on MSNBC. Now let's hope this becomes first page news on all the major American sites.

That caught me off guard, since isn't MSNBC owned by GE that has a major contract with the US Military?


EDIT:
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?&q=wikileaks&daterange=today

Still nothing. :lol

 

[OriginalThinking]

Its their job to kill people - how would you deal with it? Do you think doctors go through their lives being eternally serious about all the horrible things they see? It seems heartless on tape, when you don't know the people at all, and you know that they just ripped some innocent guys to shreds, and its possible they are just heartless - but light-hearted banter about something so disturbing and serious is probably the norm.

How about professionalism. Taking someones life should always be a last resort and undertaken with the gravest of attitudes. I'm not saying that troops can't joke but joking about a tank running over the body of a man they just slaughtered? There is a time and a place for humour and this is not it. Shows a complete disrespect for the taking of a human life. This is not a videogame.

It is the exact same situation as a cop popping a kid with a realistic looking toy gun.

Erm except a camera looks nothing like an rpg. At a mile away it might, but at a mile away a rolled up poster could look like an rpg and that's where the training should kick in. It looks like an rpg, but i can't be sure? Can i get verification from someone else? Can i get a better view? Can i be 100% sure that's an rpg? Can i be even 75% sure? At that distance the honest answer from anyone should be no. So you don't fire. But there was none of that. All i saw and heard were itchy trigger fingers.

 

[Dabookerman]

I'm loling at internet sleuths who can honestly say that a helicopter pilot called in because the troops on the ground were fired upon seriously think that that pilot should have known that a dude hiding suspiciously around the corner of a building is holding a camera instead of a stinger that would have killed that helicopter. It is the exact same situation as a cop popping a kid with a realistic looking camera.

fixed ;p

 

[Rubezh]

Story is now up on the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack I just finished watching the video and it's very graphic despite being in black and white, essentially a dozen civilians being shredded by Apache cannons and watching their corpses run over by Humvees. I can guarantee it'll be taken off YouTube once it's flagged. As for my own personal feelings, the pilots clearly thought they were hostiles and that's why they acted in the way they did. What's surprising to me is the uproar now, considering we knew this was happening back in 2006 and 2007. Wikileaks is 4 years too late.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

That caught me off guard, since isn't MSNBC owned by GE that has a major contract with the US Military?

That should be irrelevant when publishing important stories.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I would be shocked if this was aired on American TV. Meanwhile Fox News has specials on the weaponry the US military uses in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't see this story being mentioned on CNN, FOX or ABC. Tiger Woods seems to be a bigger story

 

[avatar299]

yes that is a camera, now how was it mistaken for an rpg? it certainly doesnt look like one.

Do you know what an rpg looks like?

 

[Slavik81]

Publishing that footage is probably a felony in the US. I would not be surprised if news networks don't run it.

Three cheers for Wikileaks, though. They're champions of freedom, even if governments dislike them. They may break the law, but the issues they raise are important enough that they should be protected.

Ah, understood. Defense is all right. It's still evil, but a necessary evil. But anything else, especially including offensive militaries and invasions, etc. are absolutely evil.

Offensive military invasions are not always wrong. If a government is enacting a genocide upon a portion of it's population, an invasion could protect many people and save lives.

I had supported the Iraq war, as Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who murdered many people. The end of the first Gulf War was a tragedy, as the Americans pulled out and his political opponents were slaughtered. His regime should have been ended before then.

Sadly, so much damage has done while trying to help that it was probably not worthwhile.

 

[ToxicAdam]

The American media is merely an echo chamber. They are all waiting for the NYT/AP/WSJ to have a spin on the story before they echo it.

 

[Raiden]

My mind is ruined, all i could think of was how close Call of Duty got it. They even comment each other like good kill good kill.

Im sorry.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Initial engagement was justified. I don't see how anyone can deny they looked like insurgents, especially in the picture above where it seemed like the man was aiming an RPG into the sky. It was a fatal mistake on the part of the soldiers.

Shooting the van goes back to the point. The soldiers were under the impression they were dealing with insurgents and acted accordingly.

The language throughout the video is distasteful, but that's par the course in a war zone.

 

[poppabk]

Except murders and rapes aren't done willingly by two parties. War is. War is a contest to get something.

All conflict is a contest to get something. War is the same conflicts over money, land, goods, sex that occur in every city in every country throughout the entire world - just formalized and blown up to a grand scale.

 

[SimpleDesign]

Anyone would do the same thing.

I hope you're aware that chicken hawks tend to be self centered cowards, so no not everyone would go out of their way to help their fellow man. At best they would drive by and tell the man bleeding to death to pull himself up by his own boot straps.

 

[Pandaman]

I'm loling at internet sleuths who can honestly say that a helicopter pilot called in because the troops on the ground were fired upon seriously think that that pilot should have known that a dude hiding suspiciously around the corner of a building is holding a camera instead of a stinger that would have killed that helicopter. It is the exact same situation as a cop popping a kid with a realistic looking toy gun.

i'm loling at grandiose assholes who think its acceptable for helicopter pilots to murder a dozen innocent people because they were 'hiding suspiciously' from a helicopter they probably never even saw or considered. all because they were in the same area of a convoy and group of 'insurgents' they also probably knew nothing about.

stupid civilians should be more psychic i guess.

Finally, most people can understand and accept the corner rpg angle from a helicopter gunner whose tense. unluckily for everyone involved, there's a whole bucket load of inexcusably shit in these videos, so maybe you should watch more than the first 5 minutes or atleast stop obfuscating everyones disapproval with the very first incident.

