Wikileaks Collateral Murder Video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ßðÐŻÍ££å

good post.

back on topic now,


Ok i'll ask you guys a question.
what is the best way to fix a problem?
analyse the cause's and reassess the systems in place behind it...... or sweep it under the rug?

This was a monumental fuck-up that led to the death of civilians, i think we can all agree on this, however as history has shown us if we choose not to acknowledge the mistakes and actions of our past we doom ourselves to repeat them.
You get the world believing that the holocaust never happened, and it will happen again. Simple as that.

The only way to Fix this problem is to do the opposite of what the military did and considering the amount of guns and money these guys have at their disposal, thats a very scary thought.

---

There's a difference between assessing a situation and calling for improvement and what we actually have (addressed in video comments, this site even) which is nothing more than a lynch mob calling for these guys to be tried as war criminals. There's a big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Right, because it's not ridiculous to kill another fucking human being.

Read the Geneva Conventions.

If I was shooting an enemy combatant, whether they fight under the GC or not, then disengage firing thinking I had terminated them only to later see them struggling to move (read: they're still alive) it would be illegal for me to firing or attack them from then on. We'd be require to give medical aid.

This is why they tell you to Shoot To Kill.

I hate to be associated with this kind of scum. Begging to engage some targets which you're viewing from a very low resolution camera. Saying "their own fault for bringing their children to a battle". Mother fucker, that wasn't a battle, it was a massacre. There was no enemy fire, only your own.

Hell, their attire didn't even look to be that of typical insurgents.

Had that van held a Red Cross (or culture equivalent) symbol...I have to wonder if this fucking prick gunner would still have been begging to engage. Because then we'd know that he was knowingly begging to be a war criminal.

---

I was going to post and say I agreed with you about the 'shoot to kill' bit but the bolded just made me grimace in disbelief. :raise:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

I remember from some training event that (I forget where exactly, I think in something like that of GC, but GC itself doesn't govern weapons. Or it could just be under UCMJ) it's illegal to use more force than needed to take out a target. IE, you wouldn't drop a bomb on a single enemy combatant.

---

No, however you would use every advantage you have when even a single man is a threat to you and your squad. This wasn't quite analogous to dropping a nuke on a few people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnaFuBAR

Either way, opening fire with heavy ordinance was still wrong.

---

I remember from some training event that (I forget where exactly, I think in something like that of GC, but GC itself doesn't govern weapons. Or it could just be under UCMJ) it's illegal to use more force than needed to take out a target. IE, you wouldn't drop a bomb on a single enemy combatant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Good_Apollo

There's a difference between assessing a situation and calling for improvement and what we actually have (addressed in video comments, this site even) which is nothing more than a lynch mob calling for these guys to be tried as war criminals. There's a big difference.

---

And we're past that. Pretty well everyone realizes by this point that both parties hold their own faults, so instead of backtracking, get with the current discussion.

is there a scale or something that tells you when you're using too much force?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Good_Apollo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Had that van held a Red Cross (or culture equivalent) symbol...I have to wonder if this fucking prick gunner would still have been begging to engage. Because then we'd know that he was knowingly begging to be a war criminal.

---

I was going to post and say I agreed with you about the 'shoot to kill' bit but the bolded just made me grimace in disbelief. :raise:

---

Need I remind you that you are also guilty of hypothetical demonizing and emotional preying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Good_Apollo

And suppose, instead of being two kids in that car, men popped out and blew those helicopters out of the sky? Wonder what you'd say about the deaths of those soldiers, probably good riddance, the war in Iraq is a sham anyway..?

---

You are honestly so biased, it hurts. You could have easily passed over that bit and moved on. Learn to ignore comments that offend you personally. Remove yourself from all equations. Focus instead on what offends the basic human spirit: in this case, the preventable deaths of civilians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnaFuBAR

God damn, please don't join any military with a thought process like that.

