Collateral Murder (merged) - Page 8

tater · 04-08-10, 08:26 AM

CaptainHaplo hits it out of the park (again).

Catfish, if the people in question are armed—and the investigation showed significant weapons—then they were not civilians. Reporters (the civilians here) "embed" with combatants all the time. If a reporter is hit while patrolling with US forces—tough, that's the risk he decided to take to get the story. The converse is also true should he embed with other forces.

Murder—even in war—requires a specific intent. Civilians are accidentally killed all the time in war, and it is not murder. Civilians are killed in peacetime as the result of police action, and it's not murder, either, even here in the States.

Catfish · 04-08-10, 08:29 AM

Hello,
"murder is culture-dependent". Ah.

"... Where there is no human mind, there is no human conception of what "murder" is. ..."

1st There indeed is a human mind, and it clearly has a conception of what murder is. This "death from above" god like behaviour of remote-killing civilians is just that - murder. You can call this a "war" crime if you wish, fine.
2nd those generalized statements are coming out of the blue, and have no right or justification in itself, other than you just say it and declare it a universal truth or wisdom.

" ... Morally, peace needs to be judged by the moral categories of peacetime, and war needs to be judged by the moral qualities of wartime. ..."
Sounds reasonable, but it only sounds this way. Who says this, you ? Sun Tzu ? This is plain rubbish for justifying anything. There can only be one unversal "morale", otherwise warfare as such is pretty useless. You are enforcing your morale, will, thinking, common sense, way of life, onto others.

" ... It leads to the schizophrenic percpezion of how wars could be won without becoming inhumane and getting dirt on one's hands. ..."

But this is just what we see in the video - a new strategy that unfortunately creates odium. You do not get dirt on your hands, it is all far away. No need for infiltration, using real people spying, or gathering intelligence by going in and deal with real people. It is instant judgement from above killing electronic dots. It all becomes an ego shooter. Same is done with remotely-controlled drones, where the "pilot" finishes off a few sand ******s at his home bureau, and then goes down to dinner with his family. They call it war porn. How can one watch this and not be disgusted ?

Greetings,
Catfish

tater · 04-08-10, 08:34 AM

Catfish, US forces were in fact on the ground. they show up in that very video. The photog seems to look around the corner to take a pic. Perhaps he hopes to get a Pulitzer shot in a few moments when the RPG toting guys with him engage those ground forces?

This war is actually characterized (particular the Petraeus period) by US forces being in the community walking the streets (at grave risk). These air assets fired on a group that included men with RPGs. Did they need to be dragging a howitzer to be targets?

Onkel Neal · 04-08-10, 08:44 AM

Has this been posted in this thread? Good analysis.

Catfish · 04-08-10, 08:48 AM

Hello,
thanks for your answers and reluctancy, don't know whether i deserved it

I am not a peace hippie but this kind of action absolutely disgusts me. The guys and children on the ground are not even aware of that anyone might be shooting at them, surely they did least expect an attack from accompanying Apaches.
Those two guys with the guns/long sticks/flagpoles/baseball clubs (what?) were actually a team belonging to the Reuter correspondent, as body guards. His showing-up and filming was indeed communicated to the US forces before, and had all that not happened it still is quite a superficial "check" before just killing someone. In this case, civilians.
If those heli pilots cannot distinguish cameras from bazookas why are such tactics used for this purpose ?
Yes i should know better, sh!t happens in a war. It only makes this thin skin of polished surface of civilisation a bit dull.

Greetings,
Catfish

Skybird · 04-08-10, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

Hello,
"murder is culture-dependent". Ah.

"... Where there is no human mind, there is no human conception of what "murder" is. ..."

It is, because whether or not an act of killing is socially acceptable or not, depends on the values of that society and culture. The Aztecs massacred prisoners by the thousands during their rites, which was acceptable for them because they saw it as a way to communicate with their deity. For us, it would be unacceptable to do so. In Islam the killing of dhimmis under certain circumstances is not only acceptable, but encouraged, and in the days of the Grenada intermezzo it could happen that a Muslim who slaughtered another Muslim, would be executed, but if a dhimmi was killed just for fun, the murderer had to fear no legal sanctions because he did not do something that was considered as "immoral" by Quranic standards.

