• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

WikiLeaks releases video of US Apache helicopter (now with added RPGs)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a lot of thoughts on this...

A.) I know it's different when you're really there and it's you against them. I know this. Your life is always on the line because anybody could want to see you dead.

However, these guys, from how they sounded, almost made it sound like they knew in the back of their minds that these guys were not dangerous and just wanted an excuse to open fire. They made it sound like a game.

B.) I can't see how they can justify shooting these guys. Even if the camera had been a weapon, I still can't see it under these particular circumstances. I know there are a lot of factors at play, but I just can't justify it in my mind.

C.) Okay, it happened. Even afterward, they're going to cover it up? That says that a.) they can't be trusted and b.) they knew that it needed to be covered up.

What a fucking mess.
 
Pseudo_Sam said:
1st of all, yes, enemies with guns in a WARZONE is enough to open fire.
Click to expand...
It isn't good enough reason and this video clearly shows why. Soldiers operating these types of aerial attacks are too disconnected from the threat and the danger to open fire like that.
 
blame space said:
isn't that what people have been saying in defense of the soldiers in this very thread?
Click to expand...
In defense?

mugurumakensei said:
You know the rules.

Soldier says unacceptable comment. -They are trained to kill and desensitized to violence to become better killing machines.

A person that doesn't like the military states that the soldiers got too trigger happy. -These guys are not killing machines who kill without remorse. Leave the soldiers alone.
Click to expand...
Being trigger happy and cracking a joke are two very different things.
 
By the way, you guys need to watch Green Zone with Matt Damon. You will come back even more pissed
 
Oblivion said:
I think the main problem most of us have is with how these guys were literally acting like this was a video game.
Click to expand...

NintendoGal said:
When they're congratulating each other and laughing about running over a body, that's when your argument stops being valid for me.
Click to expand...

If you do any research into what it's like to live under the circumstances these soldiers do, you'll find that black humor is a commonly used coping mechanism. Their job is to kill people, if they let the full weight of their actions sink in all the time, they wouldn't be able to their jobs. This video should not be about looking down at these soldiers, it should force us to question our entire foreign policy strategy, including our views on military training and the use of force. Because, as long as our military operates the way it does, this is the attitude that soldiers will have.

Milk Lizard said:
As I said that could be a easy mistake to make but shooting the fucking car trying to help is fucking disgusting. He was obviously not a terrorist or anything.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Iraq, but in Afghanistan, the Taliban takes their dead to prevent the U.S. from accurately gauging the results of the battle and the strength of the enemy soldiers. I believe the same thing was done by the Viet-cong. It's a battle tactic.

That doesn't take away from the horror that even medical personnel are considered targets on the battlefield, but that is the result of sending soldiers into a quagmire.
 
I saw no problem in the video.You can clearly see 2 guys with guns at 2:08,seems to me the helicopter guys were just clearing the area as the ground force was very close.
 
WinFonda said:
Judging from that video, there needs to be MUCH stricter rules of engagement for attack choopers, UAV's, etc. These guys' lives are in no clear danger and there is no reason to open fire and get it wrong.

A couple people holding AK-47's around their shoulders in a WARZONE is not a good enough reason to open fire.

The callousness of the gun operators is frightening, but you can understand how they would become that way. They think their killing bad guys and saving lives in the process. It's pure fog of war.
Click to expand...
Speaking to your points---
Theater of war and rules of engagement don't mix.... then again, some realize that and some don't. War is War... meaning it is what it is.

More importantly to the AK-47 comment--- non-US or Allies carrying AK-47's present a threat within the confines of the theater. In this case, they saw what they saw and acted upon it. It again goes back to the fact that War is War.

Lastly-- you bring up an interesting point about the gunners being justified in the killings and that their rationale is that they are saving lives. In truth, we as observers will never know the impact of the battles, but we do see the impact of the larger war.

As shocked as I was seeing this... for this 1 video, I know there's probably 1,000's of others just like this. I think the most impact post the Iraq war is making sure that something like this doesn't ever happen again.
 
I think the scariest thing is that this same military could turn on Americans and justify it for similar reasons.

"Ruh uh, we think he has a gun. Engage."

"We have reason to believe, based on his known ideology and his recent campaign against our president, that he is dangerous. Engage."

This isn't some other-worldly bullshit. You can say that won't happen because there are too many people in the military, but the truth is that if they are given enough justification over time, they will fucking do it. Hell, do you not remember the Civil War when American was turned against American?
 