---

Too late for that :/

Ha, this is really getting juicy. I've got my own opinions on the matter, but they have been voiced in many ways already so I'll take a backseat to this one. To be honest, I like to see the various points of view on the topic and attacking another person's statement negatively stifles the thought process. The root cause of the problem is what must be identified and it has been already. The rest is open to what you interpret from the video. I haven't been glued to a thread like this in many a month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehoodedsmack

Need I remind you that you are also guilty of hypothetical demonizing and emotional preying?



You are honestly so biased, it hurts. You could have easily passed over that bit and moved on. Learn to ignore comments that offend you personally. Remove yourself from all equations. Focus instead on what offends the basic human spirit: in this case, the preventable deaths of civilians.

---

Except I'm preying on the posting habits that I see everyday from individuals here, not some soldier I don't even know aside from a few minutes of audio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyinrooster

is there a scale or something that tells you when you're using too much force?

---

Why yes, yes there is. It's called The Scale of Snafubar. We page Snaf everytime we're about to drop a bomb or something. He replies with an animated image of himself. If he's smiling, we're G2G. If he's stone faced, abort-abort.

(so, no, there isn't a scale that I know of)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Good_Apollo

I was going to post and say I agreed with you about the 'shoot to kill' bit but the bolded just made me grimace in disbelief. :raise:

No, however you would use every advantage you have when even a single man is a threat to you and your squad. This wasn't quite analogous to dropping a nuke on a few people.

---

I was referring to "shooting to kill" (almost sarasticlly) the enemy so that they're taken down the first time. If you fail to take them down, you're then also using medical resources in order to aid a wonded soldiers instead of just bullets. Also, it's illegal to attack red cross labeled transports.

In an unbounded war maybe. However, the US military is bounded by GC, UCMJ and the Theater's RoE. This isn't a free-for-all game. Your tactics are goverened. Our military isn't based on Guerilla Warfare.

e: Also, I think it's rather bullshit that they diverted the medical attention of those children to a lower-quality local hospital. We as a military have to face our action's consequences. If go in and destroy cities to only rebuild them, yet when he damage the lives of those cities we don't use our same resources to aid them. We fired upon a van which had no sign of returning fire. Instead if was acting as an aid litter, picking up wounded. Cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cojafoji

Now Bod, I have to ask: are you suggesting that the military revamp it's ROE, to possibly include a more definitive requirement for recognizing weapons, or perhaps some sort of recognition software that could be loaded into these cameras which would help to define possible weapons more accurately? Then I have to point out, that if you revamp the former, you potentially endanger the lives of the soldier. Now I know that while some may argue, that in that situation, the civilian has priority over the safety of the soldier, we have to concede that they're both still in an active war zone. I know we shouldn't be there, and that this is their home, but I can't help but see your suggestion as a potential threat/hazard to our soldiers. A life is a life, but if you have to choose between an Iraqi adult male, and an adult male from the US, I'm kind of biased there. I know that this may have come out in the wrong way, but just hear me out on this one.

---

while thats a good idea in itself (camera enhancements ect) why i'm saying is that when the shit hits the fan with whatever your doing you need to do a review on it and reassess if what your doing is the right way to do it.
have to do it all the time in cabinet making, from the way we make cupboards, and tops, the orders we do it in, how we do it... everything is up to scrutiny or atleast should be.
if you take the approach "well thats the way we do things 'round 'ere, been doing it since dickity two, so therefore we cant even think about changing anything" well thats just a crazy way of denying and ignoring the evidence in front of you that suggests that, yes things could be done better and yes we should always try to do better.

I'm not sure of how this unit conducts itself, but typically there is an After-Action-Review/Report done when it comes to training exercises and actual missions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnaFuBAR

:roe101:

---

Then that changes a good few things about my argument, as I didn't know the specifics of ROE. That chopper gunner should probably be dishonorably discharged for his actions, hell, maybe even the superior that gave him permission to engage, unless he was solely going by what the gunner was telling him (i.e. no video fed to him). Despite what I said about impulsive actions, if he broke the rules for an excuse to shoot something (which that scenario is becoming more and more apparent), it's inexcusable. The fact that this was covered up is equally as disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Why yes, yes there is. It's called The Scale of Snafubar. We page Snaf everytime we're about to drop a bomb or something. He replies with an animated image of himself. If he's smiling, we're G2G. If he's stone faced, abort-abort.