Moral is an artifical, abstract quality system, Catfish, it did not fell down fromt he sky, it is not engraved in stone, it is highly subjective, it does not compare to nature's laws. Two weeks ago I linked to an experiment that showed that moral behavior even can be influenced by something as external and physical like magnetism effecting certain brain areas. the subjects rated the apparent poisening of an unsuspicious person as morally "fine".

You maybe remember that I said often, in discussions, that for right these reasons, our society must be more hesitent to see every culture as of the same cultural value like our own, and that we must not tolerate everything in a foreign culture just because it is called a "culture". It still can be not only an inferior, backwardish culture, but also an inhumane and barbaric culture. There are differences between cultures, and some are more inhumane than others, and of lesser worth in this understanding.

Quote:

1st There indeed is a human mind, and it clearly has a conception of what murder is.

Does not matter beyond human mind. Ask your dog if it ever has heared of your morals, or ask that star in the sky.

Quote:

This "death from above" god like behaviour of remote-killing civilians is just that - murder.

In this case of this video, I tend to agree, like i said before. In other circumstances, killing people intentionally, can be seen as legal (a question of laws exclusively), or morally justifiable (fighting done in war). Take the Dutch at Srebrenica. Today, their inaction is seen as a moral failure. You know what happened there due to the Dutch and the UN mission in general failing so miserably. If they would have fought and killed Serbs in order to protect the Bosnian civilians - would this then also be "murder" for you? What differs the committing of a genocide then from fighting in defence of the victims? And how to justify the war against the Third Reich?

Dealing in absolutes you can, if you want, and claim it all to be "murder". But it will not lead you very far, not in this life and this world you live in.

You seem to take an absolute approach on war, ruling it out under all circumstances, even if the price for not fighting it might be higher than the price of accepting it. Okay, that is your opinion then, and I see it different. I never claimed to be an unconditional pacifist - I am not. I do not believe in "just wars", war is never just, and it always also effects innocents. I only differ between wars of need - and wars of choice, that are wanted but not needed.

Quote:

2nd those generalized statements are coming out of the blue, and have no right or justification in itself, other than you just say it and declare it a universal truth or wisdom.

No, you are the one claiming universal rules here, haven't you just said that it all is just "murder", and that there always is a human mind, implying that by that "fact" that all nature is revolving around human philosophic considerations and conceptions that beyond human thinking have no meaning and realiy at all? What I say, is much more relative, and depending on the reality you are in. I am pragmatist. Claiming eternal truths I leave to religious infallibles like the pope.

Quote:

" ... Morally, peace needs to be judged by the moral categories of peacetime, and war needs to be judged by the moral qualities of wartime. ..."
Sounds reasonable, but it only sounds this way. Who says this, you ? Sun Tzu ? This is plain rubbish for justifying anything.

So far you just give a rant, but no argument proving me wrong.

Quote:

There can only be one unversal "morale"

Why?

Quote:

, otherwise warfare as such is pretty useless.

How's that?

Quote:

You are enforcing your morale, will, thinking, common sense, way of life, onto others.

I give argument for why I think the way I do, and I oppose your absolutistic stand on your one and only universal moral as a cultural subjectivism that you are not aware of. If you would have been raised in some fanatic family of some kind and have not known anything different than what that fanatic community is teaching you, your moral thinking today would be different.

Quote:

" ... It leads to the schizophrenic percpezion of how wars could be won without becoming inhumane and getting dirt on one's hands. ..."

But this is just what we see in the video - a new strategy that unfortunately creates odium.

I do not see a strategy in that video, but an act of murder committed by soldiers that I cannot bring into congruence with what I said about the morals of war. This killing incident to me is not an act of war (="fighting"), but murder. Thus my harsh judgement that I have voiced earlier in this thread. To me they are not acting as soldiers in conformity with the needs of war, but like criminals. And that'S why I would court martial them.

Quote:

You do not get dirt on your hands, it is all far away. No need for infiltration, using real people spying, or gathering intelligence by going in and deal with real people. It is instant judgement from above killing electronic dots. It all becomes an ego shooter. Same is done with remotely-controlled drones, where the "pilot" finishes off a few sand ******s at his home bureau, and then goes down to dinner with his family. They call it war porn. How can one watch this and not be disgusted ?

