Welcome to the world of modern media.

You have just been given a straw to look through to try to see a battlefield. And to top it off, someone else is guiding the straw.


There are other elements that we cannot see, other communications we did not hear. What we know for sure:
A. Weapons were spotted among the group.
B. At 4:06 we have movement at the corner of a building that resembles the actions similar to someone setting up a basic ambush with an RPG or similar weapon.


This group was flagged as hostile. They were engaged. A second group joined the 'hostiles' and they too were engaged.

This tragic incident stems from miss-identification of a neutral unit as hostile. This is not a war crime, this is a war accident. This was not "Hey look, a group of towel heads. Light them up!"

Events like these need to be studied, and become part of training and doctrine development. In a war zone you cannot hold the reigns too tightly, as that is what gets even more men killed and breeds even more resentment in soldiers, which in turn leads to Vietnam style massacres that are ten times worse than this event.

Ignoring the fact that they started shooting when they arguably shouldn't have in the first place, the fact that they then killed some civilians trying to held the wounded is really really disturbing. More disturbing given that an investigation apparently thought that was OK. I can't see how those guys shouldn't be charged with war crimes, or something similar.

And of course those people probably had families who now hate the US fairly justifiably. Good work.

Quote: Original post by Talroth
Welcome to the world of modern media.

You have just been given a straw to look through to try to see a battlefield. And to top it off, someone else is guiding the straw.


There are other elements that we cannot see, other communications we did not hear. What we know for sure:
A. Weapons were spotted among the group.

Well the point I'm making at least is that you can't be sure that they were carrying weapons. It's not clear at all.

Quote: B. At 4:06 we have movement at the corner of a building that resembles the actions similar to someone setting up a basic ambush with an RPG or similar weapon.

I'll give you that even though he was unpackaging his camera.

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Are you implying that the gunner can't see and should have been wearing glasses? ... there's no way the pilots could say with a 100% confidence that those were weapons ... I won't allow myself to believe that those soldiers knowingly killed innocent civilians. Not from that height and imagery.

It's not about whether it was deliberate killing of civilians or not, it's about the fact that this is what the "war" actually looks like. This is what happens over there. This is why people hate Americans and blow themselves up to strike at the US.

Quote: Well the point I'm making at least is that you can't be sure that they were carrying weapons. It's not clear at all.

Yet, they were all killed anyway...

Quote: Original post by Talroth
There are other elements that we cannot see, other communications we did not hear. What we know for sure:
A. Weapons were spotted among the group.

You are free to carry weapons there, you know. It's a dangerous place, every journalist over there probably has 2 guys with visible AKs with them at all times.
It is not a crime, let along one punishable by death.

Quote: This tragic incident stems from miss-identification of a neutral unit as hostile. This is not a war crime, this is a war accident.

Yep, and it shows how brutal the reality of this "war" is.

Quote: Original post by Talroth
What we know for sure:
A. Weapons were spotted among the group.

Surely you meant that weapons were thought to be spotted?

I watched it up to the point where they were given permission to engage. I couldn't bring myself to watch the rest, and while whole thing is pretty horrific, I can understand why it happened. It's easy for us to sit here and say they shouldv'e done this or that, but we're not the ones who were staring down the end of an RPG. The fact that it turned out to be a camera is irrelevant. There was a perceived threat to them and I guess you stay alive longer as a soldier by not waiting until the threat is real.

As for their attitude, I don't really think it's surprising. Humans adopt that kind of attitude all the time to deal with traumatic situations. I know a medlab tech who was called into work at 3am to run some tests. After several hours work, they gave their results only to be told that the patient had died. They told me their first reaction was one of anger at the inconsiderate patient (the second was shock at the first).

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine
I watched it up to the point where they were given permission to engage. I couldn't bring myself to watch the rest, and while whole thing is pretty horrific, I can understand why it happened. It's easy for us to sit here and say they shouldv'e done this or that, but we're not the ones who were staring down the end of an RPG. The fact that it turned out to be a camera is irrelevant. There was a perceived threat to them and I guess you stay alive longer as a soldier by not waiting until the threat is real.

Watch the rest, it gets worse, much worse. The attack on the first group can as you say be explained as a mistake if you're a US apologist, but the attack on the civilians who stop to help the wounded is just pure evil. (There is no way in hell a sane person can justify that)

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine

Quote: Original post by Talroth
What we know for sure:
A. Weapons were spotted among the group.

Surely you meant that weapons were thought to be spotted?