---

Why don't we have this system in place in our military?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

I'm not sure of how this unit conducts itself, but typically there is an After-Action-Review/Report done when it comes to training exercises and actual missions.

---

Thats all well and good but they arn't allowing external reviews or information on sensitive matters so they can fill the propaganda metre for another week by saying they did everything they could to not attack civs... or run over bodies... or care for kids they just wounded...

Which is all kinds of wrong.

Not everything the military does is meant for the public and thus external review. However, this excuse gets thrown around and abused so it loses its value when actually used.

looking at the comments from soldiers though none of them knew anything about it.

it looks like big brother said, "look you fucked up, but let us take care of it. we'll fix it so nobody knows"
and when none of the solys on the ground know, its gunna happen again.

One thing that I don't get is why, if they were seriously photographers, there was no chatter from those ground units remarking "uhhhh, crazy horse, I don't see any weapons down here...uhhh, only cameras...lots and lots of cameras"

I mean, someone in that patrol had to realize "these bodies don't have any weapons, and we shot them dead... whats goin' on here eh?".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ßðÐŻÍ££å

while thats a good idea in itself (camera enhancements ect) why i'm saying is that when the shit hits the fan with whatever your doing you need to do a review on it and reassess if what your doing is the right way to do it.
have to do it all the time in cabinet making, from the way we make cupboards, and tops, the orders we do it in, how we do it... everything is up to scrutiny or atleast should be.
if you take the approach "well thats the way we do things 'round 'ere, been doing it since dickity two, so therefore we cant even think about changing anything" well thats just a crazy way of denying and ignoring the evidence in front of you that suggests that, yes things could be done better and yes we should always try to do better.

---

Those re-evaluations would come with a pretty hefty price tag. You'd be asking the people making those assessments to increase their risk of being killed. While I'm sure that it would net a few lives, namely innocents, I think that it'd inevitably bind the hands of soldiers in the field. If they wait to make a positive ID, they could be killed. Remember, all of these things happen within a span of minutes. At this point, I'm taking on the role of devils advocate, so feel free to berate me with eager questions of "why."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

One thing that I don't get is why, if they were seriously photographers, there was no chatter from those ground units remarking "uhhhh, crazy horse, I don't see any weapons down here...uhhh, only cameras...lots and lots of cameras"

I mean, someone in that patrol had to realize "these bodies don't have any weapons, and we shot them dead... whats goin' on here eh?".

---

Their cameras were in the shapes of ak47s and the telephoto lenses where rpgs. They wanted the most authentic situations. Looks like they got it :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

One thing that I don't get is why, if they were seriously photographers, there was no chatter from those ground units remarking "uhhhh, crazy horse, I don't see any weapons down here...uhhh, only cameras...lots and lots of cameras"

I mean, someone in that patrol had to realize "these bodies don't have any weapons, and we shot them dead... whats goin' on here eh?".

---

Isn't it possible that there weren't any intact cameras after the chopper opened fire?

Yeah, .50 cal (or whatever it was) would do that to a person

oh, and fragile objects like cameras.

But you'd still figure that the ground troops who came in to handle the bodies and munitions would be like 'wtf?' when all they got where bodies. Not saying I think they WERE hauling around AKs and RPGs, just...I'm pretty sure there was at least ONE soldier in that bunch to smell something fishy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cojafoji

suggesting that the military revamp it's ROE, to possibly include a more definitive requirement for recognizing weapons, or perhaps some sort of recognition software that could be loaded into these cameras which would help to define possible weapons more accurately?

---

I was about to post on the troubles of software recognition, and that got me thinking about the nature of the situation in general: in almost all situations, you're dealing with incomplete information. It's usually possible to create an algorithm that makes the correct decision in every case when given all the relevant information, but by definition when the information is incomplete there will be times when you make an incorrect decision. In terms of software, if you had some sort of image recognition suite that for example highlighted people carrying weapons for the gunner to shoot, it would be a matter of time before that suite made a false positive (or a false negative, allowing a combatant to get away), and then the scandal would be on the people who developed the software. Is the programmer to blame for the deaths of the people caused by the failure of his software?

