US attack on Iraqis, intentional?

[BigBallinStalin]

Video shows 'US attack' on Iraqis

One of the internet's biggest sources of classified government information has released video of what it says is a US helicopter firing at civilians in Iraq.

WikiLeaks, a website that publishes anonymously sourced documents,released what it called previously unseen footage on Monday.

It said the footage filmed from a helicopter cockpit shows a missile strike and shooting on a crowded square in a Baghdad neighbourhood in July 2007.

The website said 12 civilians were killed in the attack, including two journalists, Namir Nour El Deen and Saeed Chmagh, who worked for the Reuters news agency.

The two men appear to survive the first strike and attempt to get away, but the helicopter returns a second and third time.

Probes clear soldiers

The Pentagon has not officially commented on the video and Al Jazeera's Patty Culhane, reporting from Washington, said military officials seemed "completely surprised" when informed of the release of the tape, and appeared not to have heard about the footage beforehand.
in depth

But she said Pentagon officials indicated to Al Jazeera that there was no reason to doubt the authenticity of the tape.

She added that the results of two Pentagon investigations given to her cleared the air crew of any wrongdoing.

A statement from the two probes said the air crew had acted appropriately and followed the rules of engagement.

According to the probes, the air crew had reason to believe the people seen in the video were fighters before opening fire, she said.

They added that it was not until after the fact that the soldiers knew there were reporters at the scene and could have even guessed that the people were carrying cameras and not weapons.

Ivan Eland, a defence analyst who has advised US congressmen on military and national security policy, told Al Jazeera that anyone who appeared to be helping hostile targets in a war zone can technically be considered a fair target.

"I don't think anybody tried to purposely kill anybody here but I think in this type of warfare it's not like in a conventional battle, you're not really sure who is in the insurgency and who is not ... and the real problem is in identifying the players and what they are doing in the war," he said.

Still, he said "there should have been some concern that this was not a hostile group because they saw this helicopter going around and around and didn't seem to be fearful of it".

"Insurgents would have either fled or used the rocket-propelled grenade launcher right off their backs," he said.

In the video, a voice can be heard saying there has been a shooting in the area. The unidentified person later receives permission to open fire.

Following the shooting, the footage shows troops carrying two injured children, as another unidentified person asks for permission to take the wounded out of the area.

A voice responds, saying, "Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle."

Regret



Our correspondent said the military had released a statement at the time of the attack saying they had positively identified weapons and fighters in the strike.

"It's important to point out that at the time of this incident, the military was very specific," she said.

"They said that the children were injured by shrapnel and the people who were killed were identified positively as militants who had put the security of Iraq at risk and that they had ... weapons.

"The commanders at the time said that they really regretted that children were wounded in this and said that they had taken every step possible to make sure that innocent lives were spared."

Nabil Nour El Deen, the brother of the Reuters photographer killed in the shooting, condemned the attack as a "crime" committed by the US military.

"Is this the democracy and freedom that they claim they have brought to Iraq?

"What Namir was doing was a patriotic work. He was trying to cover the violations of the Americans against the Iraqi people," he told Al Jazeera.

"We demand the international organisations to help us sue those people responsible for the killings of our sons and our people."

'Military whistleblowers'

Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks.org,said there was strong evidence to suggest the video was genuine.


Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, said there is evidence that the video is genuine

"There was a Washington Post reporter who was with that US military unit on the ground on that day," Assange told Al Jazeera, referring to David Finkel, a journalist who was embedded with the US military in July 2007.

"He wrote a chapter in a book, which was published last year, called The Good Soldiers, which correlates directly to the material in that video.

"Also, Reuters conducted a number of investigations and interviewed two ground witnesses at the time.

"That story wasn't really taken seriously, [with] nothing to back up the witnesses, but now we have the video that shows that those witnesses were correct."

WikiLeaks set up a separate website with detailed information on the video,which it said it obtained from a number of "military whistleblowers".

"WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives," the website read.

"We have analysed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident."

video= http://www.collateralmurder.com/


Al Jazeera is not responsible for the content of external websites.

MORE INFO:
Blog: WikiLeaks vs the Pentagon
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/americas/2010/04/05/wikileaks-vs-pentagon
Listening Post: WikiLeaks
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/listeningpost/2010/03/201031918554191284.html

________________________________________________________-
Someone: "Oh but BBS this is al-jazeera, bla bla blah."

SHUT UP, WELL POISONERS, and enjoy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8603938.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001802-38.html

Probably too early for American media to catch wind of this. I wonder if they'll do a bang-up job on this one...
__________________________________________________________

[THORNHEART]

Fox has it m8....

the thing is from what I read we killed two jouranlists who were middle eastern who were hanging out filming some terrorists....

