StickyMicky

According to the Hurt Locker, they cut kids open and fill the insides with bombs

So i would put money on them either being random innocents that were trying to help (seriously dumb, its a ****en battlezone GTFO)

Or.......

They use kids as a "dont shoot us we have kids" tactic.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Yes I watched the whole video. The man crouched down was a Reuters journalist with his TV camera. Probably hiding in case he got shot! More fool him!


If you go back to the media reports at the time - it was reported that eleven people, including two Reuters journalists were killed in an attack.

In the immediate aftermath the US military announced that the eleven had died in a 'firefight with insurgents'.

Police and witness reports indicate that there were no reported incidents leading up to the attack on the group.

The group themselves were in sight of four American Humvees, and there was no engagement, around ten minutes before the attack.

The video cameras seen in the video, mistaken for RPGs were later returned to Reuters.

The Iraqi police at the time stated it was an example of the 'random American bombardment'.

The US military said the Apache was deployed as 'attack aviation reinforcement'.

There are no contemporary reports anywhere that I can find that claim there was a live RPG at the scene. From the media or US Military sources. I am sure if it was true the US would be making sure we all knew so they could cover their butts!


The key factor is where is the firefight? Even if something had happened before the video that we can see, it is profoundly unlikely that a group of active insurgents would be walking casually down a street in the middle of a firefight when there is an Apache up in the air.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

A fire fight is an engagement, they clearly asked if there were any friendlies in the area, the answer was no.

Tony

davyboy

I believe the firefight (shots fired) happened, and then the Apache called.

If you watched the Full video (near where they destroy the building), you can see the Apache is far enough away that they wouldn't have even heard it, let alone see it. The zoom that camera has is incredible.

They are pretty much using the same screen resolution as we watch it on to, but in an Apache.

The Apache is not on top of them as it appears.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

A firefight - an intense, usually brief, exchange of gunfire between soldiers of small military units

The key word here is 'exchange'



Davy - so who was the earlier firefiight between. There is photographic evidence of this group coming upon the four US Humvees minutes before this attack and there is no engagement. There were also witness and police statements to corroborate this evidence.

Of course there may have been a different group but no evidence of that either.

Luan Pra bang

So we have video footage of Americans killing innocent people going about their own business in their own country. Then we watch them gloat over the murders then people on here make excuses for it saying that the Yanks could not tell who they were, if you can't tell who they are don't shoot. The rules of engagment are different for the Yanks and the British and the Yanks do not have to account for rounds hence stories of Yanks letting the UK soldiers fire off random grenades at random targets in Afgan to blow off a bit of steam. Don't think for a second that UK soldiers are not guilty of indiscriminate murder as well.

Luan Pra bang

The evidence that the journalists left behind ?

Luan Pra bang

So if I accidentally kill some people its OK ? and this is not war this is an occupation and I am not sure which rules of engagement state that you can shoot who ever you like just in case ?

SirFozzalot

Watch the short video clip. At 46-55 seconds, that guy is definitely carrying an RPG and the bloke behind him is carrying an AK47 or similar.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

The guy with the RPG is a Reuters journalist carrying a camera. After the event the camera was given back to Reuters.

Do you imagine for one second that if there really was an RPG the media wouldn't be plastered with evidence so the US could cover their ****?

hodgy0_2

the problem is that the US military view cameras as far more dangerous than RPG's

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Too true

SirFozzalot

What sort of camera are you proposing that is? Even the big old cameras from back in the '80's weren't that big!

SirFozzalot

The two guys carrying cameras move out of shot, then the two guys enter the screen from the top, these are the guys carrying the weapons.

Watch the video again at the time frame stated above it's clearer than this screen shot.

The Dogs B******s

Shoot first or be shot.

Geezer

Even if some of the people on the ground were armed (which, despite some of the claims being made here is not clear) the actions of the Apache crew cannot be condoned.