Now you switch to a completely different level, from the morals of peace over the morals of war to the tools and means and tactics of war.

Well. This is a war being fought. You try to kill the enemy, you try to hurt him as bad as you can. you try to do it in safe ways, maximising the damage to him by minimising the risk to your own side. That often translates into maximum firepower from the greatest distance possible, both get's judged versus the chance to really acchieve the mission objectives: you use as much firepower and approach as close as is needed to achcieve the mission objective. that way, a war gets won. Fight by some romantic ideas of "man versus man" and images of idealism and dealing fair with the nenemy - and lose and die. For me, there is no nobless or gallantry in war, only fighting, needs and fulfilling duties. It's mean and dirty. Thats why it is called not a condition of peace, but a war.

You are right, war is disgusting. I strongly recommend to stay away from it as long as you do not have very, very good reasons. "I shall not be a guest of war, but war shall be my guest, uninvited", says Lao Tse. Don't go to war because you desire it. Only go to war because you must.

Whether or not the Iraq war can be won anymore, or if this stupid hrase "war on terror" means something that can be won militarily, or needs more intel operation, infiltration, is a different debate. To me it is about counter terror operations. But the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are there, fought competently or not, picked wisely or not - they are real. My opinions on them you can read in threads from today back to 2003. I have opposed the Iraq war from day one on, and I have criticised the way Afghanistan has been approached from beginning on. the lebanon war I first supported, than understood how ill-prepared and thus: chanceless the Israelis were, then I u-turned and took a stand against it, for it was destruction done for no use. Either do war right, or don't do it all so - so that the destruction and horror and the killing being done is not in vain.

I do not believe in humane ways to wage wars, like I also do not believe in "just wars". To me it is an on-off-issue. Either it is off, good for you. Or it is "on", then may god have mercy with you for I would will to let loose all hell against you if that is needed to overcome you.

It's like holding a pistol to your head and have a finger on the trigger. You either do it, or not. Half-hearted wars - can only go lost and end in failures. the UN missions and Afghanistan are good examples.

August · 04-08-10, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

If those heli pilots cannot distinguish cameras from bazookas why are such tactics used for this purpose ?

That is a very valid point Catfish though an RPG was indeed found on the site so they weren't all cameras.

Onkel Neal · 04-08-10, 11:47 AM

What could have been the case is identified for the viewer quite readily. What certainly is true, in several key moments, is not. When presenting source media as the core of your argument, it is grossly irresponsible to fail to make known variables not shown within that media. If you are going to take the time to highlight certain things in said media, you should make certain all key elements are brought to the attention of your viewer.

WikiLeaks failed to do these things in this video, happily highlighting the positions and movements of the slain reporter and photographer while ignoring those of their company. It is also, until their arrival on scene, never clear where exactly the ground forces are in reference to Crazyhorse 18 and flight. I can make a pretty good guess, given my background. I would guess the same cannot be said by the vast majority of WikiLeaks’ target audience.

Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment. This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18. At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache. This all goes by without any mention whatsoever from WikiLeaks, and that is unacceptable.

Skybird · 04-08-10, 12:04 PM

BTW, Catfish, since you are angry about this "distance-killing from the sky" - I do not remember where I have read it, one week ago there was an interview with a US military about the stress of drone pilots. You might be surprised that combat stress and according consequences was described in that interview to be higher than with real combat plane pilots. Many drone pilots have problems to be confronted with war, and then their shift is over and they go home and meet their family, all within minutes. they literally travel between two worlds - onw a peaceful idyll, the other being a chaotic, barbaric hell. A drone pilots sees what he does when firing a mission, like in that video, from A to Z. A plane pilot just flies and holds the trigger until the zipper in the HUD crosses a marking, and the weapon is automatically released - the plane pilot does not see the consequences of his action on the ground. The drone pilot also sees own troops in combat, and them getting shot at, and getting killed - the airplane pilot most of the time does not.

I was surprised to read that, but when thinking of it, it made sense to me.

