View Full Version : July 07 Apache fire on group, inc. 2 reuters photographers KIA(VID)
Could not find anything about this doing a search here, never heard about this anywhere until now, and supposedly, the video was unavailable until very recently. If inappropriate mods, do what needs to be done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&feature=player_embedded#
yes, the video/commentary is set up in such a way to not give .mil any slack what so ever.
As usual, hindsight is 20/20. Would you have done the same?
In the moment and at that point in time I'm sure our guys did what they felt was the right thing with the information that they had available to them. However, taking two children into that area immediately following the incident was beyond stupidity.
100%. You can see at least one guy carrying at least a rifle. Hard to tell exactly what it is from the video but it ain't no camera, otherwise the niffty captions would've pointed out that it was a harmless little stick bunny.
Ridge_Runner_5
04-05-10, 18:32
The message I put up:
Bad decisions all around. Dont know what the pilots saw, but I did not see any RPGs, but perhaps 1 or 2 AKs...and the reporters made a bad choice in hanging out there. You cannot expect to get footage from the "front" and not be put at risk of being shot at.
Remember the pilots are trying to make sure everything is safe for soldiers on the ground. We can armchair quarterback this all day, but they have only seconds to make the call.
This is why we embed reporters with our guys right? So they don't go out on their own and look suspicious and wind up getting killed. The cameras present don't really mean anything, the terrorists record their actions all the time from what I have seen.
And also, like irish said, wtf is up with taking kids right down to a spot where guys just got blown up by a helicopter cannon? Keep them inside maybe?
When you try to get some good photos of hell, sometimes you get burned.
We should have been backing the secular sunnis from the beginning instead of the shia religious nutjobs. Forgive me for speaking frankly, but firing at a vehicle trying to evacuate a wounded guy is something the Japs or Viet Cong would do to us, or the Germans and Soviets would do to each other.
1. I am a civilian ( soon to change!), so I'm not in a position to go off whether this was good/bad blah blah.....but here are my honest opinions/observations.
-It seemed as if those involved were a little "trigger happy". Like they were clawing at the ground just waiting for someone to give them the ok to light this group up.
-The group fired upon didn't appear to be up to anything sinister
-They seemed to jump very quickly to "He's got an RPG!". I would have expected them to hold off a little longer, and continue surveillance to actually confirm beyond a doubt that it was an RPG. Obviously, its easy to say that from here though.
-I'm not sure about firing on the van that pulled up
-I'm also surprised about the kids being given off to someone else. I'm sure the base had plenty of wounded to attend to, but lighting up a van that's picking up the wounded/dead, and then handing off the kids to the IP sends the message that the US does what it wants, and then gives the mess they create to someone else to deal with.
Fog of War.
We apologize for killing your reporters embedded with bad people. We're sorry for killing bad people's kids too. Maybe they should have been better parents.
if I was to live in a war zone I would be careful when I go out and never carry anything that looks like a weapon ? I would not go out and pick up wounded who just go hit with my kids in the car !!!!!
heck I would move I guess or try to make sure I was under cover
sadly I have heard from some in the know that these idiots dont mind putting their kids in harms way cause they know if something happens it will reflect badly on the U.S. and they are OK with that ?
as far as camera people its kinda like anything you take risks and sometimes crap happens
I guess in WWII I wonder how many allied cameraman hung out with the japanese or the Nazis ?
as a photographer I would never take sides with the enemy to get a story
I would tell the story from our side not the enemies
the comments on the video page are kinda pathetic and typical sadly
I guess I look at it like most of the world likes to point blame at us so we should just to ahead and do what they think we are and take over all the oil fields and call them ours :)
Belmont31R
04-05-10, 20:13
When you try to get some good photos of hell, sometimes you get burned.
We should have been backing the secular sunnis from the beginning instead of the shia religious nutjobs. Forgive me for speaking frankly, but firing at a vehicle trying to evacuate a wounded guy is something the Japs or Viet Cong would do to us, or the Germans and Soviets would do to each other.
No red cross or ambulance markings that I could see. Also were picking up weapons.
Belmont31R
04-05-10, 20:23
1. I am a civilian ( soon to change!), so I'm not in a position to go off whether this was good/bad blah blah.....but here are my honest opinions/observations.
-It seemed as if those involved were a little "trigger happy". Like they were clawing at the ground just waiting for someone to give them the ok to light this group up.
-The group fired upon didn't appear to be up to anything sinister
-They seemed to jump very quickly to "He's got an RPG!". I would have expected them to hold off a little longer, and continue surveillance to actually confirm beyond a doubt that it was an RPG. Obviously, its easy to say that from here though.