But in general, people will do the same thing. Actually, the human eye is far, far better at object and pattern recognition than software. The human eye tends to be more reliable at picking out something that looks like a gun. It's still imperfect, though, relying on incomplete information, and to complicate it further the human brain has built-in biases for situations- it's pretty common to distort what you're seeing in order to make it fit with what you expect to see.

In this case, a soldier was looking through a grainy black and white camera at an area where US ground forces were being attacked and saw people carrying what looked like weapons.


Now, once again, a wrong decision is a wrong decision, and those involved rightly bear the blame. But I still don't think we can condemn them entirely because of the simple fact that from a probabilistic standpoint, this sort of misidentification is bound to happen again and again. The only solution is to continually refine imaging technology, always provide as much information as possible to people making decisions- in this case, simply provide a larger, clearer image. But by nature it is impossible to always get all the information and so by definition there will always be mistakes.

Firing from an Apache helo, they were slinging 30mm shells meant for hard targets (vehicles, armor, covered positions) would definitely destroy cameras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Oplawar

I was about to post on the troubles of software recognition, and that got me thinking about the nature of the situation in general: in almost all situations, you're dealing with incomplete information. It's usually possible to create an algorithm that makes the correct decision in every case when given all the relevant information, but by definition when the information is incomplete there will be times when you make an incorrect decision. In terms of software, if you had some sort of image recognition suite that for example highlighted people carrying weapons for the gunner to shoot, it would be a matter of time before that suite made a false positive (or a false negative, allowing a combatant to get away), and then the scandal would be on the people who developed the software. Is the programmer to blame for the deaths of the people caused by the failure of his software?

But in general, people will do the same thing. Actually, the human eye is far, far better at object and pattern recognition than software. The human eye tends to be more reliable at picking out something that looks like a gun. It's still imperfect, though, relying on incomplete information, and to complicate it further the human brain has built-in biases for situations- it's pretty common to distort what you're seeing in order to make it fit with what you expect to see.

In this case, a soldier was looking through a grainy black and white camera at an area where US ground forces were being attacked and saw people carrying what looked like weapons.


Now, once again, a wrong decision is a wrong decision, and those involved rightly bear the blame. But I still don't think we can condemn them entirely because of the simple fact that from a probabilistic standpoint, this sort of misidentification is bound to happen again and again. The only solution is to continually refine imaging technology, always provide as much information as possible to people making decisions- in this case, simply provide a larger, clearer image. But by nature it is impossible to always get all the information and so by definition there will always be mistakes.

---

The technology gap is being dealt with by using low level surveillance drone helicopters. They've even got a couple in the works that can resupply, give support fire and medivac the wounded, and has high resolution cameras (though i'm sure that's to ID high value targets before they escape rather than to keep the locals out of harm's way).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

just...I'm pretty sure there was at least ONE soldier in that bunch to smell something fishy

---

AFAIK the soldiers expect Iraqis to pick up weapons from the aftermath of the battle- it seems that's what the gunner expected of the people in the van, which is why he opened fire on it. Perhaps the soldiers that came in after the "battle" didn't think twice about the absence of guns because they get that a lot when coming to the aftermath.Or, perhaps they, I dunno, were distracted by the fact that they were in a combat zone surrounded by corpses that had been torn apart by the giant fucking gun on an Apache, expecting more attackers to arrive at any moment. Ack, sorry Lag, that was a bit of sarcasm. These damn threads just force it out.

I'd like to clear up a few things about my previous posts in this thread, specifically my position on the whole "cover-up" situation. I received a few PM's as well as various IM's on this situation which lead me to believe that some of my posts were unclear. I don't condone that the military tried to cover-up this situation, and I'm fully with you all when you say that this would have been better served in the light of day from the beginning. I still stand by all of my previous statements defending the fact that the Apache crew were doing the correct thing in engaging possible threats to a ground column that had, only minutes earlier, called in air support due to hostiles firing at them. However, once the real situation was determined it should not have been covered up like it was, it should have seen the light of day so that steps could be taken to prevent similar mistakes from happening again.