Probably on the same day, I read a statistics note that the number of Vietnam vets who were so traumatised that they keep on committing suicide until today has passed the numbers of actual KIA during the times of war. More veteran have killed themselves after the war has ended, than troops got killed in action. KIA number is around 56 or 58 thousand. Suicide number after the war has passed 60 thousand now.

CaptainHaplo · 04-08-10, 07:10 PM

Catfish - it seems that your objection is not so much the "how" or "why" of this situation - but the "how" and "why" of the war - or perhaps all wars. I understand that - but you cannot take an isolated incident and turn it into a generalization of the entire conflict.

After reviewing the video again, let me make a couple of observations.....

The camera's were misidentified as weapons - yet other weapons were correctly identified. Having sat in that CPG seat a few times (worked on that armament system) that initial RPG call was one I am totally ok with. That was a "textbook" (if such a thing existed) look of a what combatant holding a RPG looking around a corner for a target appears like in a TADS/PNVS system. So the question becomes - was the misidentification INTENTIONAL? Given the chatter - absolutely not. Had they wanted to - they could have just said "Hey an RPG" and called that in. No RPG call was made until a rather damning (though incorrect) visual cue was noted. So the idea that the strike was just to "take out a few sand ******s" for jollies - as some want to imply (or just outright state) - doesn't hold water. Note that weapons were identified - and a request at that point made for engagement permission.

I am going to break this down using the vid from Neal's post.

2:50 is the first "weapon call" - its a wrong call - but understandable.
3:13 you have a second set of eyes on the same person - and the wrong call is confirmed....
3:20 you have the second weapon call - angle and shadow make the call reasonable - but its still wrong...
3:34 - "Individuals with weapons" call goes out. At this moment - no actual weapon has CLEARLY or INDISPUTABLY been captured in view.
3:39 - first confirmed correct sighting of a weapon.

Here there is one problem I have with the following call:

3:47 - "we have five to six" weapon toting people.... This call is factually in error. At this point in the video - only 3 individuals have been specifically noted (thought) to be carrying weapons. The call is made based on the assumption that others in the group are likely armed as well.

This is the same time that the first request to engage is made.... This call - because of the assumption - is a bad one. Its a crappy situation - but the decisions made are at this point in accordance with the ROE. Recall that the fact is that being armed in such a group was a violation of Iraqi goverment directives. So the ROE was defined in accordance with the wishes of the Iraqi government. Permission is granted but the engagement is delayed due to buildings in the way.

4:07 - RPG call - and this one was the clincher for me. OK - maybe just maybe the exaggeration on the number of armed people was over the top (I don't think so - I feel it was reasonable given the operational area and situation) - but this shot totally clears the aircrew. No way in hell they could know it was a camera and not an RPG. It looked like an RPG without a doubt - and the posture of the holder was entirely consistent with a person looking to take a quick shot.

4:17-4:18 The "RPG" guy comes around and as he leaves the FOV due to the building - looks to be aiming a shot. This is when you get the "we got a guy firing". Again - the appearance is entirely consistent with an RPG being aimed to fire. Nothing wrong with the call made as it is based of visual cues and are reasonable.

6:30 "Look at those dead bastards".... Is this cold and callous? Maybe so - but considering that those dead bastards were - in the mind of the aircrew - people who were part of a group that just took a shot at someone else - whether civvies, Iraqi or US military forces - with the intent to kill whoever the targets where - I fail to see a problem here.

6:31-6:34 "Nice, Nice" and "Good Shooting" - A job well done - you in all likelyhood just saved the lives of some friends. Nobody in their right mind wants to kill, but if you do it - at least you can take pride in a job well done when that job was to protect others. Entirely understandable.

Its important to remember that part of what allows men to perform their duty is rationalization - and the "dehumanizing" of the enemy. Submarines sank ships - not sailors - for example. You never try to think of the person - and when you have to - its natural to push the human side away. It keeps you sane.

Now to the van episode. It made me damn near sick (literally) to see how Wikileaks slowed down and blew up the video to show the kids. Tell me - did ANYONE watching that the first time honestly see kids in that van? Hell no they didn't. But somehow - the guy responsible for watching all the moving - potentially armed adults running around not only the van but the entire scene - was supposed to see em at the outset? What utter bull$hit! Again - unmarked vehicle rendering aid on a battlefield - falls under the Geneva convention as a non-protected target.