Pseudo_Sam said:
1st of all, yes, enemies with guns in a WARZONE is enough to open fire.

2nd of all, they were protecting/spotting a ground-based battalion at the time (from what I can gather), so whether or not they were in danger is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the point. It isn't uncommon for people on both sides of this conflict to carry weapons openly in this region. Determining whether or not they're enemies requires analytical reasoning and a good handle on the context of the situation.

Context is everything here and the context that the official report put forward does not make sense. If this group of individuals had just attacked a group of our soldiers, they wouldn't be hanging out with a pack of buddies in the middle of the street.

They were entirely non-aggressive in spite of the fact that the pilot or his gunner had misreported that they had been fired upon to gain clearance for engagement.

The pilot/gunner misreported the situation once again when they claimed that the van driver was collecting bodies and munitions when, in reality, they were simply helping the unarmed victim of the previous attack.

The engagement was entirely wrong and the people in charge of it knew it; that's why they covered it up.

Saren is Bad said:
Umm, yeah it is enough - you can't be serious with this comment, right?
Click to expand...

This isn't NYC. Carrying an AK47 isn't uncommon (Even for people who are on our side).

That is irrelevant anyways; it isn't even clear whether or not any of them were actually armed.
 
Saren is Bad said:
Umm, yeah it is enough - you can't be serious with this comment, right?
Click to expand...
Of course I am serious. I don't know how you can watch that video and say the rules of engagement--for aerial gunners--is okay as is.
 
loosus said:
I think the scariest thing is that this same military could turn on Americans and justify it for similar reasons.

"Ruh uh, we think he has a gun. Engage."

"We have reason to believe, based on his known ideology and his recent campaign against our president, that he is dangerous. Engage."

This isn't some other-worldly bullshit. You can say that won't happen because there are too many people in the military, but the truth is that if they are given enough justification over time, they will fucking do it. Hell, do you not remember the Civil War when American was turned against American?
Click to expand...


...what. The. Fuck. No, this is the very definition of bullshit. The civil war in America was not a violent military coupe that you're describing. You might as well start worrying about asteroids wiping out NYC or some other nonsense.
 
loosus said:
I think the scariest thing is that this same military could turn on Americans and justify it for similar reasons.

"Ruh uh, we think he has a gun. Engage."

"We have reason to believe, based on his known ideology and his recent campaign against our president, that he is dangerous. Engage."
Click to expand...

This isn't some other-worldly bullshit. You can say that won't happen because there are too many people in the military, but the truth is that if they are given enough justification over time, they will fucking do it. Hell, do you not remember the Civil War when American was turned against American?
Click to expand...
I don't think many gaffers would cry foul if an Apache helicopter open fire on 27 Obama protesters
 
WinFonda said:
It isn't good enough reason and this video clearly shows why. Soldiers operating these types of aerial attacks are too disconnected from the threat and the danger to open fire like that.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean? We can't shoot enemies unless they're shooting at us? That's like the worst military strategy ever. Also, I'm pretty sure they were clearing the way for/protecting a ground-based battalion, so again, they're probably more concerned about that group's safety than theirs.

Look, this is a horrible situation, it's a tragedy, and I'm not saying what happened is in any way a good/not repulsive thing, but let's not abandon all rationality. How can you possibly hope to say what sort of dangers those soldiers had been through? I just can't condemn them for following protocol (which they did), no matter how repulsive or disturbing that protocol is.
 
avatar299 said:
I don't think many gaffers would cry foul if an Apache helicopter open fire on 27 Obama protesters
Click to expand...


..and you're not helping, either. Why are you trying to feed his delusions?
 
Pseudo_Sam said:
I don't see how that makes a difference. It clearly says they thought they saw guns.
Click to expand...

I think that bulging thing in the middle of the person's chest is a tumor. When you're about to shoot at someone, you damn well better be able to ascertain with a fair amount of certainty that they are carrying weapons.
 
Pseudo_Sam said:
What does that even mean? We can't shoot enemies unless they're shooting at us? That's like the worst military strategy ever. Also, I'm pretty sure they were clearing the way for/protecting a ground-based battalion, so again, they're probably more concerned about that group's safety than theirs.

