This appears to be an accident. A mistake. Understandable, even.

Although it's a bit disturbing that a heavily armed chopper, in the air, a few miles away, can just snipe off a target because a grayish blob has a blackish blob around its chest area. I wonder what the actual resolution the gunner sees is like?

More reprehensible is the cover-up. It seems everything that the US military shoots at is declared a terrorist or an insurgent - and it takes a leak like this to demonstrate that this is not always the case and that mistakes are made.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
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.

The lack of markings is irrelevant, the geneva convention doesn't allow you to shoot at wounded enemies or unarmed civilians even if those civilians are aiding the wounded enemies.

Quote:
Art. 18. The military authorities may appeal to the charity of the inhabitants voluntarily to collect and care for, under their direction, the wounded and sick, granting persons who have responded to this appeal the necessary protection and facilities. Should the adverse Party take or retake control of the area, he shall likewise grant these persons the same protection and the same facilities.

The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality. The civilian population shall respect these wounded and sick, and in particular abstain from offering them violence.

No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick.

The provisions of the present Article do not relieve the occupying Power of its obligation to give both physical and moral care to the wounded and sick.

The people leaving the van was obviously unarmed and was only trying to help the wounded photographer, the fact that they wasn't official medical personel doesn't give anyone the right to shoot them, they're still civilians and shooting them is still murder.

The fact that you're even defending the actions of those assholes makes me sick.

There is a huge difference between combat medics helping soldiers at the frontlines (who need markings to be distinguished from combatants) and civilians who try to help wounded after the fighting is over.

Yeah I dont get the van bit...
the gunner was wishing the wounded guy to pick up a gun so he could finish him off, right?
So from that I'm guessing that shooting a wounded guy is against their ROE.
But, then when some unarmed guys try to evacuate the wounded guy, suddenly it's ok to open fire again and kill both parties?

Anyone got any references for this ROE stuff?

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
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.

Is anyone really calling it a straight up massacre? It's pretty obvious the choppers were operating within some kind of rules. The point is to demonstrate to the public the brutality of those rules. Just like Vietnam, the public was happy to support a war for peace, until images of what exactly that means started getting thrown in their face.
This isn't propaganda against the troops, it's propaganda against war itself.

Quote: Original post by nilkn
But in the end this video is propaganda.

So is every video from a war. Remember all the coverage from the embedded reporters during the initial stages of the invasion? Talk about looking at a battlefield through a straw (mentioned earlier)... Simply being propaganda isn't a reason to dismiss it completely.

[edit]Cool satire, Bru.

[Edited by - Hodgman on April 7, 2010 4:18:54 AM]

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
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.

You're actually ok with them just assuming that? Also, the solution is to do their work for them and provide ACTUAL civilian massacres?

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
...they must assume that it is a hostile force attempting to do something to damage the US forces.

That's a pathetic attempt to justify murder. They CAN assume that. Hell, they CAN assume that the entire civilian population is out to get them and just start killing people. There's a point where that sort of "assumption" becomes outright murder, and I think they crossed it.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
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.

Irrelevant. The real problem is what happened later.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
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!

I find the fact that they got permission for this much more disturbing, not less.

Thunderf00t analyzed a

">similar situation about 4 years ago.

It sucks that civilians got killed. That much I think every civilized human being can agree on...

Now, beyond that I think is where communication breaks down. Its really impossible to make a call without more context of what is going on both before and after this particular incident... We are severely lacking context.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if my neighborhood was in the middle of an active battle in a war, I wouldn't go cruising around to my corner grocery store to pick up some milk. Why? Cause I might get shot. Why? Because thats what happens when there are people with guns around. It doesn't really matter which side your on, when the sh*t hits the fan.

Now, if I am seeing this right, two who were killed were war correspondents, and if thats the case then I really don't feel bad for them at all. They knew the risks when they signed up. The rest of them, I feel sorry for them.