1. How wise is that?

2. I don't think you can expect us to tell the differnce in a firefight.

3. Soldiers whose lives are on the line everyday and imagine the pressure and tensions their under..is it uncomprehendable that they would be exhilerated and voice their enthusiams at killing the enemy?

edit 5. on further thought and reading of the article....Its obvious these reporters had no love for usa troops...and while they shouldnt be shot for this...I often wonder why these reporters who know when terrorists will attack and were terrorist are hiding how to contact them are not considered spys or something of the sort....I say...if you walk with the wicked you shall fall with the wicked...

[MeDeFe]

Watch the video before you make any more ridiculous statements. A bunch of guys, two of them with cameras, magically turned into approximately 20 people armed with AK47s and an RPG.

There was no firefight. The US helicopter opened fire, not a single shot appeared to be fired against them, even after they started shooting.

As for "anti-American reporters"... they were with Reuters, maybe you've heard of it. One of the bigger and more renowned news services in the world, based in the UK.

[PLAYER57832]

NPR has it, too. Right now, only the summary is on the link, but by about 9AM eastern there should be audio and then a transcript later.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =125612657

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm pretty much with this guy regarding this situation.

Ivan Eland, a defence analyst who has advised US congressmen on military and national security policy, told Al Jazeera that anyone who appeared to be helping hostile targets in a war zone can technically be considered a fair target.

"I don't think anybody tried to purposely kill anybody here but I think in this type of warfare it's not like in a conventional battle, you're not really sure who is in the insurgency and who is not ... and the real problem is in identifying the players and what they are doing in the war," he said.

Still, he said "there should have been some concern that this was not a hostile group because they saw this helicopter going around and around and didn't seem to be fearful of it".

"Insurgents would have either fled or used the rocket-propelled grenade launcher right off their backs," he said.

You'd think these insurgents wouldn't be reacting like the people in the video, but it's understandable how easy it can be to misconstrue events, or reality. When I saw that guy by the wall, it looked like some long tube, and when I heard the gunner say, RPG, I also thought I heard RPG. Yet, no shots were fired, and those guys were just hanging around with the helicopter swirling around....

So, it doesn't add up. For one to say they were definitely enemies has to be a pretty dull tool in the shed. Then again, shit gets freaky sometimes, so why take chances? I'm sure there were many situations where people don't react fast enough when they should have. Why take chances? I wouldn't.

[thegreekdog]

If I had seen the video without the prior background, maybe I would have thought the cameras were AK-47s or the tube was an RPG. However, to me, it didn't look like those guys were carrying weapons. I understand that the US military personnel are concerned about potentially being shot at by insurgents. I don't know what kind of checks there are, if any, regarding potential incidents like this. In other words, are there orders to confirm that the individuals we are about to fire on are, in fact, insurgents.

EDIT - I'd actually like to hear from Woody or one of the other ex-military people.

[Qwert]

If i understand correct-helicopter fly around these people for some time. So how the hell they think that these is terorist? And then they hide these material?
Well after that its normal that you have more and more enemies,when you kill civilian,and nobody are responsibile for that.

[THORNHEART]

Also this was a sustained operation...the soldiers had been under fire for ALONG time...no doubt they were losing track of the real battle then catching site again then losing track of their enemies....The thing I wonder about is only the two reporters are confirmed as civilians and their family (of the reporters) confirm that they were in the company of terrorists.

Now for those of you that don't understand urban conflict with the terrorists I encourage you to go watch some videos.


During firefights goats children and men and women run back and foreth in the streets..terrorists hide their weapons and blend in to groups on onlookers to move safely to new sniping locations. This is not conventional warefare and while I am sure the troopps do their best ....until your the one trying to survive every minute not knowing whu is hiding a rpg just waiting for the right moment to fire I think we should be warry of casting blame....as I said I encourage you to go watch some footage of firefights thats avialible and watch how the terrorists play hit and run through crowds

[thegreekdog]

Also this was a sustained operation...the soldiers had been under fire for ALONG time...no doubt they were losing track of the real battle then catching site again then losing track of their enemies....The thing I wonder about is only the two reporters are confirmed as civilians and their family (of the reporters) confirm that they were in the company of terrorists.