Oh - and one other little tidbit the wikileaks vid leaves out - you had at least 8 fatalities confirmed. 2 were reporters - but the other 6 - notice they don't talk about what affiliations they were found to have had. Being presented with such an anti-war bias - the absence of that information being provided is rather telling. Had they had no insurgent/militia ties, that piece of propaganda would have been trumpeting it.... It didn't....

War absolutely sucks. But the investigation into this returned the right outcome by clearing the aircrew. For those who don't think so - break down the video as I and others have done - and give reasons why - based on the directive from the Iraqi NSC that defined the ROE - this was wrong.

Don't just spew out the "war is bad and killing civilians is wrong". We can all agree that collateral damage is horrible. Make a reasoned case for why the actions taken - from the calls made by the aircrew, to the strike authorizations by ground commanders, were intentionally in error based on the situation. When you do this - make sure you lay out the reasons this was a bad call when during the video one RPG can be identified (though after the fact) as well as when all was done - multiple AK's and at least 3 RPG's were found at the scene.

Multiple AK's and 3 RPG's = good strike under the ROE and the Iraqi mandate. Doesn't make it nice or pretty - but combat never is.

tater · 04-09-10, 11:06 AM

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1b_1270800204

I have not seen the unedited video (link?) This one at least shows that the ground forces that appear at the end were already nearby—and under small arms fire at the time. In addition, the van was seen before the engagement in question, and it was dropping off men just north of the firefight. The van was not some random "good Samaritan."

August · 04-09-10, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1b_1270800204

I have not seen the unedited video (link?) This one at least shows that the ground forces that appear at the end were already nearby—and under small arms fire at the time. In addition, the van was seen before the engagement in question, and it was dropping off men just north of the firefight. The van was not some random "good Samaritan."

Notice how none of the "line them up against the wall" people like Skybird have anything to say about this. To them they were guilty the second the word "American" was applied.

Dowly · 04-09-10, 11:37 AM

Umm... the full version of the video (30+ minutes) is available from collateralmurder.com and propably from youtube aswell. Wikileaks shortened and showed the 'highlights'. Now, I didn't watch that live leak vid for more than 10 seconds, but the opening text was enough to show it as another biased video, which BTW the wikileaks edition was too IMHO.

And August, why the attitude, everyone has their opinions, no need to start acting like an butt and start a flamewar.

tater · 04-09-10, 11:44 AM

True, I only saw the wikileaks one. Annotation, none the less is nice to see for those of use with less experience, but not biased annotation. The one I posted is certainly worth watching along with the wikileaks to see what was missed given most people are only watching a shorter version—and the wikileaks at that.

Other useful annotations might be arrows and directions to friendly forces, and similarly forces under fire at the time.

I certainly don't claim the vid I posted is unbiased, it's a biased response to a biased vid.

I didn;t see the full version because I'd not follow a link to anyplace called "collateral murder" and give them the satisfaction of a unique visitor. I'll look again on youtube.

Freiwillige · 04-09-10, 01:19 PM

I'm good with it all, It was a mistake but justifiable.....Until the Van shows up to help the injured guy.

In the full video it looks as if the Van was dropping off the photographers and it was also the photographer that they were helping.

All said war is hell and stuff happens but I do believe that they should have been more patient with the Van crew rescuing the one wounded guy. I mean what was the hurry? If they were going for weapons it would have been apparent given another ten seconds of observation. And there is no way that they could have confirmed that the Van was hostile, neutral or friendly in intent with out careful observation. This was in an occupied city full of civilians not on some remote battlefield!

So I can see that some mistakes were made but not unjustifiably so....such is the fog of war.