-I'm not sure about firing on the van that pulled up
-I'm also surprised about the kids being given off to someone else. I'm sure the base had plenty of wounded to attend to, but lighting up a van that's picking up the wounded/dead, and then handing off the kids to the IP sends the message that the US does what it wants, and then gives the mess they create to someone else to deal with.
Group of armed men close to a patrol. What else would they be doing?
I can see how the pilots could confuse the camera for an RPG but even if they saw it as a camera doesn't mean anything. They like to film their shit and put it on the internet. In fact Id take that as a clue they were about to do something and were planning on filming it.
Like I said the van didn't have any red cross or ambulance markings. Plus they were trying to pick up the weapons. Medical workers don't do that.
Part of handing off control to Iraq is letting them treat their own. They aren't going to advance if we do everything for them.
Also without getting into specifics the ROE can be changed based on the conditions on the ground and the current threat intel. There is a general ROE, and then supplements can be made to either restrict it further or loosen it up. Take the Battle of Fallujah for instance. The ROE was changed for that mission.
Although it does suck they were killed they were stupid for embedding themselves with insurgents, and basically looking the part. We've killed tons of those guys, and I would not want to place myself on the receiving end of the US military. They took the risk to get the story. Lots of reporters have died by putting themselves at great risk to themselves to get a story no one else is willing to do. Natl Geographic had a special on where they went out with some SF soldiers in Afghanistan, and some of their staff was wounded/killed by an IED blast (along with US mil). Some reporters have the mentality rules don't apply to them, and because they are journalists they get special treatment even in the middle of a war zone. You cannot expect our military to be able to make that distinction on the spot 100% of the time, and in this case they got mixed in with the wrong crowd.
The "rpg" was actually a camera with a telephoto lens. I see two guys who are carrying long items like you can carry an AK but the video is too blurry. I do however see multiple cameras, camera bags, and at least one tripod-like object being carried like a tripod.
It doesn't help that the guy(s) on the radio were sickeningly begging to kill everyone in the van and nearby when I didn't see a single rifle slung on anyone's shoulder. While the first part is pretty much a case of false id, the second part with the van is just messed up.
I have heard from others that the company the photographers were working for were known in the past to embed themselves with enemy combatants. Although what led up to this event I'm unaware of. The video clip as it is makes it seem rather unprovoked.
But we can all play armchair commandos on this all day long. None of this would have happened if we weren't there. Hopefully that changes very soon.
1. I am a civilian ( soon to change!), so I'm not in a position to go off whether this was good/bad blah blah.....but here are my honest opinions/observations.
-It seemed as if those involved were a little "trigger happy". Like they were clawing at the ground just waiting for someone to give them the ok to light this group up.
-The group fired upon didn't appear to be up to anything sinister
-They seemed to jump very quickly to "He's got an RPG!". I would have expected them to hold off a little longer, and continue surveillance to actually confirm beyond a doubt that it was an RPG. Obviously, its easy to say that from here though.
-I'm not sure about firing on the van that pulled up
-I'm also surprised about the kids being given off to someone else. I'm sure the base had plenty of wounded to attend to, but lighting up a van that's picking up the wounded/dead, and then handing off the kids to the IP sends the message that the US does what it wants, and then gives the mess they create to someone else to deal with.
Those guys in the air? They're Soldiers. When their fellow Soldiers are on the ground getting shot up, they come in and do their duty. Their duty is to kill anything in the beaten zone that may cause harm to their fellow Soldiers. When they make "Those Bastards" dead, they're protecting and saving their fellow Soldiers lives. They will not hesitate while their friends are dying. They're angels of mercy if you're on the right side of the battlefield. If you're on the wrong side, they're angels of death.
The reason they use language like that is twofold. They're excited to be saving their fellow Soldiers. They're also somewhat dehumanizing their targets. You can't continue to kill people in a protracted battle without incurring some psychological damage. You have to find a way to mitigate the damage it inflicts, or you will not survive the tour of duty in one piece. Your fellow Soldiers are counting on you to bring the fire when they need it, so you suck it up and do what you have to do to survive.
Sometimes foolish people intercede where they should not. They die, life goes on. Let the grieving grieve, but it's nothing that should in any way deter our Soldiers from their duty, which is to drive the enemy from the battlefield. Whether they're driven with a white flag over their shoulder or in a meat wagon is up to them.
I was in Northern Iraq in '07. Our aerial scout weapon platforms could not engage unless they had positive ID from ground forces. Incidents like this one would have been blamed on the ground commander. I'm not sure how they fought in Baghdad but in Mosul our pilots were not free to just engage without someone on the ground directing fire.
