US Military Wikileak Video...WARNING GRAPHIC

[|Bunghole|]

Here's a link to a wikileak video that was finally released to the public showing an Apache gunship in 2007 engaging what the gunship(s) presumes to be insurgent targets.

http://collateralmurder.com/

I have my opinions about this matter, but I want to see what you guys think before I share them. Watch the short version, its just over 17 minutes long. Its horrifying and brutal, yet morbidly fascinating. It certainly shows an ugly look at the way the war in Iraq is conducted.

Let's discuss this.

[sois]

First of all, that Apache chopper is brutal.

The bad guys aren't always the only ones that die. Civilians die in ever war. When you are fighting in a war zone, I assume everything looks like it's coming for you. I sure as hell would have a hair trigger. I am easily frightened. Also, bad intel happens. The soldiers are just doing what they are trained to do.

It sucks, but this is what war is.

[|Bunghole|]

Well, I'll say that one of the things that bothered me about this video is the resistance the Pentagon threw up trying to keep it from being released under the FOI rules. I can understand not releasing it immediately pending an investigation, but...we're talking three years now. It should have seen the light of day prior to this.

[sois]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='06 April 2010 - 10:56 AM' timestamp='1270576598' post='875679']
Well, I'll say that one of the things that bothered me about this video is the resistance the Pentagon threw up trying to keep it from being released under the FOI rules. I can understand not releasing it immediately pending an investigation, but...we're talking three years now. It should have seen the light of day prior to this.
[/quote]

I can understand resistance. They mowed down civilians. If anything is worth trying to hide, it's that. It's a devastating mistake.

[CTBengalsFan]

100,000 dead Iraqi civilians... for what? To stop Saddam?

Now the blood is on our hands. I'm sure those soldiers have left their "service" with their heads screwed on straight too.

[Ben]

I wonder how often this happens, but there are no reporters killed to cause outrage and get the wheels of justice moving.....

[Scoutforlife591]

This sucks.

Not sure how the Youtube degrades it, but I surely couldn't tell those were children. While I won't necessary say I saw weapons, with captions telling me otherwise. In a warzone such as Iraq, that would have been probably my first guess.

It's not the 1700, we don't fight wars where we "can see the whites of their eyes" mistakes happened however even then. Could we put more careful? Maybe with some fancy new jets.

As it is now, America doesn't have the will or manpower to prosecute a war where we don't make as many mistakes AND don't let all of our people die.

That said, 4000 years and counting has shown war and the defense thereof a necessary part of the human condition.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Scoutforlife591' date='06 April 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1270583669' post='875716']
This sucks.

Not sure how the Youtube degrades it, but I surely couldn't tell those were children. While I won't necessary say I saw weapons, with captions telling me otherwise. In a warzone such as Iraq, that would have been probably my first guess.

It's not the 1700, we don't fight wars where we "can see the whites of their eyes" mistakes happened however even then. Could we put more careful? Maybe with some fancy new jets.

As it is now, America doesn't have the will or manpower to prosecute a war where we don't make as many mistakes AND don't let all of our people die.

That said, 4000 years and counting has shown war and the defense thereof a necessary part of the human condition.
[/quote]

They didn't know there were children in that van until they were told they were there by the ground troops moving in.

That van....ugh. Apparently its common practice for insurgents to swoop in after an attack and try to round up their wounded and any weapons they can reclaim, but unfortunately for those people, apparently it was just some good samaritans trying to help the wounded guy. I think the vans driver was the father of the children and I believe I read somewhere that he was taking them to school or something similar.

I didn't see any real threat from the van, although its hard to know what the helo pilots were thinking because they did have an American patrol moving toward the area.

I believe the video quality is grainy like it is because they are using thermal imaging, as well as the fact that the Apache is operating from a considerable distance from the targets, so the camera is zoomed in quite a bit.

Pretty shitty situation all around, but...I suppose that's the kind of shit that happens in an urban combat zone like that.

I think one must also bear in mind than when this happened (2007), many areas we were patrolling were still rife with sectarian violence and Al-Qaeda in Iraq operatives that is nowhere near the same level of security that's in place today (relatively speaking of course...there's been a rash of new bombings coinciding with the Iraqi elections).

Still, it makes me pretty sad all around.

[CTBengalsFan]

My generation gets to have our own version of the crazy Vietnam vets because of this crap too. I'm sure they feel pretty shitty about killing little kids too. Not exactly "protecting America."

[CTBengalsFan]

Some of the quotes from the soldiers, probably the biggest reason the Pentagon didn't want the video to be released:

"Come on. Fire"

"Alright, I hit him." (Ha ha)

"Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards."