04-08-10, 08:44 AM	#109
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,385 Downloads: 541 Uploads: 224	Has this been posted in this thread? Good analysis. __________________ SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web

04-08-10, 11:47 AM	#113
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,385 Downloads: 541 Uploads: 224	What could have been the case is identified for the viewer quite readily. What certainly is true, in several key moments, is not. When presenting source media as the core of your argument, it is grossly irresponsible to fail to make known variables not shown within that media. If you are going to take the time to highlight certain things in said media, you should make certain all key elements are brought to the attention of your viewer. WikiLeaks failed to do these things in this video, happily highlighting the positions and movements of the slain reporter and photographer while ignoring those of their company. It is also, until their arrival on scene, never clear where exactly the ground forces are in reference to Crazyhorse 18 and flight. I can make a pretty good guess, given my background. I would guess the same cannot be said by the vast majority of WikiLeaks’ target audience. Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment. This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18. At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache. This all goes by without any mention whatsoever from WikiLeaks, and that is unacceptable. __________________ SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web

04-08-10, 12:04 PM	#114
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,760 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	BTW, Catfish, since you are angry about this "distance-killing from the sky" - I do not remember where I have read it, one week ago there was an interview with a US military about the stress of drone pilots. You might be surprised that combat stress and according consequences was described in that interview to be higher than with real combat plane pilots. Many drone pilots have problems to be confronted with war, and then their shift is over and they go home and meet their family, all within minutes. they literally travel between two worlds - onw a peaceful idyll, the other being a chaotic, barbaric hell. A drone pilots sees what he does when firing a mission, like in that video, from A to Z. A plane pilot just flies and holds the trigger until the zipper in the HUD crosses a marking, and the weapon is automatically released - the plane pilot does not see the consequences of his action on the ground. The drone pilot also sees own troops in combat, and them getting shot at, and getting killed - the airplane pilot most of the time does not. I was surprised to read that, but when thinking of it, it made sense to me. Probably on the same day, I read a statistics note that the number of Vietnam vets who were so traumatised that they keep on committing suicide until today has passed the numbers of actual KIA during the times of war. More veteran have killed themselves after the war has ended, than troops got killed in action. KIA number is around 56 or 58 thousand. Suicide number after the war has passed 60 thousand now. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 04-08-10 at 12:20 PM.

