Leaked video showing US helicopter shooting journalists and civilians

[garbon]

Lol they make a hell of a lot more money than you do, and I will be in a few years too. 

Actually in a few years I'll probably be making more than you and with no danger to my person.

[Berkut]

What is the complaint anyway - is it what they did, or how they did it, and the fact that they were not properly solemn and sad about what they were doing?

The complaint is that they did it.  The language, laughter, and all that stuff are just aggravating circumstances, that make a bad-looking situation look even worse. 

OK. Of course, what makes the bad looking situation worse is actually changing their words to something they did not say, that is in fact worse than what they did say.

What they did say wasn't really all that terrible. Not even noteworthy, when placed into the context of private conversation among soldiers.

Face it, rules of engagement or not, red cross or not, when the average rational person sees a couple of unarmed men trying to carry another unarmed wounded man out, and they get blown apart in return, it doesn't look right.  Maybe there is an acceptable explanation to this action, but that explanation better over-ride the basic feeling that "this is just wrong".

I don't see anything wrong with shooting up a van that is helping your enemies escape, and could potentially contain more people looking to ambush the ground elements that are moments away, and you are there to support.

How do you know the people in the van are unarmed anyway?

The over-riding concern here is the safety of the OUR side, remember. Not making sure that civilians won't be offended by mean soldiers. Those men flying those helicopters are not the UN, trying to make sure nothing bad happens to non-combatants. Rather they are soldiers, and there first priority is making sure nothing bad happens to the people they are there to support. Of secondary (albeit very important) concern is making sure that nothing bad happens to bystanders, much less people who place themselves actively into the combat situation and appear to be helping the people who were just looking to kill you moments before.

[citizen k]

Given that this is brown on brown violence, I can't see why anyone would care who wins or dies.

Your racist comments have been reported. 

[grumbler]

Given that this is brown on brown violence, I can't see why anyone would care who wins or dies.

Your racist comments have been reported. 

I think he is trying to make a joke about Apaches being a tribe of "brown people."

Not a good joke, but, methinks, a joke.

[DGuller]

Might have something to do with being called "dishonest".   

So you are now saying that there is a reason to be belligerent, when earlier you said there was none?    Which is the "honest" statement?

I don't particularly take it well when someone questions my honesty to score a point in an argument.  It's an extremely pathetic and destructive style of debating. 

Dishonest paraphrases inside quotation marks created just to score points in a debate are pathetic, you are right.  And they are definitely worth pointing out, even if their authors subsequently feel embarrassed and lash out.

There is absolutely nothing dishonest about paraphrasing "let me shoot" while aiming a 30 mm canon at the van into "let me blow up the van".

But there is plenty of dishonesty in trying now to re-write your actual words

"please, please, let me blow up that van"

into this new formulation. 

I don't see how you can be upset about being called out for dishonest quotes when you do it even while trying to show that you don't do it dishonestly.

By this point I think the majority of posters here know what you're all about, so I don't think I'm losing prestige by cutting to the chase in expressing my disdain for your debating methods.

Oh, I think everyone knows what we are both about, and in this case they are left in no doubt as to my disgust for your lies.

But I bet you don't even get the irony of your being caught lying while wailing about being caught lying! 

I guess there are two versions to the events.  In one version, I may have carelessly used quotes while doing what I thought was clearly a paraphrasing, while making a post based on my memory of watching the video.  In another version, I deliberately made a lie that would be easily caught, and was caught by another poster known to always be astute and fair in his comments.  I'll let the others figure out which version is more plausible.  Let's just say that I'm not worried.

I do find it curious how what was at worst clumsy paraphrasing with no intention to mislead gets jumped on, but comments like dps's get a free pass.  His description of the events, that the van was picking up the bodies and the weapons, was wrong in very important ways, that could very well change the conclusion about the appropriateness of engaging it.  Of course, neither of us intended to mislead, so neither of us was lying and deserves to be called a liar, but I think it makes a powerful statement behind the motivation of some posters when they decide to call others liars.