9mm_shooter
04-05-10, 21:34
While the video is damning, we have to understand that the pilots seemed to be in a bit of a hurry at the time, and the houses and walls were in the way of taking a good image. The Apache crew seemed intent on protecting the US forces located to the west of this group. They looked at the group approaching the intersection and had mere seconds to decide if they were hostiles.
What were they doing at night, flanking a US position in the middle of a firefight? Taking pictures or maybe setting up an ambush using what was mistakenly identified as an RPG. What would any of us done with the information they had at the time, honestly?
While the video is damning,
its seems more exonerating than damning, to me.. there's obviously people with weapons, the "RPG" sure as shit looks like an RPG.. one guy appears to be shooting around a corner of a building with the guy with the RPG coming up from behind... they engage the moment they've swung back around and cleared the buildings where the group is huddled as though in a loose, poorly trained stack, with Americans in the vicinity...
what more do you need? looks like a good shoot to me.
9mm_shooter
04-05-10, 21:53
its seems more exonerating than damning, to me.. there's obviously people with weapons, the "RPG" sure as shit looks like an RPG.. one guy appears to be shooting around a corner of a building with the guy with the RPG coming up from behind... they engage the moment they've swung back around and cleared the buildings where the group is huddled as though in a loose, poorly trained stack, with Americans in the vicinity...
what more do you need? looks like a good shoot to me.
If you look closely at the tip of the reported RPG, at around 4:14, just before the helicopter swings around, you'll see the entire profile of the camera with the telephoto lens. But we were trained by the intro to look for that telephoto lens. These highly trained helicopter pilots were looking for threats that could ambush their buddies on the ground. So they saw AK-47s and an RPG. That is my point. THIS video is damning because it tells us what these guys were holding before we are allowed to make the judgment ourselves. These guys were under alot of pressure, not sitting in their homes watching YouTube videos like me.
Belmont31R
04-05-10, 21:55
While the video is damning, we have to understand that the pilots seemed to be in a bit of a hurry at the time, and the houses and walls were in the way of taking a good image. The Apache crew seemed intent on protecting the US forces located to the west of this group. They looked at the group approaching the intersection and had mere seconds to decide if they were hostiles.
What were they doing at night, flanking a US position in the middle of a firefight? Taking pictures or maybe setting up an ambush using what was mistakenly identified as an RPG. What would any of us done with the information they had at the time, honestly?
As I said even if it was correctly ID'd as a camera it doesn't change anything. Insurgents love to video their "missions" for propaganda.
As someone with photography experience with telephoto lenses and dSLR cameras I can tell you for sure that it is a telephoto lens you are mistaking as an RPG. Maybe your screen is small or you're not looking. I thought it was pretty clear as day that it was a camera and the "rpg" claim over the radio was frightening because I knew they were just about to mow down a bunch of photographers.
If you look closely at the tip of the reported RPG, at around 4:14, just before the helicopter swings around, you'll see the entire profile of the camera with the telephoto lens. But we were trained by the intro to look for that telephoto lens. These highly trained helicopter pilots were looking for threats that could ambush their buddies on the ground. So they saw AK-47s and an RPG. That is my point. The video is damning because it tells us what these guys were holding before we are allowed to make the judgment ourselves.
ah.. yes the video, as presented to us, was extremely biased. i deliberately didn't read their captions, though, wanting to see it virginally. i even felt the editing was skewed.
i also dont buy that the children were sitting up front, as the video later tries to show us.. but even if they were, who knows what that looked like from the bird. they were watching for weapons, not empty hands.
moral of the story, as sombody else already said- don't embed journalists and children with enemy combatants, and they wont be shot.
As someone with photography experience with telephoto lenses and dSLR cameras I can tell you for sure that it is a telephoto lens you are mistaking as an RPG. Maybe your screen is small or you're not looking. I thought it was pretty clear as day that it was a camera and the "rpg" claim over the radio was frightening because I knew they were just about to mow down a bunch of photographers.
i dont know anything about photography, but i saw what was apparently a "lense" and immediately thought it was an RPG as well, even before the crewman said "RPG!"
It looks absolutely righteous to me. There are men with AKs...the guy is peeking the corner... camera lens looks exactly like an RPG. The other van is rescuing bad guys and removing Tangos, weapons and intel from the scene of a battle... fair game. All good:D
Here's an article, from Bill Roggio at the Weekly Standard, that adds a little more detail.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/collateral-murder-baghdad-anything but (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/collateral-murder-baghdad-anything)
From the article:
"Here is what the U.S. military had to say about the engagement in a July 2007 press release:
Soldiers of 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, and the 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, both operating in eastern Baghdad under the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, along with their Iraqi counterparts from the 1st Battalion, 4th Brigade, 1st Division National Police, were conducting a coordinated raid as part of a planned operation when they were attacked by small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. Coalition Forces returned fire and called in attack aviation reinforcement."