"We have an individual trying to crawl away" (Moments later) "Come on buddy. (to the man crawling) All you have to do is pick up a weapon" (and then he could open fire)

"I'm trying to get permission to engage." (for the van collecting the injured man) "Come on, let us shoot"

"Oh yeah, look at that. Right through the windshield! Ha ha!"

(Upon discovering that they had shot children) "Well, it's their fault for bringing kids to a battle." "That's right"

"I think I just ran over a body." (Laughter) "Maybe it was an illusion."


Now, I know this cold detachment from feeling any sort of empathy towards other humans is a normal byproduct of war. I'm not trying to say we need choir boys in the military. But, it should certainly provide ample reason NOT to go to wars that aren't COMPLETELY necessary. Iraq didn't declare war on the United States, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Iraq didn't have WMDs. There's simply no reason for the war. Now we've killed 100,000 Iraqis, 15,000 Americans including contractors, and turned a large number of soldiers into cold-blooded killers. I've seen it personally, I'm sure others have as well. Not to bring up your family, Bung, but don't you have an Iraq vet family member who's in a pretty bad way from PTSD?

[sois]

Those comments are what I want to hear from an expensive, well trained killing machine. Those soldiers know what they're signing up for. The military is not the Peace Corps. Killing is the name of the game.

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='sois' date='06 April 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1270594424' post='875745']
Those comments are what I want to hear from an expensive, well trained killing machine. Those soldiers know what they're signing up for. The military is not the Peace Corps. Killing is the name of the game.
[/quote]

[quote]Now, I know this cold detachment from feeling any sort of empathy towards other humans is a normal byproduct of war. I'm not trying to say we need choir boys in the military. But, it should certainly provide ample reason NOT to go to wars that aren't COMPLETELY necessary.[/quote]

Did you even read the rest of my post?

[|Bunghole|]

I know several people that have fought in Iraq, and I actually have two family members (both cousins) that served there. My one cousin Barry is the recovering addict with PTSD. My other cousin Mike was an MP over there...as far as I know he doesn't have any lingering issues.

None of the comments you parsed from the video really bother me much. As you said, it is kinda the detachment level that soldiers often mentally assign to their "targets", dehumanizing them in a way so that they can be effective in a hot combat zone. If you give a soldier too much time to contemplate their actions, then that soldier will die.

The video makes me ill, but it didn't really surprise me all that much. Wars beget atrocities, and as honorable as most of our soldiers are, just because they are American soldiers doesn't place them above blame, the law, etc.

I'm not trying to suggest there were war crimes committed here, nor do I have proper context of the scope of this operation to really judge. From rewatching it, it is obvious to me that there had been earlier insurgent activity in the area and there were ground troops moving in the direction of the Apache's position that the helos were providing cover for.

Target acquisition in an urban environment like this is a nightmare logistically speaking, and we can only rely on what our soldiers and pilots see, along with whatever other actionable intelligence they may have beforehand. I do think that the Apache gunner was too trigger happy, but that shit also happens in wars. I am equally convinced that the helo pilot and gunner thought they were doing the right thing.

One thing that to me is clear: anyone that believes we are capable of exerting "surgical precision" in everything we do due to our technological advantage doesn't know shit about ordinance or the way its delivered. Civilians being killed by sheer accident or being mistaken for legit military targets just...happens, and is an unfortunate consequence of the ugliness that is war.

And this war...probably wasn't necessary. I don't think it was worth it, at all.

[sois]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' date='06 April 2010 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1270594749' post='875746']
Did you even read the rest of my post?
[/quote]

I did, I wasn't concerned with the rest of your post because I don't really want to get into it. There are reasons for war. You may not agree with the reasons but wars aren't always fought with noble intentions.

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='sois' date='06 April 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1270595192' post='875749']
You may not agree with the reasons but wars aren't always fought with noble intentions.
[/quote]

Right, and when they aren't, and are fought in your name, and have terrible consequences, you should get pissed off about it.

[CTBengalsFan]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAzIgzuapMw[/media]

[CTBengalsFan]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MDnif4vII8[/media]

[sois]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' date='06 April 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1270595482' post='875752']
Right, and when they aren't, and are fought in your name, and have terrible consequences, you should get pissed off about it.
[/quote]

It's not like 95% of the country didn't support these wars. Bush admin fought wars. Obama admin is fighting wars. That covers most voters. If people really wanted change, they'd vote for someone who wanted to pull out of wars completely (I think McKinney from the Green party had the closest stance on this, but she was pretty crazy otherwise).

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='sois' date='06 April 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1270606137' post='875781']
It's not like 95% of the country didn't support these wars. Bush admin fought wars. Obama admin is fighting wars. That covers most voters. If people really wanted change, they'd vote for someone who wanted to pull out of wars completely (I think McKinney from the Green party had the closest stance on this, but she was pretty crazy otherwise).
[/quote]

......I'm going to have to go with Go's quote from the other thread.