Look, this is a horrible situation, it's a tragedy, and I'm not saying what happened is in any way a good/not repulsive thing, but let's not abandon all rationality. How can you possibly hope to say what sort of dangers those soldiers had been through? I just can't condemn them for following protocol (which they did), no matter how repulsive or disturbing that protocol is.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Doing what was done in this video is the worst military strategy ever. Insurgencies can't be defeated by pure military force and this has been proven time and time again throughout modern warfare. The burden of proof is on us; we are in their country.

Huge blunders like this fuel and legitimize insurgencies, lengthening our involvement there and costing us more soldiers than would have been lost if we had implemented the RoE that you characterized as the "worst military strategy ever". Killing a dozen people because you think a couple of them have weapons and you think they're hostile only helps create a new generation of insurgents.
 
iamaustrian said:
The first part was already shocking but
the minivan shooting was completly unnecessary.
Click to expand...

They were trying to remove the bodies of suspected militants what do you think they should have done?

"yeah base some random guys just turned up and have started moving the bodies and items of the guys we just shot the shit out of, we'll let them just go on their merry way"

I have to confess I personally wouldn't go and try to pickup some bodies of guys that got torn up by a gunship, I especially wouldn't take my kids along for the ride while doing it...
 
WinFonda said:
Of course I am serious. I don't know how you can watch that video and say the rules of engagement--for aerial gunners--is okay as is.
Click to expand...

If the Apache pilot/gunner legitimately, honestly, 100% believe that they saw enemies with guns, they did the right thing.

Unfortunately, NO ONE here can say for sure what their true intentions were...

If they really honestly believe they saw weapons, they made a mistake and in war mistakes can cost lives. This is a tragic thing and I'm not denying that.

If they intentionally made up the story of seeing weapons just so they could have some shooting practice, then there aren't words to describe the level of their horrific actions.

Only the two guys in that Apache really know whether this was legit or not, so everyone in this thread acting like they know better than the military and can judge the soldiers' decisions (and the protocols of the US military) based on watching a video clip are just a joke...
 
kyo_daikun said:
They were trying to remove the bodies of suspected militants what do you think they should have done?

"yeah base some random guys just turned up and have started moving the bodies and items of the guys we just shot the shit out of, we'll let them just go on their merry way"

I have to confess I personally wouldn't go and try to pickup some bodies of guys that got torn up by a gunship, I especially wouldn't take my kids along for the ride while doing it...
Click to expand...

So, you'd just let a dying person stay there rather than helping.
 
kyo_daikun said:
I have to confess I personally wouldn't go and try to pickup some bodies of guys that got torn up by a gunship, I especially wouldn't take my kids along for the ride while doing it...
Click to expand...

You're driving home and you come up on a guy who is bleeding to death. He has very little mobility and will certainly die without immediate medical attention. I don't know many people who wouldn't stop and try to help.

There was no way for them to tell what had happened. The gunship was probably a kilometer or so away, given the time that passed between engagement and impact. I doubt that they could hear the gunship and they probably weren't looking for it; for all they knew, some psycho had blown himself up nearby and these were just victims.
 
What disgusts me isn't that the soldiers made serious errors in judgment (they're likely trained to spot RPGs and AK47s, not cameramen; they were expecting a battle, and one's expectations can drastically alter one's perceptions), nor is it that the soldiers made insensitive comments during the massacre (to do that kind of job, you need to be in a certain mindset to preserve your sanity). What disgusts me is that this was covered up. This incident could've been used in training, it could've identified ways for the military to improve, and it couldv'e provided answers to the family's of the slain victims.
 
loosus said:
I think the scariest thing is that this same military could turn on Americans and justify it for similar reasons.

"Ruh uh, we think he has a gun. Engage."

"We have reason to believe, based on his known ideology and his recent campaign against our president, that he is dangerous. Engage."

This isn't some other-worldly bullshit. You can say that won't happen because there are too many people in the military, but the truth is that if they are given enough justification over time, they will fucking do it. Hell, do you not remember the Civil War when American was turned against American?
Click to expand...

'_'
 
loosus said:
I have a lot of thoughts on this...

A.) I know it's different when you're really there and it's you against them. I know this. Your life is always on the line because anybody could want to see you dead.

However, these guys, from how they sounded, almost made it sound like they knew in the back of their minds that these guys were not dangerous and just wanted an excuse to open fire. They made it sound like a game.

B.) I can't see how they can justify shooting these guys.Even if the camera had been a weapon, I still can't see it under these particular circumstances. I know there are a lot of factors at play, but I just can't justify it in my mind.

C.) Okay, it happened. Even afterward, they're going to cover it up? That says that a.) they can't be trusted and b.) they knew that it needed to be covered up.