At 3:36 in the (fuzzy) video several men come into view top center and at least 2 appear to be armed. The one in the striped shirt on the left looks to be holding an AK and the man immediately right of him has the alleged RPG, (which is pretty clear if you pause at 3:45 as he turns). As these two stop near the pole, the other two advance a bit and the guy on the right also appears to hold something that could be a folding stocked rifle. That guy spots the chopper and goes back to the first two who are also watching the bird. By around 3:55 striped shirt is trying to conceal his rifle before advancing toward the cover of the building in the foreground. The guy poking a camera around the corner does not appear to be the guy with the RPG. Again, blurry video, but given the time and context of the situation I'd say they presented a threat. Most here would be "trigger happy" too if you were looking at an RPG wielding enemy through the windshield of a chopper.
I guess my final take is the video evidence of two planes being flown into the twin towers
while the people on the plane in the towers and on the ground were all civilians !!!!
not to mention the other planes that day
that should be the focus of these people that are pissed and to remember NY was not a war zone !
As I said even if it was correctly ID'd as a camera it doesn't change anything. Insurgents love to video their "missions" for propaganda.
If your eyes are that bad....
http://i40.tinypic.com/2hxvrrs.jpg
OMG IT'S AN RPG
http://i39.tinypic.com/fmpaat.jpg
Yeah, insurgents carry around nice cameras with nice telephoto lenses even when it's been confirmed that the reporters were found dead...herp.
Last photo one of them took:
http://i42.tinypic.com/s1kdnt.jpg
I see two people on a moped and the rest walking around with no evident guns. Camera bags, tripods, etc are seen.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2mpbd6c.jpg
What a tripod looks like:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2vb9e8o.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2e6euzk.jpg
You carry them slinged with attachments at bottom and top.
What absolutely sickens me:
http://i39.tinypic.com/29z68sz.png
COME ON, LET US SHOOT THE WOUNDED PERSON AND EVERYONE TRYING TO HELP THEM MINUTES AFTER THE INITIAL GROUP WAS SLAUGHTERED
What type of vision do they allow on someone who does this job? Are these guys not even trained to identify stuff? How can you not know what a camera looks like? Better tell the population of the region to walk around naked without anything in their hands and for the love of God don't carry a stick because long things are RPGs and AKs.
COME ON, LET US SHOOT THE WOUNDED PERSON AND EVERYONE TRYING TO HELP THEM MINUTES AFTER THE INITIAL GROUP WAS SLAUGHTERED
From what I read on another forum, insurgents like to clean up the battle field and make it look like coalition forces were wrongful in their attack. They also like to plant IED's near by or on dead bodies just before soldiers roll on through and investigate the aftermath.
I still say the "RPG guy" who disappears behind the edge of the building at 4:02 is not the guy with the camera who is already kneeling at the buildings corner some 30' away when he comes into view at 4:05. Pause at 3:45 and compare that profile with all of the objects you have just posted above.
Guys, like I said earlier, hindsight is 20/20. 97% of this is clear as day right now, but over, you HAVE to assume everything is the worst. You HAVE to be suspicious of EVERYTHING. Becoming complacent with your surroundings has proven itself all too often to be deadly. you don't want "the guy with the camera tripod" to all of a sudden shoulder it and fire at you. While I would have expected them to react slightly differently, I can fully understand their actions.
Volucris, also remember that while its easy to pause, zoom in, rewind and pause again sitting in front of a computer , its very difficult to do all that while managing an aircraft at the same time and watching out for everything else. I can understand the confusion.
Personally, I would have done what they did, as opposed to not doing anything and having my guys get fired at.
I read a bunch of the comments and the comments on the full length version, what is COD?
From what I read on another forum, insurgents like to clean up the battle field and make it look like coalition forces were wrongful in their attack. They also like to plant IED's near by or on dead bodies just before soldiers roll on through and investigate the aftermath.
Sounds like a bull shit excuse for murdering anything that's in the area.
Wounded, unarmed individual that dragged himself away from a slaughter is carried to a van by some guys who arrive minutes later, also unarmed, that are all murdered alongside the children in the van because they were trying to help evacuated a wounded person.
This doesn't smell right at all.
I read a bunch of the comments and the comments on the full length version, what is COD?