[sbr]

Might have something to do with being called "dishonest".   

So you are now saying that there is a reason to be belligerent, when earlier you said there was none?    Which is the "honest" statement?

I don't particularly take it well when someone questions my honesty to score a point in an argument.  It's an extremely pathetic and destructive style of debating. 

Dishonest paraphrases inside quotation marks created just to score points in a debate are pathetic, you are right.  And they are definitely worth pointing out, even if their authors subsequently feel embarrassed and lash out.

There is absolutely nothing dishonest about paraphrasing "let me shoot" while aiming a 30 mm canon at the van into "let me blow up the van".

But there is plenty of dishonesty in trying now to re-write your actual words

"please, please, let me blow up that van"

into this new formulation. 

I don't see how you can be upset about being called out for dishonest quotes when you do it even while trying to show that you don't do it dishonestly.

By this point I think the majority of posters here know what you're all about, so I don't think I'm losing prestige by cutting to the chase in expressing my disdain for your debating methods.

Oh, I think everyone knows what we are both about, and in this case they are left in no doubt as to my disgust for your lies.

But I bet you don't even get the irony of your being caught lying while wailing about being caught lying! 

I guess there are two versions to the events.  In one version, I may have carelessly used quotes while doing what I thought was clearly a paraphrasing, while making a post based on my memory of watching the video.  In another version, I deliberately made a lie that would be easily caught, and was caught by another poster known to always be astute and fair in his comments.  I'll let the others figure out which version is more plausible.  Let's just say that I'm not worried.

I do find it curious how what was at worst clumsy paraphrasing with no intention to mislead gets jumped on, but comments like dps's get a free pass.  His description of the events, that the van was picking up the bodies and the weapons, was wrong in very important ways, that could very well change the conclusion about the appropriateness of engaging it.  Of course, neither of us intended to mislead, so neither of us was lying and deserves to be called a liar, but I think it makes a powerful statement behind the motivation of some posters when they decide to call others liars.

What was wrong about dps' comments?  At the 9:35 mark the people in the van were moving one body, I think it was the wounded guy.  An reasonable person on the scene would assume they would take more bodies and any weapons they might have had.

[DGuller]

What was wrong about dps' comments?  At the 9:35 mark the people in the van were moving one body, I think it was the wounded guy.  An reasonable person on the scene would assume they would take more bodies and any weapons they might have had.

Really, a reasonable person would assume that?  You see someone getting a wounded guy into the van, and the natural assumption is that they would go for dead bodies and weapons next?

[DGuller]

Here's an interesting blog entry about this video, I thought: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/ .  This military guy concurs that the first engagement was understandable, even if possibly in error, but the second one was not.  Obviously it's just one military guy, and for all I know he could be regarded as a nutcase by people in the know, but he sounds reasonable.

For those unaware of my background, I have spent quite a lot of time (a conservative estimate would be around 4500 hours) viewing aerial footage of Iraq (note: this time was not in viewing TADS video, but footage from Raven, Shadow, and Predator feeds). I am certain my voice can be heard on several transmissions with several different Crazyhorse aircraft, as I have called them to assist troops on the ground more times in my 24-months in Iraq than I could even attempt to guess. I need no reassurances to determine the presence of an RPG7 or an AK-variant rifle, especially not from a craft flying as low as Apache (even after the video has been reduced in dimensions to a point at which it is nearly useless).

At 4:08 to 4:18 another misidentification is made by Crazyhorse 18, where what appears to clearly be a man with a telephoto lens (edit to add: one of the Canon EF 70-200mm offerings) on an SLR is identified as wielding an RPG. The actual case is not threatening at all, though the misidentified case presents a major perceived threat to the aircraft and any coalition forces in the direction of its orientation. This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error.

(note: It has to be taken into consideration that there is no way that the Crazyhorse crew had the knowledge, as everyone who has viewed this had, that the man on the corner of that wall was a photographer. The actions of shouldering an RPG (bringing a long cylindrical object in line with one's face) and framing a photo with a long telephoto lens quite probably look identical to an aircrew in those conditions.)