What a fucking mess.
Click to expand...
If all of those guys been enemy combatants instead of civilians we would have been watching a (tactically, not necessarily strategically or morally) flawlessly executed operation. If. But the fact that combatants blend in so well with civilians meant that they had to rethink tactics over there.

Keep in mind that Iraq in 2007 isn't Iraq in 2010. The ROE have changed. They already put a stop to most air strikes. They need handshakes to win that war, not hand grenades.
 
They thought they were under fire? How fucking paranoid are these drugged up sub human cunts. If you support this shit, fuck you, go drive a van in Baghdad. The apathy of the majority of the american people is disgusting too. You fucking dimwitted sheep

don't care if banned.
 
WickedAngel said:
Wrong. Doing what was done in this video is the worst military strategy ever. Insurgencies can't be defeated by pure military force and this has been proven time and time again throughout modern warfare. The burden of proof is on us; we are in their country.

Huge blunders like this fuel and legitimize insurgencies, lengthening our involvement there and costing us more soldiers than would have been lost if we had implemented the RoE that you characterized as the "worst military strategy ever".
Click to expand...

I don't think you have any grasp of military strategy. I think you think you do, though. In what universe would it be possible to fight the insurgents in their country and not piss them off? Just being there is enough to guarantee a steady stream of resistance. Burden of proof? The fuck? You think they care? Insurgents use anti-American propaganda to "rally the troops", and much of it is already false, or severely misconstrued. You think only killing the actively engaged terrorists will make them not hate us?

I'm not saying go and kill anyone who looks at you funny - certainly there's a balance to be reached. Considering the circumstances, though, this specific engagement doesn't really seem outrageous. And remember, a lot has changed in three years, including the rules of engagement in particular areas.
 
huacst21 said:
I agree, War is gray, no doubt about it.

But by going by this thread it would seem plenty of people think everyone in the military is a brainwashed, no remorse killing machine.
Click to expand...


I don't know about anyone else, but if I were on the front-lines I'd rather be a brain-washed grunt as opposed to someone agonizing over the repercussions of my actions.
 
kyo_daikun said:
They were trying to remove the bodies of suspected militants what do you think they should have done?

"yeah base some random guys just turned up and have started moving the bodies and items of the guys we just shot the shit out of, we'll let them just go on their merry way"

I have to confess I personally wouldn't go and try to pickup some bodies of guys that got torn up by a gunship, I especially wouldn't take my kids along for the ride while doing it...
Click to expand...

Haven't we been through this several times? The van didn't arrive until minutes later. The driver didn't necessarily have any reason to know that the damage had been caused by a gunship, only that he saw a man lying in the street bleeding to death and wanted to help. He had been taking his kids to school, that's why they were in there.
 
george-w-bush-american-flag.jpg
 
Pseudo_Sam said:
I don't think you have any grasp of military strategy.
Click to expand...

Funny, because I'm getting that exact same vibe from you. You seem to be completely ignorant of the principles of counter-insurgency as well as the immediate historical perspective that the Russians provided us with in Afghanistan.

Don't bother responding. Anyone who is too ignorant to understand how things like this and Abu Gharaib legitimize and swell the ranks of insurgencies doesn't deserve to be acknowledged.
 
WickedAngel said:
You're driving home and you come up on a guy who is bleeding to death. He has very little mobility and will certainly die without immediate medical attention. I don't know many people who wouldn't stop and try to help.
Click to expand...

Yeah except you forgot to mention it's a hostile military zone where at any time you could be killed by anything. Including IED's in the roadway, suicide bombers, insurgents, etc... It could be a trap for all you know.

You can't possibly apply something like this to driving home from a day at the office here at home.
 
thats pretty fucked up! the guy who shoot is just trigger happy!! "LET ME SHOOT" "LET ME SHOOT" .. .wow
 
It always bothers me to read people treating situations as if "common sense" and whatever facts appear to be portrayed are all that is required to make a valid judgment. It happens with everything, too. People will take little snippets of research or police/military action or what have you and, with no knowledge beyond that of a layman, attempt to draw conclusions with the intent of placing blame on those who likely have a better understanding of the situation than any of us.

This is not to say that "experts" and professionals don't make mistakes, but it would be nice to see even one person acknowledge that perhaps they lack the necessary skills and know-how to declare guilt and responsibility from their perspective as an outsider. Things are rarely ever as simple and straightforward as they may appear.
 