Now for those of you that don't understand urban conflict with the terrorists I encourage you to go watch some videos.


During firefights goats children and men and women run back and foreth in the streets..terrorists hide their weapons and blend in to groups on onlookers to move safely to new sniping locations. This is not conventional warefare and while I am sure the troopps do their best ....until your the one trying to survive every minute not knowing whu is hiding a rpg just waiting for the right moment to fire I think we should be warry of casting blame....as I said I encourage you to go watch some footage of firefights thats avialible and watch how the terrorists play hit and run through crowds

Yeah, except this wasn't that. As far as I can tell, none of these people were actually insurgents or actually had guns. So it's not like there are 5 guys with guns standing in a crowd of 50 people.

[Woodruff]

If I had seen the video without the prior background, maybe I would have thought the cameras were AK-47s or the tube was an RPG. However, to me, it didn't look like those guys were carrying weapons. I understand that the US military personnel are concerned about potentially being shot at by insurgents. I don't know what kind of checks there are, if any, regarding potential incidents like this. In other words, are there orders to confirm that the individuals we are about to fire on are, in fact, insurgents.
EDIT - I'd actually like to hear from Woody or one of the other ex-military people.

My view is much like yours in that looking at the video it didn't look too much like AK-47s or an RPG. That being said, I've thankfully not been in a "hot zone" nor certainly a terroristic zone for a long enough term to start feeling the paranoia that really must be a part of survival in such a case, so I can't comment on why they might react the way they did in any sort of an intelligent fashion. I can rationalize in my mind why they might, but that's about it...and that's not any more than the rest of you can do (well...most of you).

As for the "helicopter swirling issue", that's really a non-player in my opinion. Terrorists tend to like to keep to the shadows...as most of us realize, sometimes the best way to hide something is to put it out in the open. It's certainly legitimate to think that they might believe they were "posing as non-terrorists" by forcing themselves to ignore the helicopter and "play it cool", so to speak. I'm NOT trying to justify the helicopter's actions by any means...just saying that the individuals not being bothered by the helicopter really isn't a reliable indicator at all.

[Baron Von PWN]

I watched the video without knowing the people were reporters or reading anything about it, and I can understand why the Pilots would have fired on them. The images were blury and I was quite certain they had weapons. I thought the issue with the video is when they fired upon the van that showed up to bring the wounded guy to the hospital.

The pilots also seemed disturbingly eager to engage, especialy when they were tracking the wounded guy on the ground. "common just pick up a weapon" . They were also very quick to attack the van and launch missles into a random building that "looked abandoned". To me those are the real issues here.

[thegreekdog]

I watched the video without knowing the people were reporters or reading anything about it, and I can understand why the Pilots would have fired on them. The images were blury and I was quite certain they had weapons. I thought the issue with the video is when they fired upon the van that showed up to bring the wounded guy to the hospital.

The pilots also seemed disturbingly eager to engage, especialy when they were tracking the wounded guy on the ground. "common just pick up a weapon" . They were also very quick to attack the van and launch missles into a random building that "looked abandoned". To me those are the real issues here.

That's interesting. I don't think they are "issues" at all. If you think someone is the enemy (and by enemy, I mean someone who is trying actively to kill you on a regular and consistent basis), I would tend to think you would say things like "C'mon just pick up a weapon." I don't think there is any need for "common decency" with respect to firing on an enemy. Granted, in this case, these guys weren't the enemy, so it's a different story.

[Baron Von PWN]

I watched the video without knowing the people were reporters or reading anything about it, and I can understand why the Pilots would have fired on them. The images were blury and I was quite certain they had weapons. I thought the issue with the video is when they fired upon the van that showed up to bring the wounded guy to the hospital.

The pilots also seemed disturbingly eager to engage, especialy when they were tracking the wounded guy on the ground. "common just pick up a weapon" . They were also very quick to attack the van and launch missles into a random building that "looked abandoned". To me those are the real issues here.

That's interesting. I don't think they are "issues" at all. If you think someone is the enemy (and by enemy, I mean someone who is trying actively to kill you on a regular and consistent basis), I would tend to think you would say things like "C'mon just pick up a weapon." I don't think there is any need for "common decency" with respect to firing on an enemy. Granted, in this case, these guys weren't the enemy, so it's a different story.