Quote: Original post by kryat
I don't know about the rest of you, but if my neighborhood was in the middle of an active battle in a war, I wouldn't go cruising around to my corner grocery store to pick up some milk. Why? Cause I might get shot. Why? Because thats what happens when there are people with guns around. It doesn't really matter which side your on, when the sh*t hits the fan.

Seeing how calm they all are before they get blown to hell, it would seem they weren't aware that they were "in the middle of an active battle" until they got fired upon... As you say, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be going out for milk if they knew they were in the middle of an active battle... Unless a drawn out civil war counts as a permanently active battle, then you kinda have to suck it up and get milk at some stage.

If you watch the extended version, they're just walking down a street near a mosque. Some US troops have been fired at elsewhere in the city (possibly kilometres away) but they didn't see their attackers (who fled after firing). The choppers are called in to hunt for these mystery attackers, and the events of the shortened video take place (they decide this group was in on it). Afterwards, another group of armed + unarmed guys enter a building nearby to where the US troops are congregating (the scene of the slaughter), and the building is destroyed with rockets.

The missile attack is also pretty scary, in that the choppers take their time getting into a good position so there's no chance a stray rocket would hit a "friendly" (US soldier), but they show no concern for civilians walking by the target building and actually score a near-direct hit on one passer-by... During this part of the video, the gunner actually fumbles around (or in his words, has a "brain fart") in the cockpit trying to locate the switch to arm the missiles (the pilot has to describe the location to him), perhaps showing he's not very experienced?

[Edited by - Hodgman on April 7, 2010 9:01:44 AM]

These two sounds like right cowboys. Appalling.

Thank heaven for wikileaks.org - it's about time more Americans had their eyes opened, to see how their war of glory is really played out. Of course the U.S. Army is no worse than any other western army. Modern (asymmetric) warfare is a slaughterhouse. But only one side has to deal with civilian losses.

I see (at least) two big problems. First is even though the pilots (who btw have excellent quality vision, look at the HUD text and numbers that are very thin) may be within their rules of engagement, they are fighting a war that has been illegal from day one. Only imperialists, profiteers and fox news-bait can think otherwise and defend it.

Second, they are fighting a cowards war; they have completely dehumanized the enemy, they view children and photographers as acceptable collateral damage, and they sit in flying fortresses or in choppers miles away, and shoot non-combatants with impunity, while getting a laugh when tanks roll over the dead - so silly lol. It surely seems like two teenage punks playing modern warfare, except with better graphics!

Guess you haven't heard the truth about Afghanistan either. That's perhaps an even more unjust and immoral war. I feel so ashamed - not that we supported our allies going to war (what else should we do?) - but that our politicians lied again and again, and only the left-center parties and press called them on it, yet to no avail. It's hard to prove someone is lying when it comes to top secret military intelligence. Here, whistle-blowers just go to prison, and information is NEVER released to the public, if it's damning enough.

[/rant]


Agree with Hodgman, that was some class satire. Though I have this nagging feeling maybe he was being serious, as his rating would seem to indicate.

I have some more satire: the solution when you can't take anymore injustice carried out in your name, is simply to watch all necessary propaganda movies. "Here in Israel we have the same problem, only much worse: the basterds wont stop driving around in ambulances and shooting rockets at us, just because we took half their land, and turned the other half into a starving prison. Death avenged 100-fold: the only solution."

War for profit is bad, m'kay?

Quote: Original post by Don Carnage
Modern (asymmetric) warfare is a slaughterhouse. But only one side has to deal with civilian losses.

Wait, what are you smoking? I do hope that you are not suggesting that American and allied soldiers are the only ones killing civilians.

Yes, the Iraq Conflict was a botch job since the first gulf war, and like it or not, this is just a continuation of that war. If you want to claim only 'one side' suffered civilian losses, go read up on the Kurdish people's recent history.

Not to mention the numbers of civilians killed there by 'the other side'.

As for Afghanistan, if you can't remember the US civilian losses that raised the conflict to a full open warfare, then you've had your head driven so far up somewhere that you've likely lost it. I'll give you a hint, it was kind of a big deal a few years ago.