Call of Duty, short in today's terms for referring to Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2. The first of those allowed you to man an AC130 gunship and fire upon the enemy in the game.
http://i39.tinypic.com/9s9bok.jpg
If your eyes are that bad....
http://i40.tinypic.com/2hxvrrs.jpg
OMG IT'S AN RPG
http://i39.tinypic.com/fmpaat.jpg
Yeah, insurgents carry around nice cameras with nice telephoto lenses even when it's been confirmed that the reporters were found dead...herp.
Last photo one of them took:
http://i42.tinypic.com/s1kdnt.jpg
I see two people on a moped and the rest walking around with no evident guns. Camera bags, tripods, etc are seen.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2mpbd6c.jpg
What a tripod looks like:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2vb9e8o.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2e6euzk.jpg
You carry them slinged with attachments at bottom and top.
What absolutely sickens me:
http://i39.tinypic.com/29z68sz.png
COME ON, LET US SHOOT THE WOUNDED PERSON AND EVERYONE TRYING TO HELP THEM MINUTES AFTER THE INITIAL GROUP WAS SLAUGHTERED
What type of vision do they allow on someone who does this job? Are these guys not even trained to identify stuff? How can you not know what a camera looks like? Better tell the population of the region to walk around naked without anything in their hands and for the love of God don't carry a stick because long things are RPGs and AKs.
Just stop, from the comfort of your desk you are judging things that were likely viewed on a little tiny heads-up display, or in real time from hundreds of meters away.
There was an announcement over the radio, that someone was taking small arms fire from that general area.
It's the fog of war.
Why was there such a quick "emergency" vehicle in the middle of 20mm cannon fire? Why is there an announced eight minute gap for US troops to arrive but we don't get to see the eight minutes? Video editing? If for the mundane, possibly also for the dramatic?
...that are all murdered alongside the children in the van because they were trying to help evacuated a wounded person.
Stop making stuff up, kids were wounded not killed.
Well I don't know what the gunners or any of these guys had as views from where they were. It's just concerning that they're able to identify and kill targets that they apparently have a pretty piss poor view of to begin with.
Like I said, at first it would have been easy to misidentify everything as weapons and that's just a shitty deal. But when the van comes and these guys start talking like they have drool coming out of their mouths waiting for the ok to start killing, it's like they don't give a damn if it was ok or not. It's like they just wanted to kill something.
It's like they just wanted to kill something...
...that they firmly believed was trying to kill their buddies on the ground.
Belmont31R
04-05-10, 23:08
If your eyes are that bad....
http://i40.tinypic.com/2hxvrrs.jpg
OMG IT'S AN RPG
Yeah, insurgents carry around nice cameras with nice telephoto lenses even when it's been confirmed that the reporters were found dead...herp.
Last photo one of them took:
COME ON, LET US SHOOT THE WOUNDED PERSON AND EVERYONE TRYING TO HELP THEM MINUTES AFTER THE INITIAL GROUP WAS SLAUGHTERED
What type of vision do they allow on someone who does this job? Are these guys not even trained to identify stuff? How can you not know what a camera looks like? Better tell the population of the region to walk around naked without anything in their hands and for the love of God don't carry a stick because long things are RPGs and AKs.
The van was not marked as having anything to do with any medical services, and no one but their insurgent buddies are going to rush in immediately afterward to start cleaning up the bodies and weapons. Then the insurgents will claim a group of school children were mowed down, and there were no weapons.
In other parts of the video you can clearly see people with weapons.
Don't hang around armed insurgents on the street trying to get a good photo with a US patrol near by unless you want to take the risk of getting mixed in with them.
When you are however many feet in the air, adrenaline pumping, and trying to fly a helicopter at the time you don't have time to study every single person in the group, and say "oh those must be journalists".
Let me ask you this. Had they been ID'd as cameramen should that have changed anything? Should the US military not be able to engage armed insurgents because some journalists decided to embed themselves with said insurgents?
The simple fact is they chose to put themselves in danger, and possibly on the receiving end of the US military when they took that risk to get the story. The battle doesn't stop because some stupid journalists decided to hang out with insurgents. Yeah in hindsight it turns out they weren't insurgents with RPG's. Too bad. They took a known risk. The battle doesn't stop because the media decided to stick themselves inside an active combat zone. You cannot realistically expect guys flying around in helicopters to correctly ID journalists 100% of the time when they are focused on looking for threats, and seeing the battle space on a black a white grainy image. Yeah its easy when you still frame the video, and have however long you want to study the images on a blown up screen.