Wow that was shocking.

The eagerness of those guys to kill other people. Even when half of them have nothing that might even be mistaken for a weapon; even when a man is wounded and crawling away; even when men are doing nothing more than picking up bodies; and despite operating in a town where civilians are obviously going to be present and carrying arms is not that unusual for Iraqis. I hope they are ashamed of themselves.

And the cover-up...how many other cover-ups must there be that we don't know about? It's appalling.
 
WickedAngel said:
You're driving home and you come up on a guy who is bleeding to death. He has very little mobility and will certainly die without immediate medical attention. I don't know many people who wouldn't stop and try to help.

There was no way for them to tell what had happened. The gunship was probably a kilometer or so away, given the time that passed between engagement and impact. I doubt that they could hear the gunship and they probably weren't looking for it; for all they knew, some psycho had blown himself up nearby and these were just victims.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I would have to say. I would be hard pressed to stop in some of the bad areas of LA that I used to work in. That may have been a gang hit on someone who was wanted dead. Say I came across someone in my city here in Overland Park, KS then yes absolutely I would. Now, say I lived in FUCKING IRAQ IN 2007 and saw mangled bodies all over the place with one of them slowly twitching away. Then hell no. Capital HELL NO if I had my kids with me.
 
UFRA said:
Yeah except you forgot to mention it's a hostile military zone where at any time you could be killed by anything. Including IED's in the roadway, suicide bombers, insurgents, etc... It could be a trap for all you know.

You can't possibly apply something like this to driving home from a day at the office here at home.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, it's a fucking neighborhood. We're the ones who turned it into a "hostile military zone".
 
taylor910 said:
This is where I am confused. Can you explain the cover up? In the video the ground soldier says he saw the rpg underneath the guy.

Being totally serious I am genuinely wanting to know.
Click to expand...
the coverup of not releasing this video and any others relevant to the incident, despite requests. it just makes it look worse when you try to hide something to save face when you did nothing wrong initially. and it's especially awful when the coverup is over the loss of life.

i don't think the soldiers in the video were wrong to fire, but i do think the higher ups who tried to hide this were.
 
WickedAngel said:
First and foremost, it's a fucking neighborhood. We're the ones who turned it into a "hostile military zone".
Click to expand...

That's a different topic which I clearly will not get into with you.

Anyways, this does not change the fact that your scenario was completely irrelevant to a warzone situation.
 
WickedAngel said:
First and foremost, it's a fucking neighborhood. We're the ones who turned it into a "hostile military zone".
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not true at all. But the point you're trying to make is still sort of valid. But the entire region was a warzone way before 2001.
 
KHarvey16 said:
It always bothers me to read people treating situations as if "common sense" and whatever facts appear to be portrayed are all that is required to make a valid judgment. It happens with everything, too. People will take little snippets of research or police/military action or what have you and, with no knowledge beyond that of a layman, attempt to draw conclusions with the intent of placing blame on those who likely have a better understanding of the situation than any of us.

This is not to say that "experts" and professionals don't make mistakes, but it would be nice to see even one person acknowledge that perhaps they lack the necessary skills and know-how to declare guilt and responsibility from their perspective as an outsider. Things are rarely ever as simple and straightforward as they may appear.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but then this wouldn't be GAF, would it?
 
WickedAngel said:
Wrong. Doing what was done in this video is the worst military strategy ever. Insurgencies can't be defeated by pure military force and this has been proven time and time again throughout modern warfare. The burden of proof is on us; we are in their country.

Huge blunders like this fuel and legitimize insurgencies, lengthening our involvement there and costing us more soldiers than would have been lost if we had implemented the RoE that you characterized as the "worst military strategy ever". Killing a dozen people because you think a couple of them have weapons and you think they're hostile only helps create a new generation of insurgents.
Click to expand...

pretty much how I see it. We have to be better than that, we are better than that. Lead by example and the rest will follow. Lead like that and man we are in for the long hall...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

embedding Youtube videos now is enshitified
18
482
Toots replied
Alan Ritchson : Update - Neighbor Confrontation Video Released
2 3 4 5
201
1K
midnightAI replied
kids video content flooding with ai slop
25
620
Madflavor replied
House of the Dragon Season 2 releases July 21 2026
News 
28
353
jason10mm replied
US GAF, you too can now send money to help pay off the US National Debt now!
2
54
2K
DownLikeBCPowder replied
Top Bottom