Fair enough, I suppose those are realities of war that will allways be shocking to civilians and are also why military people reintergrating into society can have such a hard time. I do feel the attack on the van was paerticularily unprovoked though, especialy since they were just picking up the wounded and not wepons.

[Woodruff]

The pilots also seemed disturbingly eager to engage, especialy when they were tracking the wounded guy on the ground. "common just pick up a weapon" . They were also very quick to attack the van and launch missles into a random building that "looked abandoned". To me those are the real issues here.

Truthfully, I see that aspect a bit differently...to my mind, the fact that they WERE WAITING for him to pick up a weapon is a sign they were doing the right thing. They wanted to kill him, because they presumed he was a terrorist, but did the right thing by only WANTING him to pick up the weapon and not just firing on him anyway. In this case, eagerness is merely self-preservation.

[MeDeFe]

Do the people in helicopters ONLY use the cameras to get a view of the outside? Aren't there windows and stuff they can look through? And doesn't someone have this amazing invention called "binoculars"? You know, that thing you hold in front of your eyes and things that are far away appear to be much closer and you can get a look at details you couldn't make out otherwise.

Baron, is walking down the street really a good reason for firing at a person, after the war has officially ended? And if, as you seem to assume, the soldiers had no better visuals than the footage on Youtube is, then they are either guilty of misconduct for not making sure what those guys were carrying before shooting, or the rules of conduct need to be changed. (Or the US military needs better technology and high-res cameras.)

Even on the grainy footage you can see a bunch of guys who appear quite relaxed and are talking among themselves, two of them are carrying something that to me does clearly not look like assault rifles. I spent 6 months handling an AK47 rip-off, so while I may not be an expert, I know what they look like and what size they are.

[Qwert]

Now for those of you that don't understand urban conflict with the terrorists I encourage you to go watch some videos.

Now these is second issue-video.
If policy of US military to hide videos when murder Civilians,because if im notice these is from 2007 years and now its 2010.
Its possible that exist more and more materials from other attack on civilians from helicopter who are hide from public eye?
If you claim to attack terorist, and if other say that these is civilian,then its easy to present video and say "these is terorist with weapons who fire on helicopter",instead to hide these video.
These is same from attack on Yugoslavia-in begining they only show "success" atack on Military target(laster discover that high number of target whas decoy),and in any mistake,first they refuse to hepend any mistake,but later when video release(like Attack on China embasy),they speak that these is mistake.
With all these new modern tehnology,and when you with satelite can see 1cm square on earth, i think that mistake need to be reduce alot.

[Baron Von PWN]

Do the people in helicopters ONLY use the cameras to get a view of the outside? Aren't there windows and stuff they can look through? And doesn't someone have this amazing invention called "binoculars"? You know, that thing you hold in front of your eyes and things that are far away appear to be much closer and you can get a look at details you couldn't make out otherwise.

Baron, is walking down the street really a good reason for firing at a person, after the war has officially ended? And if, as you seem to assume, the soldiers had no better visuals than the footage on Youtube is, then they are either guilty of misconduct for not making sure what those guys were carrying before shooting, or the rules of conduct need to be changed. (Or the US military needs better technology and high-res cameras.)

Even on the grainy footage you can see a bunch of guys who appear quite relaxed and are talking among themselves, two of them are carrying something that to me does clearly not look like assault rifles. I spent 6 months handling an AK47 rip-off, so while I may not be an expert, I know what they look like and what size they are.

They might be quite far away and not able to see with the naked eye, nor would it be a good idea to get close enough to get a MK.1 eyeball look at someone who might have an RPG or AK. I don't know how much they could see all I have to go on is the grainy video, maybe they had a better quality view and could clearly see weapons, maybe they didin't I don't know. I'm no expert either, but again the first time seeing the video(just the raw video without outside commentary) I thought they were weapons too, I didin't see the alleged RPG but I was sure they had a bunch of AKs.

These guys (the helicopter crew) were responding to a call for Air support after an american unit got attacked by small arms and RPG fire so they were expecting to find that in the area. They may have seen something that wasn't there the mind can play tricks in high stress situations.Bear in mind these guys don't have the luxury of pausing and replaying what they are seeing and it could be their duddies life on the line.

Did you notice how they all huddled up against that wall? that's because up the street is an american unit and they were probly worried about being shot. It could also look like they are taking cover from someone they are about to attack.This would put considerable pressure on the guys in the gunship to do something and 'save" their buddies.