This is not (and was not in 2007) a war zone, this is an occupation. The US forces are their to provide security and to tackle insurgents where appropriate. The helicopter was in a support role, not an attack role and is supposed to be used in support to the ground troops, usually in actions co-ordinated by troops on the ground who will identify targets that can then be tackled by all the high tech weaponry available from a safe distance, or to provide cover or suppressing fire to allow troops on the ground to escape if the situation is poor, or to allow them to press on and take the position etc. etc.

Not only did the Apache crew act inappropriately, but the control centre effectivley authorised a murder without any knowlegde of the situation. They knew where US troops were, they knew there had been no engagement beforehand.

I appreciate that on the video, it isn't clear as what some of these people were carrying, but the subsequent lack of "there was an RPG found!" by the US at the time and the lie that they died as part of an exchange with ground troops is very telling.

Add to that the gung-ho attitude of the pilots, and it's all pretty inexcusable. It's not as it they were in the middle of a fire fight when adrenalin and fear can drive people to do dreadful (but understandable) things. They were firing from a safe distance in no danger.

A pretty bad failing all round on the US, but that is the norm, it would seem.

Geezer

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Wise words Geezer, and I'm not saying that just because I agree with you. Your post is IMHO an accurate and balanced appraisal of the incident.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I see you have modified your statement from 'it's an RPG' to 'carrying weapons'.

I don't think anyone is saying that they did not have AK47s or similar.

The point is that AK47s are not really a danger to an Apache flying in the distance, and they individuals with the AK47s at no point take a hostile stance against either the Apache or any other ground forces (which they came across on a few minutes earlier).

The bottom line is - does carrying an AK47 in an occupied zone require lethal force to be prosecuted. That is one for the lawyers.

It may be naive, sure, but deserving of eleven people shot dead in cold blood?

Geezer does have it spot on, it is not a war zone it is the provision of security services in a support role.

SirFozzalot

Actually I stated "carrying weapons" because to my eye it looks like an RPG AND an AK47.

I see you keep avoiding actually answering the question anyway. Do you honestly think they are cameras in that picture above and the video at the stated time frame?

None of us on here can say how we would react in such a situation, we are all lucky enough not to have to "work" in hostile areas like Iraq or Afghanistan where a wrong decision can end with multiple deaths, including possibly your own if you hesitate too long.

Helicopters have been brought down with RPG's, as a gunner you see what you think is an RPG (we get to study the footage, they only see it the once in real time) what would you do?

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Maybe you haven't read what I have posted multiple times.

There is one moment in the whole video where it looks like there maybe a hostile position being taken. When a man is crouching down behind a wall holding something that 'may' be interpreted as being a weapon. But immediately afterwards as the Apache circles around behind that buillding the position is totally unsubstantiated as all you have is some men milling around talking on the phone.

Other than that one moment there are no hostile positons taken against ground troops or the Apache.

There is no firefight as claimed.

The group did not fire upon the US military as claimed.

There is no RPG as claimed.

I also get the whole thing about working in a war zone - but listen as well as watch - do you think for on moment these 'soldiers' sounded like they were under threat? Not at all - they just wanted to get stuck in.

'Come on, let us shoot!'.

Leslie

In other words, you are trying to justify murder!

Les

astraboy

The 'Come on, let us shoot' was over the intercom, not over the air. He was thinking aloud, not requesting permission to fire.

Thats the bottom line here, they requested permission to fire, they received permission.

They did their job and should not be held accountable. The person who authorised them to engage should be.
astraboy.

astraboy

The 'Come on, let us shoot' was over the intercom, not over the air. He was thinking aloud, not requesting permission to fire.

Thats the bottom line here, they requested permission to fire, they received permission.

They did their job and should not be held accountable. The person who authorised them to engage should be.
astraboy.

davyboy

Yes that's exactly what I am doing, I also think Ian Huntly is misunderstood.

StickyMicky

IMHO the journalists were probably being naughty, never notified anybody where they were, because they were trying to get a better story, probably because they were with the baddies at the time.

