Collateral Murder

[lfdfforever]

5rXPrfnU3G0&feature=player_embedded#

[loveisdead]

Why just post the video? What type of discussion are you trying to spur?

[mena]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36182383/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
More info for those interested.

[saysmydoctor]

Too bad there is no video (that I'm aware of) of the Khartoum air strike.

[Clark]

Sigh.

Thanks for posting this.

[J.C.]

Why just post the video?

Because that required much less effort than articulating an original thought.

[Theseventhson]

So sad, especially the soldiers just casually talking about this like they're playing Call of Duty or something.

[EasySkankin]

4:09-4:16 you can clearly tell he was holding a camera

[.invisible ink.]

disgusting.

[atticus18244fss]

Saw this in the morning. Very disturbing. The American government needs to get their shit together.

Also for backstory:

I don't know if you guys know about this site, but it basically posts confidential governmant documents online to inform the public what they government is hiding. They have recently been under surveilence 24/7 and being harassed by the government. Well this is the jackpot of what they have been wanting to release. I highly suggest you read and then watch. It involves the killing of civilians (including 2 American reporters) and the cover up behind it.



Wikileaks is an admirable organization, and it has admirably published video of two Reuters journalists being shot to oblivion in Iraq three years ago by U.S. helicopter gunships. The video is evidence of cruelty and carelessness. But not murder.

Wikileaks, which acts as a clearinghouse for anonymously submitted information on government and corporate malfeasance, has engaged in a weeks-long public relations campaign leading up to the release of the video this morning at the National Press Club, claiming that U.S. intelligence operatives have been harassing its staff over the leak. The video, taken from the vantage point of an American Apache gunship flying over Baghdad on July 12, 2007, shows in stark black and white the killing of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, a Reuters photojournalist and driver. Reuters executives had previously been shown the footage in an off-the-record capacity, but the news organization sought unsuccessfully for years to obtain its own copy under the Freedom of Information Act.

So what does it show? It shows American helicopter pilots firing on and killing a group of perhaps half a dozen men on the streets of Baghdad, and then firing on a van that arrived to pick up one of the wounded men. The van, it turns out, had two children in it, both of whom were wounded. The video is chilling, not least because the pilots' radio chatter is plainly bloodthirsty—they are eager to fire, and delighted to kill. This is enough for Wikileaks to call the episode an example of "Collateral Murder."

But unless we are prepared to describe every death of a noncombatant in a war zone as a murder, then it shows something short of that. Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh were standing in a group of men. Some of them were plainly holding AK-47s. It's not discernible from the video what immediately preceded the slayings or why the gunships were called in, but according to a contemporaneous New York Times account, the military claimed that U.S. troops in the area called in air support after encountering small arms fire during a raid. The Apache pilots saw at least two men carrying weapons, and misidentified Noor-Eldeen's camera as a gun. They accurately relayed what they were seeing to commanders—a bunch of men standing around, some of whom were carrying weapons—and asked for permission to kill them. They were granted that permission.

It's horrible to watch, and the pilots' disdain for the lives the were destroying is awful. But we can't see how it constitutes murder. It's what happens when you send a bunch of young angry men with billions of dollars worth of lethal toys into a civilian city and tell them to kill the bad guys. It should certainly be watched, and we're glad Wikileaks is publishing it. But it speaks more to the inherent dangers of initiating wars, and covering them, than of the specific behavior of U.S. personnel on that particular day.

http://wikileaks.org/
http://gawker.com/5510094/wikileaks-video-demonstrates-conclusively-that-innocent-people-get-killed-in-wars

[tkamB]

So sad, especially the soldiers just casually talking about this like they're playing Call of Duty or something.

You're right they should be panicking and screaming because overt emotional responses make for less casualties :rolleyes: And this really wasn't that appalling, they mistook the camera for an rpg about to fire on them so they fired intending to protect themselves. It is wrong however that the government tried to cover it up, should have just admitted the mistake.

[caveBEAR]

Saw this in the morning. Very disturbing. The American government needs to get their shit together.

That summation was really spot on. Too many people are screaming 'murder', when it's really just what happens in war.

[Theseventhson]

You're right they should be panicking and screaming because overt emotional responses make for less casualties :rolleyes: And this really wasn't that appalling, they mistook the camera for an rpg about to fire on them so they fired intending to protect themselves. It is wrong however that the government tried to cover it up, should have just admitted the mistake.

You're right, killing people is fun, it's something to be anxious to do.

[tkamB]

You're right, killing people is fun, it's something to be anxious to do.

Exactly, that is what I meant by not being overtly emotional. I'm so glad you found out the hidden meaning behind my post. Of course I didn't mean that in war time being logical and cold saves lives while being emotional costs them, I surely meant that it is fun to kill people.

[monkeytarget]

Way to make the rest of the world hate america even more.