I have made the call to engage targets from the sky several times, and know (especially during the surge) that such calls are not taken lightly. Had I been personally involved with this mission, and had access to real-time footage, I would have recommended against granting permission. Any of the officers with whom I served are well aware that I would continue voicing that recommendation until ordered to do otherwise. A few of them threatened me with action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for doing so. Better officers than they, fortunately, were always ready to go to bat for me and keep that from happening. That said, if either of the clearly visible weapons been oriented towards aircraft, vehicles, troops, or civilians I would have cleared Crazyhorse 18 hot in a heartbeat and defended my actions to the battle staff if needed.

The point at which I cannot support the actions of Crazyhorse 18, at all, comes when the van arrives somewhere around 9:45 and is engaged. Unless someone had jumped out with an RPG ready to fire on the aircraft, there was no threat warranting a hail of 30mm from above. Might it have been prudent to follow the vehicle (perhaps with a UAV), or at least put out a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) for the vehicle? Absolutely without question. Was this portion of the engagement even remotely understandable, to me? No, it was not.

[Fate]

"Military guys" are basically people who couldn't hold down a steady job, failed out of college, or both. Why would you take any of them at their word? Perhaps if he was a high ranking officer, but even then his point of view should be extremely suspect...

[sbr]

What was wrong about dps' comments?  At the 9:35 mark the people in the van were moving one body, I think it was the wounded guy.  An reasonable person on the scene would assume they would take more bodies and any weapons they might have had.

Really, a reasonable person would assume that?  You see someone getting a wounded guy into the van, and the natural assumption is that they would go for dead bodies and weapons next?

Why would a reasonable person not?  Why would a reasonable person come driving up to the scene we saw in the video?  Remember the people making these decisions were in the cockpit of a helicopter, had friendly forces on the way and had moments to decide.  They were not in their easy chair and have the ability to look at the video multiple times and spend hours analyzing it.  I heard true concern in the voices of the pilots when that van showed up and started moving the body, not the excitement of "Yay we get to shoot some more!!".

I have never been in the military or in any situation that could even approach the conditions these people live their lives in.  I am assuming that those pilots and the people they were in radio contact with are not cold blooded killers and felt at the time they were doing the right thing under their current RoE.  I can't understand how someone could assume otherwise.

[Alcibiades]

Lol they make a hell of a lot more money than you do, and I will be in a few years too. 

Actually in a few years I'll probably be making more than you and with no danger to my person.

Where's the fun in that?

And glancing at recent threads in TBR, that seems extremely unlikely.   

[DGuller]

Why would a reasonable person not?  Why would a reasonable person come driving up to the scene we saw in the video? 

They might've not seen what transpired originally, and just saw a heavily wounded guy crawling. 

I am assuming that those pilots and the people they were in radio contact with are not cold blooded killers and felt at the time they were doing the right thing under their current RoE.  I can't understand how someone could assume otherwise.

I'm not assuming anything one way or the other.  However, giving an unqualified pass to everything that the military does, because you're in your chair and they're there on the battlefield, sounds like a copout to avoid having to think about tough questions.  There are people in uniform who do things that are rash, or outright evil, and citizens have the right to ask questions about their actions regardless of what piece of furniture they're sitting on.  In fact, I'd say they have an obligation to do that.

[Martinus]

I'm torn on this issue. On one hand there is Pat. On the other there is Alcibiades. Could we blow up a van with both of them inside?

[Martinus]

True, some people make poor career decisions.

Lol they make a hell of a lot more money than you do, and I will be in a few years too. 

Hopefully someone will put a bullet in your brain first.

[Ed Anger]

I'm torn on this issue. On one hand there is Pat. On the other there is Alcibiades. Could we blow up a van with both of them inside?

Join me in the Anti-Pat coalition. Be cool, for once.