I think this is one of those terrible accidents that can happen in a warzone(and it is a warzone it doesen't matter what you declare it to be if there are insurgent attacks its a warzone). I'm sure the reporters understood going in there are dangers associated with their line of work and understood the risks. This doesen't mean there shouldn't be an inquiry into the incident though seeing as these guys clearly hadn't fired on anyone, find out why presumebly trained military guys mistook cameras for Aks and RPGs see if the ROE were broken or if they need to be revised. Its awefull that these things happen but I can understand how it could happen.

[snufkin]

2. I don't think you can expect us to tell the differnce in a firefight.

You don´t have to be an expert to see that it´s something much smaller than an ak47.. takes a lot of faith to positively identify them as an rpg and an ak47.
Watch the full version and tell us when the "firefight" is. I think I missed it.

[AndyDufresne]

I read about this in the NYT earlier today, and the injuries sustained to the children in the van---and the subsequent quotes from soldiers were pretty chilling.


--Andy

[THORNHEART]

2. I don't think you can expect us to tell the differnce in a firefight.

You don´t have to be an expert to see that it´s something much smaller than an ak47.. takes a lot of faith to positively identify them as an rpg and an ak47.
Watch the full version and tell us when the "firefight" is. I think I missed it.

All I have to say is your an ignorant fool.

I would like you to try and think for a second.

1. Your in a life or death situation all day everyday.

2. Your friends have been killed in recent fights.

3. Every day you could be killed by a mortar/RPG/suicide bomber/roadside bomb.

4. You have been actively engaging the enemy all day...You wanna land the helicopter and check to make sure its a rpg or shoot and ask later.

5. it takes just one second for them to fire and rpg...you cant spend all day looking through binocs seeing exactly what the serial number on the weapon is

I find you self righteous and soldier hating blathering disgusting. If you were ever in this situation I am sure you would automaticly assume the men your were shooting at were reporters and clarify that before shooting first.

Also I feel once again obligated to ask what a bunch of civilians was doing running around outside during a firefight...But this is just another excuse to bash american soldiers.

[spurgistan]

2. I don't think you can expect us to tell the differnce in a firefight.

You don´t have to be an expert to see that it´s something much smaller than an ak47.. takes a lot of faith to positively identify them as an rpg and an ak47.
Watch the full version and tell us when the "firefight" is. I think I missed it.

All I have to say is your an ignorant fool.

I would like you to try and think for a second.

1. Your in a life or death situation all day everyday.

2. Your friends have been killed in recent fights.

3. Every day you could be killed by a mortar/RPG/suicide bomber/roadside bomb.

4. You have been actively engaging the enemy all day...You wanna land the helicopter and check to make sure its a rpg or shoot and ask later.

5. it takes just one second for them to fire and rpg...you cant spend all day looking through binocs seeing exactly what the serial number on the weapon is

I find you self righteous and soldier hating blathering disgusting. If you were ever in this situation I am sure you would automaticly assume the men your were shooting at were reporters and clarify that before shooting first.

Also I feel once again obligated to ask what a bunch of civilians was doing running around outside during a firefight...But this is just another excuse to bash american soldiers.

Watch the fucking video.

[SultanOfSurreal]

wow, mealy-mouthed defense of war crime in monkey business, how did i guess

[THORNHEART]

so you think because you watched a video....you have more insight to what was happening that day....

[snufkin]

well thornheart..

One second to look up, aim, fire an rpg (custom made and very small) and hitting a circling helicopter?
What video game or b-movie is that?

The rest of your points may be part of an explanation to why these things happen on a general level, but they do not magically turn what you actually can see into what you choose to believe.
I can understand that someone rather wanna be safe than sorry in their grave, but that doesn´t change the fact that what those guys are carrying is far from what an ak47 or rpg looks like.
Have you watched the video yet?

[jefjef]

Several most definitely appeared to be armed.

For those who cry I know what an AK47 looks like blah blah blah. Are you aware how many variations of that weapon there are? Several. Sure looked like rifles to me.

None of you can honestly say that those camera bags were cameras either. Explosives come in bags too. And cameras.

Dude at the corner of the building. He sure wasn't holding his dick.

They asked for and received authorization based on what they perceived upon the scene.

The van. No way to tell what all was inside of it or who those two adults were that stopped to pick up a wounded combat target.

It's a war zone.