04-08-10, 07:10 PM	#115
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,405 Downloads: 31 Uploads: 0	Catfish - it seems that your objection is not so much the "how" or "why" of this situation - but the "how" and "why" of the war - or perhaps all wars. I understand that - but you cannot take an isolated incident and turn it into a generalization of the entire conflict. After reviewing the video again, let me make a couple of observations..... The camera's were misidentified as weapons - yet other weapons were correctly identified. Having sat in that CPG seat a few times (worked on that armament system) that initial RPG call was one I am totally ok with. That was a "textbook" (if such a thing existed) look of a what combatant holding a RPG looking around a corner for a target appears like in a TADS/PNVS system. So the question becomes - was the misidentification INTENTIONAL? Given the chatter - absolutely not. Had they wanted to - they could have just said "Hey an RPG" and called that in. No RPG call was made until a rather damning (though incorrect) visual cue was noted. So the idea that the strike was just to "take out a few sand ******s" for jollies - as some want to imply (or just outright state) - doesn't hold water. Note that weapons were identified - and a request at that point made for engagement permission. I am going to break this down using the vid from Neal's post. 2:50 is the first "weapon call" - its a wrong call - but understandable. 3:13 you have a second set of eyes on the same person - and the wrong call is confirmed.... 3:20 you have the second weapon call - angle and shadow make the call reasonable - but its still wrong... 3:34 - "Individuals with weapons" call goes out. At this moment - no actual weapon has CLEARLY or INDISPUTABLY been captured in view. 3:39 - first confirmed correct sighting of a weapon. Here there is one problem I have with the following call: 3:47 - "we have five to six" weapon toting people.... This call is factually in error. At this point in the video - only 3 individuals have been specifically noted (thought) to be carrying weapons. The call is made based on the assumption that others in the group are likely armed as well. This is the same time that the first request to engage is made.... This call - because of the assumption - is a bad one. Its a crappy situation - but the decisions made are at this point in accordance with the ROE. Recall that the fact is that being armed in such a group was a violation of Iraqi goverment directives. So the ROE was defined in accordance with the wishes of the Iraqi government. Permission is granted but the engagement is delayed due to buildings in the way. 4:07 - RPG call - and this one was the clincher for me. OK - maybe just maybe the exaggeration on the number of armed people was over the top (I don't think so - I feel it was reasonable given the operational area and situation) - but this shot totally clears the aircrew. No way in hell they could know it was a camera and not an RPG. It looked like an RPG without a doubt - and the posture of the holder was entirely consistent with a person looking to take a quick shot. 4:17-4:18 The "RPG" guy comes around and as he leaves the FOV due to the building - looks to be aiming a shot. This is when you get the "we got a guy firing". Again - the appearance is entirely consistent with an RPG being aimed to fire. Nothing wrong with the call made as it is based of visual cues and are reasonable. 6:30 "Look at those dead bastards".... Is this cold and callous? Maybe so - but considering that those dead bastards were - in the mind of the aircrew - people who were part of a group that just took a shot at someone else - whether civvies, Iraqi or US military forces - with the intent to kill whoever the targets where - I fail to see a problem here. 6:31-6:34 "Nice, Nice" and "Good Shooting" - A job well done - you in all likelyhood just saved the lives of some friends. Nobody in their right mind wants to kill, but if you do it - at least you can take pride in a job well done when that job was to protect others. Entirely understandable. Its important to remember that part of what allows men to perform their duty is rationalization - and the "dehumanizing" of the enemy. Submarines sank ships - not sailors - for example. You never try to think of the person - and when you have to - its natural to push the human side away. It keeps you sane. Now to the van episode. It made me damn near sick (literally) to see how Wikileaks slowed down and blew up the video to show the kids. Tell me - did ANYONE watching that the first time honestly see kids in that van? Hell no they didn't. But somehow - the guy responsible for watching all the moving - potentially armed adults running around not only the van but the entire scene - was supposed to see em at the outset? What utter bull$hit! Again - unmarked vehicle rendering aid on a battlefield - falls under the Geneva convention as a non-protected target. Oh - and one other little tidbit the wikileaks vid leaves out - you had at least 8 fatalities confirmed. 2 were reporters - but the other 6 - notice they don't talk about what affiliations they were found to have had. Being presented with such an anti-war bias - the absence of that information being provided is rather telling. Had they had no insurgent/militia ties, that piece of propaganda would have been trumpeting it.... It didn't.... War absolutely sucks. But the investigation into this returned the right outcome by clearing the aircrew. For those who don't think so - break down the video as I and others have done - and give reasons why - based on the directive from the Iraqi NSC that defined the ROE - this was wrong. Don't just spew out the "war is bad and killing civilians is wrong". We can all agree that collateral damage is horrible. Make a reasoned case for why the actions taken - from the calls made by the aircrew, to the strike authorizations by ground commanders, were intentionally in error based on the situation. When you do this - make sure you lay out the reasons this was a bad call when during the video one RPG can be identified (though after the fact) as well as when all was done - multiple AK's and at least 3 RPG's were found at the scene. Multiple AK's and 3 RPG's = good strike under the ROE and the Iraqi mandate. Doesn't make it nice or pretty - but combat never is. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

04-08-10, 08:26 AM	#106
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	CaptainHaplo hits it out of the park (again). Catfish, if the people in question are armed—and the investigation showed significant weapons—then they were not civilians. Reporters (the civilians here) "embed" with combatants all the time. If a reporter is hit while patrolling with US forces—tough, that's the risk he decided to take to get the story. The converse is also true should he embed with other forces. Murder—even in war—requires a specific intent. Civilians are accidentally killed all the time in war, and it is not murder. Civilians are killed in peacetime as the result of police action, and it's not murder, either, even here in the States.