The war has had at least a 60-65% disapproval rating since '06. It had large support in '03 because people were lusting for revenge over 9/11 and had been lied to about why we were doing it.

The fact that the two-party system gives you no real choice about foreign policy has NOTHING to do with this.

[sois]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' date='07 April 2010 - 01:20 AM' timestamp='1270628429' post='875797']
......I'm going to have to go with Go's quote from the other thread.

The war has had at least a 60-65% disapproval rating since '06. It had large support in '03 because people were lusting for revenge over 9/11 and had been lied to about why we were doing it.

The fact that the two-party system gives you no real choice about foreign policy has NOTHING to do with this.
[/quote]

All it takes is a little fucking research to find a candidate who is against war. You aren't going to agree with any candidate's entire platform, but if this is your #1 issue, then you should take the time to vote for the appropriate candidate. This was MY #1 issue. That is why I could remember that chick's name off the top of my head. I don't like her other policies but IIRC, she wanted to pull out of all warzones ASAP.

It has to be a priority for the voters. If it's not, don't bitch.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[b]Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video[/b]

By Justin Fishel

- FOXNews.com

WikiLeaks, the self-proclaimed "whistle-blowing" investigative Web site, released a classified military video Monday that it says shows the "indiscriminate slaying" of innocent Iraqis. Two days later, questions linger about just how much of the story WikiLeaks decided to tell.

* print
* email
* share
* Check recommend (22)

Decrease Font A A A Increase Font

This frame grab image, taken from a video posted at Wikileaks.org, shows a group of men in the streets of the New Baghdad with weapons just prior to being fired upon by a U.S. Army Apache helicopter July 12, 2007. (FNC)

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- WikiLeaks, the self-proclaimed "whistle-blowing" investigative Web site, released a classified military video Monday that it says shows the "indiscriminate slaying" of innocent Iraqis. Two days later, questions linger about just how much of the story WikiLeaks decided to tell.

At a press conference in Washington, D.C., WikiLeaks accused U.S. soldiers of killing 25 civilians, including two Reuters journalists, during a July 12, 2007, attack in New Baghdad. The Web site titled the video "Collateral Murder," and said the killings represented "another day at the office" for the U.S. Army.

The military has always maintained the attacks near Baghdad were justified, saying investigations conducted after the incident showed 11 people were killed during a "continuation of hostile activity." The military also admits two misidentified Reuters cameramen were among the dead.

WikiLeaks said on Monday the video taken from an Army helicopter shows the men were walking through a courtyard and did nothing to provoke the attack. Their representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons, U.S. personnel killed everyone in sight and have attempted to cover up the murders ever since.

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying.
related links

*

Video Appears to Show U.S. Forces Firing on Unarmed Suspects in Baghdad

However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.

WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.
[b]
"It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events." [/b]

Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs.

[b]"Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat," Hanzlik said. [/b]

Military officials have also pointed out that the men in the video are the only people visible on those streets. That indicated something was going on and that these individuals still felt they could walk freely, one official told Fox News.

[b]Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons." [/b]

[b]Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks became "unsure" about the weapons. He claimed the RPG could have been a camera tripod, so editors decided not to point it out.
[/b]
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything," Assange said. Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area."
[b]
The military has said Army units on the ground were experiencing RPG fire before calling in close air support. And although it could be argued AK-47 rifles are common household items, RPGs are not. [/b]
[b]
Assange said video evidence of the cameras was much clearer than it was of the weapons and that military statements about the presence of weapons had already been widely distributed. But critics say those watching the video online or on television for the first time may not have had any knowledge of those statements.
[/b]
"It's ludicrous to allege that we have taken anything out of context in this video," Assange told Fox News.

Another point of contention comes later in the video when U.S. Apache helicopters open fire on two men in a van who had arrived at the courtyard to carry away one of the wounded. It was later learned that the wounded man was one of the photographers. WikiLeaks argues that attack violated the Army's rules of engagement. However, the military says that because the van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle, it was fair game under Army rules.

According to Assange the assault on the van was the most damning piece of video evidence. "I'm very skeptical that was done under the rules of engagement; and if it was legal, the rules of engagement must be changed," Assange said.

So far the rules of engagement in Iraq have not changed.

Hanzlik called the death of the Reuters photographers "incredibly unfortunate." That sad part is, he said, they weren't wearing any markings or jerseys that would have signaled to U.S. forces they were members of the media.

WikiLeaks has another classified military video in their possession they plan to release in about a month. This time, Assange said, the public will see what happened during the controversial May 2009 NATO airstrike in Farah province, where Afghan officials say at least 150 civilians were killed.