Now, I have read that there WERE at least three different weapons found on the scene after the fact by our Forces from a couple different web sites. As I've stated before, none of us were actually there and involved in the situation, so I can't comment on the reliability of the sources claiming that weapons were found. That said, apparently there WERE two AK style weapons and an RPG found at the scene during the aftermath. These weapons were believed to be in the possession of local security forces assigned to protect the photographers while they were out "in the field", I myself see the RPG and at least one rifle in the video footage.

I'm not going to reiterate what I've already said in previous posts any more than I have, if you want to see what I typed out previously you can go re-read my posts yourself.

What's this about not covering it up? Everyone keeps saying they shouldn't have covered it up...

I'd expect them to send the tapes to someone responsible in the military so that it could be reviewed and learned from and certain actions could be taken.
certainly no one's suggesting tapes like these be mailed to CNN every time it happens? ...right?

What happened, sleepy, was those two journalists were killed by the US military, and Reuters wanted to know why. The US Military told them that they reviewed the footage and claimed that, while it was unfortunate that the photographers were killed, the soldiers had followed the Rules of Engagement and there was nothing to be done except offer condolences. Reuters invoked an act that forced the military to give them the footage for their review, and then an anonymous source within Reuters leaked the footage.

The footage contradicts what was told, and shows a side of the soldiers that typically isn't seen by the public. Because of that, the military wanted to cover it up so they wouldn't get bad publicity. Even if it's not the case, the masses see one example of a population and assume that it applies to everyone, so in this case, if I were to apply my opinion of that chopper gunner to the US military, it would be my belief that they're all trigger happy sadists that just want to shoot people, innocent civilians included. However, I'm more sensible than that and realize that this was a one-off tragedy and feel that those directly involved should be reprimanded, and measures taken to make sure the probability of this happening again is reduced (eliminated is unrealistic, we're human and shit will happen).

I thought they were denied the video when they requested it? And that this video was actually from a whistle blower in the military?

p0lar: There are at least two rather immature soldiers I have to work with everyday that act like that if placed in the gunner seat. *sigh* One is even reclassing to infantry so he can shoot at people. I really don't think he realizes what he's getting himself into.

ah, thanks for answering

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p0lar_bear

the masses see one example of a population and assume that it applies to everyone

---

That's what i was getting at...sampling bias and, obviously, intentional bias in reporting. I'm not sure i agree with the "shouldn't have covered it up" sentiment. at least not yet. I agree they shouldn't sweep it under the rug and pretend it didn't happen but disclosure to a populace who knows nearly nothing of the situation at hand is dangerous to the mission. We've always had war correspondence but in recent decades the reporting has gone from "make them look good" to "make them look bad". This obviously impacts the military's disclosure. Improvements to ROE aside an honest and objective media complex would alleviate some of the "cover up" issue.

@Korn: growing up near several military bases i've met a lot of soldiers like that too. remember though, a lot of them are still just kids. or maybe i'm old lol

Knuckle head #1 is 24/25. #2 is in his mid-30s

I think that a lot of the "make them look bad" sentiment comes from the fact that we're so bragadocious about our capability to fight a "clean" war and our precision and intel that we demand them to do better than to gun down civilians. When the world is told our government speaks for us and they send our military to war in our interests and to protect us, it makes us look very bad when they basically fuck up. We basically want to show the world we don't condone this, and we expect people held responsible. The last administration was known for stacking lies upon lies about the going-ons of this war, and we don't want to look like a decietful people.

I get what your saying but i'd like to add that there were similar issues with the Clinton administration, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam, and Korea. The Gulf War was little different from my memory of watching Wolf Blitzer cover it for CNN. There was, in hindsight, obvious propaganda about how great we were in WWII when it was by far bloodier than the following wars. I think that says something about our ability to fight a clean war. It isn't clean but it is much better than in wars of the past. I hope it will get even better.

