Collateral Murder

Now the whole thing has quietened down and the hand wringers have stopped being so appalled, i've been doing some reading up on the backstory to this video. They were taken out a few hours after an attack on a nearby U.S convoy. There were definitely men in that crowd armed with at several AK-47s and at least one RPG.

RPGs/Surface to Air weapons pose extremely serious threats to aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan. The two videos below are US helicopters being shot down by Islamic militants using RPGs. A few seconds before they were fired on, a man was crouching behind a building (2:35), possibly readying a weapon of some sort.

YouTube- Actual footage of RPG shooting down a helicopter

LiveLeak.com - Video of Islamic State of Iraq Shooting Down an American Chinook Helicopter in Al-Karma

It's unfortunate that journalists got taken out, but how are soldiers supposed to know they are journalists when they are indistinguishable from armed men? They are choosing to mix with bad people at their own risk. I don't know if shooting up the minivan was completely necessary, since it posed no threat to them at the time, and none of the occupants appeared to be armed. That, to me, doesn't look very justified. But then i'm not a soldier. It's very easy to sit here and be outraged at the events on that video, without knowing the full story and fully trusting one news organisation version of the truth. Baghdad in the summer of 2007 was an extremely violent place. The van could have been loaded with explosives. It wasn't a marked ambulance, and so wasn't a "Protected Object" under the ROE. A lot of things to consider before making rash judgments and jumping to a conclusion.

EDIT: Lpg that isnt an RPG, Looks like a Stinger to me. Hence the fact he managed to hit the heli from such a distance. Most insurgents couldnt hit a fucking barn door. Still, It doesnt change the fact that they do pose a very real threat to aircraft (especially low flying ones) But more specifically to ground troops/vehicles. (e.g. The small arms contact that is ongoing in the video)

I did mention the footage earlier, everyone ignored it. To summarise for those that dont know/choose to ignore the facts.

The ROE that apply in this instance were followed as well as they could have been regarding the initial firing, the ground callsign asked for air support after a small arms contact near the location of the journos (about 50-100 feet away iirc).

The pilots identified the group and percieved them gathering as a threat (There are armed men amongst them, close to a group of us troops under contact and which had been under constant fire for the morning - Also what in christs name is the bloke lying down doing? how did he think he wasnt going to look like a fecking insurgent!)

They asked for permission to fire, and the OIC clearing the strike would have no reason to suspect that the call was not legitimate (based on the radio transcript, weapons are identified within the group and with aircraft flying as low as an apache there is no reason for the clearance not be granted by the or the pilot/observer to be doubted). This was also not their first engagement with a group in the area, and before shooting at the van.

I can see no reason for the second engagement even from the pilots point of view. But people take one look at this after briefly reading that there were photographers there and instantly assume that everyone is innocent. After playing it back many times they can confidently say that the pilots should be lynched or other tripe. Guardian reading buffoons at it again. At the end of the day it was an unfortunate error that the reuters guys got killed, but It is perfectly understandable how the error occurred.

WikiLeaks claims to seek to shed the light on the truth, yet continues to allow such gross errors in reporting stand unchanged. There are many serving and ex-personnel with thousands of hours experience in both analyzing aerial video and understanding the often-garbled radio transmissions between units. It is not unreasonable to think any number of them would be willing to make sure everything is identified correctly, and all jargon is translated appropriately, before things go to the presses.

Promoting truth with gross errors is just as shameful as an unnecessary engagement.

But hey, lets not let facts get in the way of a good outrage.

Yep the missile in those vids are probably Stingers, going on distance.

Just in case anyone still doubts they were armed, ground troops found AK's and an RPG shell under a body after the engagement. Here's a report of the investigation of the killing.

http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1004/62nd_Brigade_Combat_Team_156_Investigation.pdf

Page 28.

Also theres a huge gap in the timescale of that footage..

This is info taken from the radio transcript in the gap/the statements (available online) of the Pilots etc

The events that happened in the gap:

The pilots again went to assist the ground troops under contact, Saw several AIF engaged in a small arms contact with the US troops, The OIC again approved the strike. Then the pilot saw a child and other "noncombatants" and did not fire.

Then, the pilots saw a red vehicle that the radio transcript indicates may have contained insurgents, Again didnt fire because they couldn't get positive identification. Here is the relevant part of the statement:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/04/statement1.jpg

Neither of these events were shown in the Wikileaks video... As it cuts off after the first attack and picks just before the second. The other engagement not included was firing three hellfire missiles into an abandoned building where insurgents were believed to be hiding. Here is how the pilot described this attack in his statement:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/04/statement2.jpg

The "Full Version" leaves out the instances of the pilots holding their fire, despite being cleared to engage. Again the people who cry about the "neutral media" releasing an "uncut" or "unedited" video—the implication being that this video depicts what "really happened"—when 20 minutes of less-incriminating footage was removed? It by no means clears the pilots of any wrongdoing on behalf of the second engagement in the WikiLeaks video when they are actually engaging unarmed civvies trying to casevac that wounded guy, but still. Why remove the footage?

People far away have to die so we can have food, elcitricty and flushing toilets here. If your not ok with that try living with out the above.

I like my comforable lifestyle I'm ok with wars to preserve it and that noncombatants will die in said wars. I'm a bad person but I'm honest.

Comforable

People far away have to die so we can have food, elcitricty and flushing toilets here. If your not ok with that try living with out the above.

I like my comforable lifestyle I'm ok with wars to preserve it and that noncombatants will die in said wars. I'm a bad person but I'm honest.

How do you feel about child labour to make your nice tight trousers?