You know what they are like, as for the RPG thing, no body guard would carry one and you can clearly hear one of the US ground troops on the longer video say they have found an RPG round, another operator even asks him if its live or not to which he reply that it is (or something like that)

StickyMicky

meh

Geezer

OK, so if you request permission to fire at people who pose no threat, it's ok, as you absolve responsibilty to those who gave you permission?

The people who gave permission to engage played their part, they should have questioned the fact that nothing was going on, it was not accurately determined whether the people were insurgetns with weapons or not, but the Apache crew were still basically asking (begging!) for permission to shoot up a load of people who posed no threat to

a) themselves

b) ground troops

c) the public at large (their behaviour was benign, not threatening at all)

I find it hard to believe the amount of people on here who simply fob it off with such excuses as "well it's war, terrible things happen" etc.

Yes, they do happen, but that doesn't mean the people shouldn't be brought to account. Killing people indiscriminately in a close combat situation or mistakenly targeting innocents with a missile from many many miles away is one thing, shooting up a bunch of people who pose no direct threat to anyone is another!

Geezer

dazdavies

iTrader: (22)

Typical Civvy view and reactions about an event like this.

Tony's first comment was just about bang on.

Les as a "trained killer" then you should know full well what it's like for the blokes on the end of the trigger.

If this was press, which in itself is debatable then they should have been wearing the appropiately labelled flak jackets. I appreciate that's not always practicle but you also have to ask yourself what on earth were they doing amongst a group of individuals where some of which were proven to be carrying AK47s.

I would agree about the Yanks. They are a bunch of trigger happy cowboys. All the gear, no idea we used to say. Being an ex Soldier myself I've first hand experience of trigger happy yanks and have lost a couple of good friends through a couple of "blue on Blue" friendly fire incidents.

The British armed forces are simply better trained and far far more professional.

War is not pretty it's also sometimes not as clear cut as some of you might think.

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Nothing like second guessing decisions made in warzones from videos on YouTube whist sitting on your fat ***** in your living rooms in suburbia is there?

Neither the "For's" nor "Against's" have the first idea what the hell REALLY happened prior to this, what was happening within 1km of the engagement, what the intelligence reporting was prior to this engagement, recent behavior of insurgent forces and local civilians in the area; or any of the other facts that put this into any sort of FACTUAL context. But then neither side is really interested in facts, just point scoring.

Either way - they were obviously convinced given the situation at the time that individuals were carrying long barreled weapons and RPG's in the open. Under the US rules of engagement that is good enough to engage. They requested permission to engage as per SOPs, they were given permission to engage. They engaged the target with accurate fire from their cannon to remove the threat they perceived at the time. They held back from engaging the wounded until a vehicle and individuals, none of which marked with a white flag, red crescent, red cross or similar, attempted to remove them from the contact point. The crew then re-engaged the target. Again, within the boundaries of the US Rules of engagement in force. Remove all the **** about the politics because that doesn't mean crap, that Apache crew did nothing wrong.

Leslie - I'm surprised at your standpoint in this, being ex-military aircrew and having been trained to drop a weapon designed to indiscriminately kill in a way that only politicians could ever justify or consider.

Geezer - you are basing your statement that these individuals posed no threat on claims made post-incident. From the video alone I challenge anyone here to prove that was a video camera and not a long barreled weapon - and having wasted a year of my life in Iraq, I can assure you that wandering around with a Kalashnikov or RPG is considerably more common than walking around with a bloody handycam taking tourist snaps.....

astraboy

You are fooling no-one but yourself if you believe a man with an AK47 in close proximity to our troops is no threat to anyone. Cos the apache wouldnt be there unless it was supporting our troops.

**** em. If they wanted to stay alive they should stay away from people walking down the street in broad daylight with AK47s.

If they were journalists, not combatants, they should be wearing blue body armour or at the very least a white Tshirt with 4 strips of black tape on the front saying 'TV'

If they wanted to rescue their wounded they should have done it in a van with a big red cross symbol painted on it.

If they wanted to keep their kids alive they should have removed them from the van which was shortly driven to the exact spot which had been hosed by an apache not a few minutes before!

It aint rocket science
astraboy.