[secretsociety92]

I never knew that the Rules of Engagement included laughing at killing people or taking down people who were just helping wounded people.

[zion the lion]

So sad, especially the soldiers just casually talking about this like they're playing Call of Duty or something.

Because call of duty isnt based on anything in particular.

[Healthy Scratch]

S06nIz4scvI

"how can you shoot women and children?"
"easy, you just don't lead them so much."

[Charles777]

"Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle." Fuck.

[_><_]

Absolutely disgusting.

[whiterussian]

Is their attitude really that shocking? What do you expect out of people that are trained to kill and then do so?

The whole thing was pretty messed up. The two parts that shocked me were the "RPG" (but what do I know?) and (mostly) the firing on the van.

A comment I say on NYTimes that I agree with is: why did not find it odd that the supposed hostiles were just standing there? I know they must be really uptight but that can't happen all that much, especially if the hostiles were holding weapons.

Anyway, I'd say it's safe to assume this happens quite often. War is always full of murky shit. The permission to take the van out is what upsets me, although it seems to have been granted by trusting the requester's judgement.

[Theseventhson]

Because call of duty isnt based on anything in particular.

Not my point.

[Jet Set Paul]

The sad fact of it is that some people like to kill, and war allows them to do so with little fear of punishment. I honestly hope that these soldiers are prosecuted for the things they did. I don't believe that all (or even most) of the American troops in Iraq are cold-hearted killers but, as this video shows, they do exist. These soldiers need to be punished, so that other like minded individuals know that this kind of irresponsible behavior is not acceptable. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that the military will honestly address this incident, or take any steps to discipline those responsible for the massacre.

[zion the lion]

Not my point.

Well my point is that Call of Duty is a game where you get to senselessly kill. And in a real life war (unlike the video game) you're trained to kill (by blowing things up or by shooting people) either to protect yourself (in which case you do it way before you start asking questions) or because thats what your orders are (in which case you have to follow them). To keep yourself partially sane, you need to detach by acting like these people are just extras in an action movie, like they dont have families or anybody to love or protect or anything to fight for.

Guess what makes it way easier to detach...playing war video games like call of duty where you get to senselessly kill over and over and over again until you just push pause or eject when you get bored.

[samsara]

Really fucking lame.

[Healthy Scratch]

The sad fact of it is that some people like to kill, and war allows them to do so with little fear of punishment. I honestly hope that these soldiers are prosecuted for the things they did. I don't believe that all (or even most) of the American troops in Iraq are cold-hearted killers but, as this video shows, they do exist. These soldiers need to be punished, so that other like minded individuals know that this kind of irresponsible behavior is not acceptable. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that the military will honestly address this incident, or take any steps to discipline those responsible for the massacre.
what kind of punishment do you have in mind? knowing the situation they were in, their actions themselves weren't exactly irresponsible. their attitudes obviously sucked, and the end result was tragic. but in the context of the situation, they really didn't do anything against normal wartime protocol.

[Jet Set Paul]

what kind of punishment do you have in mind? knowing the situation they were in, their actions themselves weren't exactly irresponsible. their attitudes obviously sucked, and the end result was tragic. but in the context of the situation, they really didn't do anything against normal wartime protocol.
To be honest, I'm not completely sure. While I'm disgusted by the way these individuals were acting, I don't think they should necessarily be sent to prison, but at the very least a reduction in rank or a discharge is in order. Maybe the initial shooting can be considered a terrible mistake, but to open fire on a wounded, unarmed individual trying to escape the scene, and then also opening fire on unarmed civilians clearly trying to rescue the wounded man definitely does not seem like it could be justifiable in any context.

[caveBEAR]

To be honest, I'm not completely sure. While I'm disgusted by the way these individuals were acting, I don't think they should necessarily be sent to prison, but at the very least a reduction in rank or a discharge is in order. Maybe the initial shooting can be considered a terrible mistake, but to open fire on a wounded, unarmed individual trying to escape the scene, and then also opening fire on unarmed civilians clearly trying to rescue the wounded man definitely does not seem like it could be justifiable in any context.

Didn't waste the bullets so that guy can go patch himself up.

[Freud]

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

"It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events."

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

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

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

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

Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks became "unsure" about the weapons. He claimed the RPG could have been a camera tripod, so editors decided not to point it out.

"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything," Assange said. Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area."

The military has said Army units on the ground were experiencing RPG fire before calling in close air support. And although it could be argued AK-47 rifles are common household items, RPGs are not.

Assange said video evidence of the cameras was much clearer than it was of the weapons and that military statements about the presence of weapons had already been widely distributed. But critics say those watching the video online or on television for the first time may not have had any knowledge of those statements.

"It's ludicrous to allege that we have taken anything out of context in this video," Assange told Fox News.

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

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

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

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

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