This is the same justification why you don't stop for kids in the middle of the road. Because as soon as you stop doing your job because of some innocent people are in the battle space the enemy exploits that, and our guys end up dying. People stop because a kid runs in the middle of the road, and next thing you know an IED goes off followed by RPG's and SAF. The kid probably gets killed anyways. You don't shoot at a group of armed insurgents because there is some camera guys there, and next thing you know every group of insurgents has a couple guys with camera bags, and nifty camera. You don't shoot at a van taking BG's away along with their weapons they turn the story into our guys shooting up a group of kids hanging out after school. You don't shoot at a van doing this because they got a couple kids in the vehicle every insurgent vehicle will have a couple kids peering out the windows. Do this same concept enough, and pretty soon we cannot shoot at anything.
In the end it was not the US military who told them to go hang out with insurgents peering around corners, and armed with weapons. Its not the US military who puts kids in the middle of a battle, and puts their life at risk. These ****s have no hurt feelings blowing up their own people or using women and kids as human shields. Unless they know that tactic is not going to work they are going to do it any time they can, and that's going to be every time. They are not stupid. They look for every means they can to exploit a weakness. They turned to IED's because they found out pretty quick they could not go toe to toe with us. For the journalists.....they knew the risks, and took it. Sad but it was their choice.
I don't have any problem with the original shoot. They were suspicious looking and in a war zone. Shooting up the van was pretty damn wrong though, it was obvious they were trying to help the injured, that is not good to see. I hope the kids grow up okay.
We are all sitting here free of incoming fire watching a video on a computer. We are not flying an aircraft, checking ammo stores, communicating with command, communicating with other aircraft in the area, watching a tiny video screen in our eyepiece and worrying about our brothers on the ground getting killed if we don't react in the next nano second. Unfortunately the wrong people got hurt BUT we all would make the same decision the pilot's did if we were in their shoes. I am sure that the pilot's care about others in general or they wouldn't be up their supporting their brothers and sisters on the ground. Anyone stop to think that maybe the pilots are upset about what happened and now they have to live with it for the rest of their lives because the reporters and people on the ground made some pi$$ poor decisions?
Shooting up the van was pretty damn wrong though, it was obvious they were trying to help the injured, that is not good to see. I hope the kids grow up okay.
If Usama bin Laden had jumped out of that van, would it still be pretty damn wrong? These guys were likely terrorists/jihadists who idolize UBL, and want to kill infidels. How/why is there a quick response emergency vehicle right there on the block that is willing to drive right in to the middle of a one-way 20mm cannon fight?
Aint war hell????
They looked like weapons to me, but then I'm a Marine! Not a photographer! Hell, I'm lucky I can even spell photographer!
This will not be the last time "innocent" people die in combat. It happens! Who are we to cry about it from our couches?
If Usama bin Laden had jumped out of that van, would it still be pretty damn wrong? These guys were likely terrorists/jihadists who idolize UBL, and want to kill infidels. How/why is there a quick response emergency vehicle right there on the block that is willing to drive right in to the middle of a one-way 20mm cannon fight?
You're a little out on a tangent with this one (just my opinion). You seem to be willing to justify the action because of what they may have been but are unable to reconcile that they in fact were not.
My humble opinion? Shit happens. Though the gunner seemed to be a little eager or desensitized might be a better word. But, fog of war... shit happens. He's had to make his own peace with it.
Comparing the official statement to the vid is good times though.
Pilopino67
04-06-10, 00:04
Fog of War...that sums it up pretty well.
Yeah, we get a wonderful camera view to watch, rewind, zoom, and copy nice little screenshots. They're flying Apache helicopters and require full situational awareness. They've got to pay attention to these guys, friendly ground forces, their instruments, their fuel, not to fly into their wingman or structures from the ground. There's always a bigger picture going on, and it's not going to be focused on the camera views.
You're playing with the wrong company, whether you're a journalist that thinks being a journalist makes you have some status above the battlefield...or some unmarked and unknown van that comes in to aid what has already been deemed by the pilots as enemies...you're in the wrong company. I guess they should've went to see if the kids were sucking on lollipops too, drop a couple of those to make them happy eh?
No, our guys aren't gonna waste their time reading the B&H Photo catalog so that they can call out the telephoto lenses that are to be encountered in the AOR. They're busy working on their combat movements, being up to speed on their ROE, performing checks on the aircraft (yeah, did I mention they're busy flying those things), scanning for other threats because insurgents would love to down an aircraft...and reading up on asymmetric warfare, where you can easily have guys in an unmarked van with kids in it picking up the bad guys to heal them up and send them to fight our military another day. These guys get as much training to try to make themselves look "innocent" as they do planting IEDs.
