Wikileaks Iraq Video -

[Ral]

the other side of the story

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

edit: cliffs

the two reporters appeared to be embedded with known terrorists, and therefore count as combatants. At best, they were dumb enough to drive into the middle of a war zone in an unmarked van, without communicating to anyone. Also, wikileaks doesn't point out the convoy of American military vehicles that were taking fire, headed in the direction of an armed crowd with at least one RPG. (look closer at the video- there's definitely 5-6 ak-47's and 1 RPG at a minimum.) As for the language, Soldiers use rough, callous language. So, for that matter, do police, firemen, paramedics, doctors, etc. Most of you still enjoy watching videos of people getting taken out by out of control cars, tires, etc. (go look through the NWS animated GIF page.) Get off your high horses.

Tragic? absolutely. Murder? absolutely not.

Also check out http://www.blackfive.net/ for a military blog's perspective. (yes, it's biased, that's the point of a blog. that's not the point. They have insights that other, nonmilitary sources would be too biased or inexperienced with this situation to include.)

[kronus]

Were these journalists embedded with insurgents? Because if that's the case, being embedded with known insurgents is a risk that didn't fair well for them.

I don't think insurgents stroll around Baghdad casually when there's a chopper up.

[deutschman]

i only saw 2-3 ak's and maybe one lmg. no rpg's. definitely some cameras. this was most definitely fubar, but that is war. everyone always thinks that because of the modern technology we have today that this kind of thing should not happen but that is just not the case. sad but inevitable. i think the military could have handled the aftermath with a bit more class though. i also do not understand why the chopper gunner was given the ok to engage the van.

[FreedS4]

the other side of the story

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

edit: cliffs



the two reporters appeared to be embedded with known terrorists, and therefore count as combatants. At best, they were dumb enough to drive into the middle of a war zone in an unmarked van, without communicating to anyone. Also, wikileaks doesn't point out the convoy of American military vehicles that were taking fire, headed in the direction of an armed crowd with at least one RPG. (look closer at the video- there's definitely 5-6 ak-47's and 1 RPG at a minimum.) As for the language, Soldiers use rough, callous language. So, for that matter, do police, firemen, paramedics, doctors, etc. Most of you still enjoy watching videos of people getting taken out by out of control cars, tires, etc. (go look through the NWS animated GIF page.) Get off your high horses.



Tragic? absolutely. Murder? absolutely not.



Also check out http://www.blackfive.net/ for a military blog's perspective. (yes, it's biased, that's the point of a blog. that's not the point. They have insights that other, nonmilitary sources would be too biased or inexperienced with this situation to include.)

Well said Raleigh.

I don't think insurgents stroll around Baghdad casually when there's a chopper up.

You think all insurgents hide in caves/buildings until the sun goes down? I wouldn't consider walking around on the streets with AKs and RPGs, strolling. Choppers overhead was a typical day in Iraq, so is insurgents carrying weapons on the streets.

[LBJefferies]

Tragic? absolutely. Murder? absolutely not.

Up until the van came it was merely a tragic mistake. But when they took out the van that was clearly just trying to tend to the wounded, then it became murder. What a fucking disgrace!

[kronus]

You think all insurgents hide in caves/buildings until the sun goes down? I wouldn't consider walking around on the streets with AKs and RPGs, strolling. Choppers overhead was a typical day in Iraq, so is insurgents carrying weapons on the streets.

No, I don't think that. I also know that you don't need to be an insurgent to carry an AK around with you on the street in Baghdad. (you mainly do so because everyone else is carrying around AKs. Isn't that the armed utopia the anti-gun-control crowd wants in the US?)
Mainly, insurgents do not carry around weapons when in full view of Apaches, because they are perfectly aware of what that can cause to people who look suspicious. The group of people in the video did not think that they looked suspicious, which might have been an effect of having two journalists with very obvious camera equipment with them.

[kronus]

1) Why was the video suppressed and the official information misconstrued?

-- guncams are classified.
-- it clearly shows violations and negligence.
-- Reuters asked for the guncam to be released through FOIA, denied.

2) I see camera's, not weapons - however, if there were weapons, what are the laws of civilians having weapons? I don't see them being held in an aggressive way or firing.

It's legal for civilians to have AKs there.

3) After the threat was neutralized they blew up the van of somebody trying to rescue an injured man. Murder? Yes.

Apparently that was fully within the Army ROE, which hints at necessary changes in the ROE that were never implemented following this incident.

[e30trooper]

Very fucked up

[chadthestampede]

I don't think insurgents stroll around Baghdad casually when there's a chopper up.

My impression was that the chopper was pretty far away, judging how long it took the fire to hit the people.

[FreedS4]

No, I don't think that. I also know that you don't need to be an insurgent to carry an AK around with you on the street in Baghdad. (you mainly do so because everyone else is carrying around AKs. Isn't that the armed utopia the anti-gun-control crowd wants in the US?)
Mainly, insurgents do not carry around weapons when in full view of Apaches, because they are perfectly aware of what that can cause to people who look suspicious. The group of people in the video did not think that they looked suspicious, which might have been an effect of having two journalists with very obvious camera equipment with them.

Some lofty assumptions made about the "crowd" of people/insurgents. It's not common place for Iraqi civilians to carry AKs, in fact, you're considered a hostile if you DO carry around an AK, which is a well-known fact in a war zone. Associating (being embedded) with insurgents never turned out well for anyone. I'm not saying it's fair, I'm just saying it's the truth.

+1 on the Apache's not being as close as everyone is assuming. Judging by the amount of zoom used and the time it took for the munitions to hit their targets.

[kronus]

Check this out for an actually somewhat informed discussion about it: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/com...es_a_measured/

[FreedS4]

Check this out for an actually somewhat informed discussion about it: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/com...es_a_measured/

Good find, good article.

[deutschman]

maybe the armed men were guards/escorts for the journalists?

[E30Kaiser]

The Bradleys were taking fire, and there happen to be guys nearby with weapons peaking around the corner, and one dude that looks to have an RPG on his back. What would you do in that situation? Wait to find out if it is an RPG(IE wait until he fires it at a vehicle full of Americans)? Truely a tragedy, and I don't mean to belittle the situation, but it is war, people die. Much worse happened in WWII and most people don't look at our veterans from that war as murderers.

[Raxe]

It's easy to see a camera when you're looking for a camera. They weren't looking for a camera.