 

[MedHead]

I'm not saying that troops can't joke but joking about a tank running over the body of a man they just slaughtered?

Wouldn't you agree the act of killing someone is rather damaging to one's psyche? I think the humor is a defense mechanism in many instances.

 

[Aeonin]

I'm outraged at this too. But not for killing those guys. With that shitty helicopter camera, group behavior, dude sticking out the corner, and what looks like AKs - I can see why they thought they were insurgents. What I can't stick up for, and must call out, is the total disregard for the Freedom of Information act. This should have been shown, learned from, and then moved on from.

We can have a military capable of mistakes, what we can't have is one that is capable of lies. If you stick up for the lying part, the cover up, then you have no say to any lies a government tells you.

(not my best formed argument, but its the jist)

 

[Alucrid]

Initial engagement was justified. I don't see how anyone can deny they looked like insurgents, especially in the picture above where it seemed like the man was aiming an RPG into the sky. It was a fatal mistake on the part of the soldiers.

Shooting the van goes back to the point. The soldiers were under the impression they were dealing with insurgents and acted accordingly.

The language throughout the video is distasteful, but that's par the course in a war zone.

He was aiming his camera street level so nothing was point at the sky.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Initial engagement was justified. I don't see how anyone can deny they looked like insurgents, especially in the picture above where it seemed like the man was aiming an RPG into the sky. It was a fatal mistake on the part of the soldiers.

Shooting the van goes back to the point. The soldiers were under the impression they were dealing with insurgents and acted accordingly.

The language throughout the video is distasteful, but that's par the course in a war zone.

This was not the only shot of the person in question. I don't want to see the vid again before going to bed, but I can recall that moments earlier nobody was carrying something as large as an RPG. These things are quite big.

 

[SlipperySlope]

oh, thank god for that. All war crimes now excused.



with Vietnam the massacres were far more wide-spread and clear-cut. but no, let's dig our heads in the sand and support our troops!

Where was the war crime here?

 

[Callo Merlose]

Good on MSNBC. Now let's hope this becomes first page news on all the major American sites.

I'm sorry, but let's also hope for Bigfoot and unicorns to come out of hiding. I hate how skeptical I've become, but that's too good a reality for the news media to cover.

 

[iamaustrian]

You call it a killzone as if it was sign posted.

It was an ordinary Iraqi street. The Apache was miles away. It was obvious it was some civilians driving by and finding a guy half dead on the road. Anyone would do the same thing.

this

also @ everyone here

watch the long version. it shows another attack at the end. They blow up a building with 3 hellfire rockets.
shortly before rocket No 2 hits, you can see a bunch of people in front of the house(looking what happend) and still the soldiers pull the trigger blowing up all the bystanders.
it's sickening

 

[Tntnnbltn]

Wikileaks is uncensored on msnbc.com. Well, partially at least. It still comes up with the error and then shows article results beneath it.

 

[Josh7289]

The military as an entity is not "evil" :lol

It's what they are used for that is evil or not.

Even if it isn't self defence against another country. How about, why don't we go far out and say aliens started attacking. They would be our only means of defence. Defending something is certainly not evil.

Ah, gotcha. Defense is all right. Anything more than that is not.

 

[avatar299]

How about professionalism. Taking someones life should always be a last resort and undertaken with the gravest of attitudes.

Should soldiers should walk around bartering with insurgents?

 

[OriginalThinking]

Wouldn't you agree the act of killing someone is rather damaging to one's psyche? I think the humor is a defense mechanism in many instances.

I would agree that the act of killing someone can be damaging to the psyche.

I would agree that humour can be used as a defence mechanism.

Humour is not justifiable in the context i have seen in this video however.

Should soldiers should walk around bartering with insurgents?

So where do you get from me saying that they should take the act of killing gravely to bartering with insurgents? Your comment has no merit.

 

[Bishman]

This happened before our current commander in chief took office, but nice try!

Got 'em!

 

[SapientWolf]

I'm outraged at this too. But not for killing those guys. With that shitty helicopter camera, group behavior, dude sticking out the corner, and what looks like AKs - I can see why they thought they were insurgents. What I can't stick up for, and must call out, is the total disregard for the Freedom of Information act. This should have been shown, learned from, and then moved on from.

We can have a military capable of mistakes, what we can't have is one that is capable of lies. If you stick up for the lying part, the cover up, then you have no say to any lies a government tells you.

(not my best formed argument, but its the jist)

This. I couldn't tell that they were shooting at a media crew from the footage, and I honestly don't think any GAFfers would be able to either if it wasn't for the article. They made an honest mistake but they need to own up to it.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

I'm sorry, but let's also hope for Bigfoot and unicorns to come out of hiding. I hate how skeptical I've become, but that's too good a reality for the news media to cover.

With MSNBC reporting, I would at the very least expect CNN to follow suit.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Initial engagement was justified. I don't see how anyone can deny they looked like insurgents, especially in the picture above where it seemed like the man was aiming an RPG into the sky. It was a fatal mistake on the part of the soldiers.

Shooting the van goes back to the point. The soldiers were under the impression they were dealing with insurgents and acted accordingly.

The language throughout the video is distasteful, but that's par the course in a war zone.

1) Unless you only want to kill yourself and your allies, you don't aim a rpg to the ground.
2) The supposed "rpg" was seen earlier in the video. It's quite small.

 

[PhoenixDark]

He was aiming his camera street level so nothing was point at the sky.

The man was hiding behind a corner and seemed to be aiming in the direction of the helicopter at one point. It's not surprising they took him out, and most soldiers would do the same thing if they felt they were in danger. Unfortunately it was a fatal mistake