We have some people here that say it's an RPG, others say it's a camera. We have some say they shouldn't shoot the van, some that say they should. All while eating a pizza and watching a basketball game, rewinding a YouTube video and posting pics. They did it over an area of possible action, flying a beat of a helicopter with enemies almost underneath them in real time. We've got a good split on this thread by just sitting around. I've watched some things unfold with my very own eyes on a destroyer...then I got to see the optical camera view later on...you can see things differently.
Their "aggressive" conversation? Please...
This is all I can come up with certainty with this video. The narration sucked and seemed too sure of themselves of what was going on, obviously motivated to convince viewers. This wasn't a raw feed, start to finish...you were shown (and reshown) what they wanted you to see, complete with comments just so there is no doubt you see what they want to see. I see what the helo camera saw, I don't have the large picture...and the large picture is everything. Finally, this may as well have been almost as much a video tribute to Reuters photographers as it is a video of what happened that day.
Fog of War...that sums it up pretty well.
Yeah, we get a wonderful camera view to watch, rewind, zoom, and copy nice little screenshots. They're flying Apache helicopters and require full situational awareness. They've got to pay attention to these guys, friendly ground forces, their instruments, their fuel, not to fly into their wingman or structures from the ground. There's always a bigger picture going on, and it's not going to be focused on the camera views.
You're playing with the wrong company, whether you're a journalist that thinks being a journalist makes you have some status above the battlefield...or some unmarked and unknown van that comes in to aid what has already been deemed by the pilots as enemies...you're in the wrong company. I guess they should've went to see if the kids were sucking on lollipops too, drop a couple of those to make them happy eh?
No, our guys aren't gonna waste their time reading the B&H Photo catalog so that they can call out the telephoto lenses that are to be encountered in the AOR. They're busy working on their combat movements, being up to speed on their ROE, performing checks on the aircraft (yeah, did I mention they're busy flying those things), scanning for other threats because insurgents would love to down an aircraft...and reading up on asymmetric warfare, where you can easily have guys in an unmarked van with kids in it picking up the bad guys to heal them up and send them to fight our military another day. These guys get as much training to try to make themselves look "innocent" as they do planting IEDs.
We have some people here that say it's an RPG, others say it's a camera. We have some say they shouldn't shoot the van, some that say they should. All while eating a pizza and watching a basketball game, rewinding a YouTube video and posting pics. They did it over an area of possible action, flying a beat of a helicopter with enemies almost underneath them in real time. We've got a good split on this thread by just sitting around. I've watched some things unfold with my very own eyes on a destroyer...then I got to see the optical camera view later on...you can see things differently.
Their "aggressive" conversation? Please...
This is all I can come up with certainty with this video. The narration sucked and seemed too sure of themselves of what was going on, obviously motivated to convince viewers. This wasn't a raw feed, start to finish...you were shown (and reshown) what they wanted you to see, complete with comments just so there is no doubt you see what they want to see. I see what the helo camera saw, I don't have the large picture...and the large picture is everything. Finally, this may as well have been almost as much a video tribute to Reuters photographers as it is a video of what happened that day.
What he said.... Very well put sir!
AGAIN about the kids
who in the earth would ever bring their kids along in a van to go pick up bodies that were just shot up ? from a helicopter !!!!!!
only terrorists hoping the kids get shot up cause in their sick demented world its OK for them to sacrifice their kids and chances are they wanted it to happen and themselves die for some jihadi reason that we really dont understand since we and most of us want to protect our children not put them in harms way
yes I agree poor children to be used and abused by their parents to gain some political outcome its sick absolutely sickening that the parents would do this
but I put the only blame on the terrorists themselves none on our pilots ! fog of war as it was said is true
the old should have could have would have thing
After reading some of the posts and reading all the text in the video, I was really expecting this to be a bad shooting. After watching it the first time, even with text on the video showing who was who, I didnt see anything wrong. Yep it sucks those guys got killed, but only because they brought it on themselves. The people in the van, while I doubt they were just good Samaritans, if they were they are stupid and put those kids in danger. "Hey look that helicopter just shot all those guys, let me drive the kids over there", Darwin Award.
I have never served in the Military, and I think it is total bullshit that people will monday morning quarter back this with screenshots and saying they should have known it was a camera or a tripod. When you have to point out people in the video and zoom in on certain parts to prove your point you failed. I do not see those same people zooming in on the other guys that clearly had weapons.
It is clear that some people here are always the ones posting the same negative stuff about Mil/LEO stuff on here and it is very pathetic. Im will to bet that Volucris would never put his life on the line for someone else, yet he has the most negative stuff to say about it after the fact.
Just some random rambling on my behalf:
The media and others can, and will, Monday-morning-quarterback the video (or any video for that matter) all they want.