04-08-10, 08:29 AM	#107
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,818 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	Hello, "murder is culture-dependent". Ah. "... Where there is no human mind, there is no human conception of what "murder" is. ..." 1st There indeed is a human mind, and it clearly has a conception of what murder is. This "death from above" god like behaviour of remote-killing civilians is just that - murder. You can call this a "war" crime if you wish, fine. 2nd those generalized statements are coming out of the blue, and have no right or justification in itself, other than you just say it and declare it a universal truth or wisdom. " ... Morally, peace needs to be judged by the moral categories of peacetime, and war needs to be judged by the moral qualities of wartime. ..." Sounds reasonable, but it only sounds this way. Who says this, you ? Sun Tzu ? This is plain rubbish for justifying anything. There can only be one unversal "morale", otherwise warfare as such is pretty useless. You are enforcing your morale, will, thinking, common sense, way of life, onto others. " ... It leads to the schizophrenic percpezion of how wars could be won without becoming inhumane and getting dirt on one's hands. ..." But this is just what we see in the video - a new strategy that unfortunately creates odium. You do not get dirt on your hands, it is all far away. No need for infiltration, using real people spying, or gathering intelligence by going in and deal with real people. It is instant judgement from above killing electronic dots. It all becomes an ego shooter. Same is done with remotely-controlled drones, where the "pilot" finishes off a few sand ******s at his home bureau, and then goes down to dinner with his family. They call it war porn. How can one watch this and not be disgusted ? Greetings, Catfish

04-08-10, 08:34 AM	#108
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Catfish, US forces were in fact on the ground. they show up in that very video. The photog seems to look around the corner to take a pic. Perhaps he hopes to get a Pulitzer shot in a few moments when the RPG toting guys with him engage those ground forces? This war is actually characterized (particular the Petraeus period) by US forces being in the community walking the streets (at grave risk). These air assets fired on a group that included men with RPGs. Did they need to be dragging a howitzer to be targets?

04-08-10, 08:48 AM	#110
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,818 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	Hello, thanks for your answers and reluctancy, don't know whether i deserved it I am not a peace hippie but this kind of action absolutely disgusts me. The guys and children on the ground are not even aware of that anyone might be shooting at them, surely they did least expect an attack from accompanying Apaches. Those two guys with the guns/long sticks/flagpoles/baseball clubs (what?) were actually a team belonging to the Reuter correspondent, as body guards. His showing-up and filming was indeed communicated to the US forces before, and had all that not happened it still is quite a superficial "check" before just killing someone. In this case, civilians. If those heli pilots cannot distinguish cameras from bazookas why are such tactics used for this purpose ? Yes i should know better, sh!t happens in a war. It only makes this thin skin of polished surface of civilisation a bit dull. Greetings, Catfish

04-09-10, 11:06 AM	#116
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1b_1270800204 I have not seen the unedited video (link?) This one at least shows that the ground forces that appear at the end were already nearby—and under small arms fire at the time. In addition, the van was seen before the engagement in question, and it was dropping off men just north of the firefight. The van was not some random "good Samaritan."

04-09-10, 11:37 AM	#118
Dowly Lucky Jack Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 25,056 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	Umm... the full version of the video (30+ minutes) is available from collateralmurder.com and propably from youtube aswell. Wikileaks shortened and showed the 'highlights'. Now, I didn't watch that live leak vid for more than 10 seconds, but the opening text was enough to show it as another biased video, which BTW the wikileaks edition was too IMHO. And August, why the attitude, everyone has their opinions, no need to start acting like an butt and start a flamewar.

04-09-10, 11:44 AM	#119
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	True, I only saw the wikileaks one. Annotation, none the less is nice to see for those of use with less experience, but not biased annotation. The one I posted is certainly worth watching along with the wikileaks to see what was missed given most people are only watching a shorter version—and the wikileaks at that. Other useful annotations might be arrows and directions to friendly forces, and similarly forces under fire at the time. I certainly don't claim the vid I posted is unbiased, it's a biased response to a biased vid. I didn;t see the full version because I'd not follow a link to anyplace called "collateral murder" and give them the satisfaction of a unique visitor. I'll look again on youtube.

04-09-10, 01:19 PM	#120
Freiwillige The Old Man Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phx. Az Posts: 1,458 Downloads: 24 Uploads: 0	I'm good with it all, It was a mistake but justifiable.....Until the Van shows up to help the injured guy. In the full video it looks as if the Van was dropping off the photographers and it was also the photographer that they were helping. All said war is hell and stuff happens but I do believe that they should have been more patient with the Van crew rescuing the one wounded guy. I mean what was the hurry? If they were going for weapons it would have been apparent given another ten seconds of observation. And there is no way that they could have confirmed that the Van was hostile, neutral or friendly in intent with out careful observation. This was in an occupied city full of civilians not on some remote battlefield! So I can see that some mistakes were made but not unjustifiably so....such is the fog of war.