3:39, two guys at the top. I can forgive you for missing them on the low quality image (which is far better quality in the cockpit) but at least two of them are clearly carrying rifles.

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
You are free to carry weapons there, you know. It's a dangerous place, every journalist over there probably has 2 guys with visible AKs with them at all times.
It is not a crime, let along one punishable by death.

Actually, that's not true. Only Coalition forces an Iraqi Police are allowed to carry weapons. If people unknown people are spotted with weapons, they are considered enemy combatants. Even the Geneva Convention does not allow for civilians to carry weapons.

watching this is horrible... it realy sucks innocents died,but tbh i back the U.S army here. you see, i am from israel,and israel is pretty much in a war with everyone around it. being a citizen of israel showed me things that the international news presents diffrently. you see i do belive the U.S army dosen't want to kill innocents but when you look at that video it does look a bit like they are carrying weapons,and once you spot something that looks like an rpg you dont have time to decide,you must shoot before the rpg shoots your chopper down.

you see it's pretty common for the IDF to do mistakes that kill innocents,and the global media presents those mistakes as relentless child murdering,and it is possibly the same with the U.S army in this case.

beside,you have to admit there is one thing fishy about the video : the one who edited it,how did he\she know where were the bodies? i mean looking at this video you cant recognize persons,you just see shapes with black & white colors. could it be that the editor decided those bodies at X time belonged to those two journalists inorder to make the video more shocking?
what about the kids? at some part the video quoted some major american dude saying they tried preventing deaths of innocents or something,and then you could see the part where the van shooting happened with a zoom and arrows pointing at the kids. when you see that part without all the emphasis on the kids you pretty much cant see them unless you know they are there.

after this wall of text(yes, i suck at paragraphing,grammaring,spelling,etc...) my point is that unless it is VERY obvious that they intended to kill innocents,you shouldn't let the media tell you they did while the army says it didnt.
this is exacly how the army of my country,that cares about not hurting innocents more than any other army out there,became known as an army that murders children and women...

Quote: Original post by SimonForsman

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine
I watched it up to the point where they were given permission to engage. I couldn't bring myself to watch the rest, and while whole thing is pretty horrific, I can understand why it happened. It's easy for us to sit here and say they shouldv'e done this or that, but we're not the ones who were staring down the end of an RPG. The fact that it turned out to be a camera is irrelevant. There was a perceived threat to them and I guess you stay alive longer as a soldier by not waiting until the threat is real.

Watch the rest, it gets worse, much worse. The attack on the first group can as you say be explained as a mistake if you're a US apologist, but the attack on the civilians who stop to help the wounded is just pure evil. (There is no way in hell a sane person can justify that)

If you assume the initial group were hostile forces, then the second group is coming to the aid of hostile forces, possibly to recover weapons, to whitewash the area to make it look more like a civilian massacre. Whereas the Geneve Convention provides protection for hospitals and ambulance crews, it also requires that "a distinctive and uniform flag shall be adopted for hospitals, ambulances and evacuation parties. It should in all circumstances be accompanied by the national flag. An armlet may also be worn by personnel enjoying neutrality but its issue shall be left to the military authorities. Both flag and armlet shall bear a red cross on a white ground." Where on the van is there such an indication of ambulance status? Without some kind of marking for the pilots to see, they must assume that it is a hostile force attempting to do something to damage the US forces.

One thing that the wikileaks video does not mention is that this took place directly after ground forces reported hostile activity in the area. Apache gunships don't just patrol around looking for targets of opportunity. They get called in for support. Someone on the ground thought they were being shot at and asked for air support. If you're a pilot, knowing guys on the ground need your help, are you going to look at the ground and think, "bah, those guys are idiots, look at that, those are cameras"? I can see how the "RPG" was a camera, but hell, I've seen a lot of AK-47s, I've held a few, shot a few, and damn, those images looked a hell of a lot like guys carrying AK-47s.

If you A) know that guys you trust on the ground are saying the area in general is hostile, B) see something that is very convincingly an AK-47, and C) see something that might be an RPG-7, are you going to want to stick around to find out if its true? Wouldn't you be antsy about the Rules of Engagement tying your hands against something that you think could possibly shoot you out of the sky? "Come on, let us shoot!" Yeah, because who knows when that "RPG" is going to go off, on your guys on the ground, or on you.

Also, if this were a straight-up massacre of civilians, then why all the process? Why all of the requests for permission to engage? Even after shit hit the fan, they call out clear and then ask for permission again! If these were murdering assholes, they'd have just shot and that'd be the end of it.