[Jamie_B]

^^^

CYA

[Jamie_B]

http://blog.sojo.net/2010/04/07/video-of-civilian-deaths-in-iraq-and-americas-culture-of-violence/


[quote]Video of Civilian Deaths in Iraq and America’s Culture of Violence
by Logan Laituri 04-07-2010

100407-iraq-video“C’mon, just let us shoot…”

“I think they just drove over a body.” “Really? Ha!”

“Well it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”

These are things one might expect to hear in a living room, uttered by pre-pubescent boys playing the latest Call of Duty video game, not the utterances of grown men, moral agents acting on behalf of and as representatives of U.S. citizens abroad. Obscenely ironic is the fact that this is exactly what was spoken by several commissioned officers in the U.S. Armed Forces.

By now, many of you have likely heard of the videos released on Monday depicting the morally reprehensible actions of some Apache helicopter pilots in Iraq in July of 2007 as they fired upon several people, including two Reuters journalists. If you have the stomach for it, I recommend watching at least the 17 minute clip released by WikiLeaks (below). Several years ago, I would not have encouraged folks to watch such a graphic depiction of morbid carnage. However, my current belief is that we as a society have become detrimentally detached from the violence our government presumes to be conducting in our name, essentially giving our leaders a blank check for military force while we immerse ourselves in the latest release from Apple, Inc. or episode of American Idol.

For those that are able, watch how the 30 millimeter rounds tear up solid asphalt. Unless my training has been outdated, that particular caliber round is not to be used against personnel. Anything above 7.62 millimeters is strictly for use against equipment (that restricts anti-personnel weaponry to only rifles, carbines, and squad automatic weapons). In the videos, the Apache pilots are likely talking to an infantry platoon on the ground. “Bushmaster” is the infantry element, trying to get to the location to take pictures, while “Crazyhorse” are probably the pilots. It took me a full 24 hours just to build the nerve to watch the video myself after being alerted to the New York Times article by a friend and fellow combat veteran. The most gut-wrenching part for me, ironically enough (and indescribably tragic), is that “Bushmaster” was the call sign for my infantry company in Iraq in 2004. “Crazyhorse” is another radio call sign I am eerily familiar with. I am not yet sure if that particular unit was in Iraq again in 2007, but it is entirely possible.

Just as disturbing is the initial response by the military — providing pictures of RPGs and AK-47s — which does not satisfy my own concern for justice. As I stated in a blog post I uploaded the day I testified at the Truth Commission on Conscience in War (it was an original form of my testimony that I scrapped), my own Battalion Commander promised to drop weapons to “protect” his soldiers from the juridical claims of those “quaint” international treaties we signed into U.S. law back in 1977.

But can we really place the entirety of the blame on a few people whose fingers are closest to the trigger? No person is able to stoop to the depraved moral place those pilots were at without some social framework that enables such a lofty fall from common understandings of basic dignity. Those pilots are byproducts of a culture compromised by concessions to violence, not trailblazers forging gruesome new ground.

By this, I mean that I do not believe this culture originates in the military, but can be easily solidified there. For example, just think of the way firing ranges in military training differ from those in law enforcement ranges. In the former, any and all human-shaped targets are shot down, but in the latter one is required to differentiate between bad guy and good guy, between firearm and photographic equipment.

Despite the incredible disgust and shame I felt as I watched the clips, I do have cause for hope. Thursday I will be screening the documentary Soldiers of Conscience at the local university. The University of Hawaii has a big ROTC program, which includes cadets from my own school, Hawaii Pacific University. I know that the future leaders of our military are taking the imperative of conscience very seriously; on a panel with me after the screening will be the Professor of Military Science (basically the ROTC commander) as well as a senior ROTC cadet. They have already screened the documentary once in their required ROTC course this semester and are looking forward to input from other students on Thursday.

As the video makes clear, there are people in uniform who disregard very basic concepts of restraint and moderation. There are also those who would disagree with the language used, but side with the official response by the military, that the pilots were acting in accordance with the Law of Land Warfare (FM 27-10) and their rules of engagement at the time. But it is important to remember that there are also men and women in uniform who are as disgusted by the lack of humanity displayed in the videos as you and I are.

Logan Laituri is an Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He blogs sporadically and is a co-founder of Centurion’s Guild.[/quote]

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='07 April 2010 - 03:06 PM' timestamp='1270667206' post='875893']
^^^

CYA
[/quote]

What?

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='07 April 2010 - 05:05 PM' timestamp='1270674356' post='875918']
What?
[/quote]

I'm confused too. At first he just posted that, and I thought that he meant "later to these bogus allegations" or something, but then he posted a blog entry that refutes what you posted, so maybe he meant "cya to Tiger's Johnson's FOX News article"....I'm sure he'll be along shortly to klarifie....