The media does this quite often - you only see a fraction of the "entire" incident and/or the video is edited to show the images that best support "their" opinion of the incident, etc. Video editing is a powerful tool when presenting a story. Goes for both sides.
Now, unless they (critics) were there during the actual tense, rapidly unfolding situation, they (nor anyone else) will truly be able to grasp what was taking place before their very eyes. Those pilots literally had moments to make life or death decisions.
The courts have paraphrased something similar to the above for police action (and I'm not trying to make a direct comparison, but I think this helps to provide a better understanding). They (police) will be judged based on the information known to them at the time of the event/use of force, etc. ie - was the force used at that moment in time justifiable in: a taser incident, officer involved shooting, PIT manuever, takedown, OC spray, other use of force, etc, etc.
None of us have the full information known to the pilots at that point in time that the video took place. We only have a partial picture. Were ground troops recently ambushed in that area ? Did the helicopters recently become the target or RPG fire ? etc etc
Just a few thoughts...
It's horrible when any innocent person dies... What else can one say?
Sherman said it a long time ago
War is hell
When murder of innocents are willfully committed, this country has a decent track record of prosecuting. Take mahmoudi for instance, the rape & murder of a child and her family resulted in those guilty receiving life sentences. They should have got the death penalty...
http://i40.tinypic.com/2hxvrrs.jpg
When I saw this frame I though to myself "here comes the pain."
That looks exactly like a guy with a disposable RPG trying to scan around a corner without exposing too much of himself.
I'm just sort of wondering why the military gives the 3rd degree to Navy Seals that may or may not have slapped someone, marines who counter attack, or a soldier that shoots a detainee in self defense, yet don't go after these guys for telling the ground controller that people in a van trying to pick up a wounded guy are picking up weapons. Shit happens, but this was a big propaganda boon for our enemies.
BTW, the .gov needs to go down to wikileaks and extract some information. Someone has been using their privileged position to commit treason.
parishioner
04-06-10, 05:27
If we were not pre-conditioned to the fact that it was a telescopic lens it most definitely looks like an RPG peeking around the corner. No doubt about it. These terrorists are known for blending well with civilians. They look just like everyone else until they reach inside and grab their AK. I'm not saying that mistakes don't happen and intelligence is always perfect but I'm willing to bet that more than half the time the news reports the U.S. bombed a suspected target, killing civilians, they get rid of the evidence of weapons and such and say look what you naughty Americans did. You killed civilians. They know exactly how to manipulate the media using it to their advantage. They're not stupid. Yes, it is unfortunate that the cameramen were killed but like others have said we really don't know whose side they were on. They also knew they were in the middle of a war zone i.e. surrounded by killing and death and to act surprised for being fired upon is like being shocked that the guy and his girlfriend who tried to live with grizzly's became the bear's afternoon snack.
If you truly think the military specifically targeted the cameramen, you need to have your head checked.
The military spends billions of dollars on technology to reduce collateral damage as much as possible so we can avoid killing the innocent. If Americans were truly ruthless, blood thirsty evil devils like so many people make our military out to be why didn't we just repeatedly carpet bomb Iraqi cities or drop a nuke? That would have been way more efficient and would have saved the lives of about 5,000 servicemen. Yea, we are so evil that when we discovered there were wounded children the soldiers just finished them off with their sidearm. Oh wait, I'm pretty sure they picked them up and attempted to seek immediate medical attention.
We don't have the slightest right to judge the work of men that 99% of the population doesn't take part in or have the slightest inkling of what war is like. Leave it to them. The majority of civilian minds aren't equipped to handle the struggles of war. Thankfully we have a special breed of man willing to take care of our dirty problems so the average person doesn't have to deal with such things on a daily basis. So shut up and let them do their jobs.
John_Wayne777
04-06-10, 06:19
What type of vision do they allow on someone who does this job? Are these guys not even trained to identify stuff? How can you not know what a camera looks like? Better tell the population of the region to walk around naked without anything in their hands and for the love of God don't carry a stick because long things are RPGs and AKs.
I have a marvelous suggestion:
Instead of posting on the internet, how about you go teach the Army how it's done, seeing as how you know it better than they do?
It's remarkable that someone viewing a snippet of video...absent ANY knowledge of what is happening on the ground at the time, any intel on what was happening, ANYTHING of that nature...is able to make correct judgments that the people on the pointy end of this stuff are too incompetent to make. That's talent, sir, and you should share it with the military.
I'm sure they'll marvel at your brilliance.
Pursuant to the principles outlined in this thread:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=39293
I'm shutting this down.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.