What i really mean by "make them look bad" is really "make them look bad because we have a political agenda" and not because we want to make the inevitability of war to become as civilized as possible. This is where we would benefit from a proper objective media. Instead we get bias to fuel a party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Knuckle head #1 is 24/25. #2 is in his mid-30s

---

that sucks.

Quote:

---

WIKI DECEPTION: Iraq "Collateral Murder" Video Rebuttal: Scenes WikiLeaks Edited Out!!

---

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

Quote:

---

This video contains footage NOT SEEN in wikileaks 17 minute version. IF YOU WANT CONTEXT WATCH THIS ONE.

The video released by Wiki Leaks is EXTREMELY misleading, and propagating it as “murder” is borderline criminal. Their 17 minute version edited out any mention of hostile gunfire on the part of insurgents for the purpose of defaming U.S. Defence Forces. WikiLeak head Julian Assange has since reluctantly admitted to AK-47 and RPGs being present. To their credit, they did release a full 39 minute version, but for “research” purposes only. Their edited version tells a very different story.

0:26 The “Black van” dropping off possible insurgents.

0:46 “We got a target fifteen coming at you, it’s a guy with a weapon.”

1:05 “One of them has a weapon.”

1:27 Guy carrying AK-47, and other with RPG (no way it a tripod) that had previously fired on U.S. Troops. WikiLeak video distracts you with letter box about a camera Bag).

3:53 “Roger, be advised, there were some guys popping out with the AKs behind that dirt pile. Break.”

4:25 “Uh, location, I have about 12 to 15 dead bodies. Where else were you taking fire from?”

4:34 They had AK-47s and were to our East. So, where we were taking small arms fire, over.

4:59 “I also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG crouching around the corner, Getting ready to fire on your location. That’s why we requested permission to engage.”

5:17 (IMPORTANT) “Six this is four, I got one individual looks like he’s got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break.” (Note: Four was at the scene of the shooting and found an RPG, of course wikileaks left that out).

5:43 “ I can hear small arms fire from your engagement area…”

6:10 “Right about where we engaged? Yeah, one of them with that RPG or whatever.”

6:19 “He’s got a weapon. Got an RP–, uh AK-47.”

6:34 “Roger, we have another individual with a weapon.”

The WikiLeaks transcription is poor in areas, as well. For instance, one part in their version they claim one guy said “F—-ing Prick”. It was not “prick, it was “break”. Not sure the word before it, sounded cut off.

USE OF CAMERAS: Should also note that a tactic used in battle is to take pictures using high powered lenses to gather intel on troop location, size, and armament. Photos would then be shared with the RPG carrier for more precise target acquisition. Not saying this was the case here, but that does happen. Tragic as it is, one should know better than to aim what looks like a weapon at ground troops with surveilling Apache Copters overhead, especially when standing next to insurgents carrying an RPG and AK-47s.

---

What a bunch of assholes. Now I don't know what to think about this story.

Wow. Lost my trust in wikileaks.

Oh wow.

Typical, on all accounts. Im not saying anyone in particular because everyone does it, but people deliberately leave important information out to prove their point. i.e. Global warming LOL

anyone who researched the incident instead of just taking wikileaks word for it would have known long ago they were full of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StankBacon

anyone who researched the incident instead of just taking wikileaks word for it would have known long ago they were full of shit.

---

I know, but the general tone from a majority of people that posted in this thread had pitch forks and torches for the US Military.

don't see how it changes anything, you should have watched the full version to begin with

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_ExhibitO.png

From the site of the attack

There should be laws against this kind of media


But...it's the internet

:nsmug: There should be a law against stupidity

And you guys trusted them.

Well, I'm glad to know that the soldiers may have had more legitimate reasons for opening fire. Though I'm still not a fan on them shooting at those who came to aid the survivors. And I still think that the video equipment and superior-contact system deserves to be upgraded, if it hasn't by now.

Ahh, the van that came to get them, dropped them off...

Oh, I missed that bit.