NFSW (very graphic) :Wikileaks releases video footage of journalist killings

[Sclamoz]

For the record, this does not appear to be the case. That's the third in a series of photos released by Reuters back in a blog post on their request for more info following the incident. The photo likely took place some ten minutes prior to when the last photo was taken.

From that Reuters blog, "[r]esidents and witnesses interviewed by Reuters said they saw no gunmen in the immediate area where Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh were killed in Baghdad’s al-Amin al-Thaniyah neighborhood. They said they were not aware of any clashes in the area leading up to the Apache helicopter attack around 10.30 am local time. Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh had gone to the area after hearing of a U.S. air strike on a building around dawn that day."

As for xj0hnx's description, having one or two people with AKs acting as bodyguards for journalists on assignment seems much more likely than some insurgent group where one in three are actually armed and headed into a firefight.

Reuters had no knowledge of his "assignment" and he was not carrying any press identification nor did he bother to let the coalition forces know he was going to be walking the streets with a group of people armed with AK-47s and RPGs. Seems kind of far fetched doesn't it?

As per the order or the pictures it doesn't say 10 minutes after the Humvee picture he took his last photo, it was 10 minutes after he took the pictures of the 2 women. The blog is apparently leaving out when he took the picture of the Humvee, it just says "around this time". Following the Humvee photo is the photo of the guy falling/taking cover while being shot at 10 minutes after taking the pictures of the 2 women. I can't find the last photo anywhere but from the sounds of it might have been the camera going off while they were being shot.

I know for a fact that the gunners rained death from above on a group of people who demonstrated absolutely no intent to engage in hostilities, but rather were causally hanging out on the side of the road. It looked about like this.

So you want the ROE to be changed to "don't do attack until they start shooting at you"?

 

[kylebisme]

No, I want the RoE which says you can only attack people who are engaging or demonstrating intent to engage in hostilities followed, while you apparently prefer to have it thrown out the window so that people casually minding their own business continue to be slaughtered in the street.

 

[Sclamoz]

No, I want the RoE which says you can only attack people who are engaging or demonstrating intent to engage in hostilities followed, while you apparently prefer to have it thrown out the window so that people casually minding their own business continue to be slaughtered in the street.

The Apache crews identified combatants carrying weapons near US soldiers who were being shot at and had called the helicopters in for help. The Apaches misidentified the cameraman crouching to take a picture as preparing to shoot an RPG. How much more hostile intent would need to be demonstrated?

 

[kylebisme]

The Apache crews identified combatants carrying weapons near US soldiers who were being shot at and had called the helicopters in for help.

No, the Apachies (note there was two) were called in regard to unconfirmed reports of gunfire in the area, and identified no one acting combative at all.

The Apaches misidentified the cameraman crouching to take a picture as preparing to shoot an RPG. How much more hostile intent would need to be demonstrated?

More than a photographer taking a picture, which could be reasonably mistaken for someone aiming an RPG at first glance, but which was most obviously nothing of the sort long before death rained from above. For the love of God, if the guy had been using an RPG, the others wouldn't have simply been kickin' it casual on the cub just beside him, and they would have been watching out for attack choppers in the sky. Common sense much?

 

[Zorkorist]

These guys play too many war games.

Lets splat abyone we encounter,

 

[Zorkorist]

But sIR... IT'S JST A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WALKING IN THE SAM ME DIRECTION.

 

[Zorkorist]

one of them has a camera!

 

[Zorkorist]

sHOOT AT WIL.

 

[Sclamoz]

No, the Apachies (note there was two) were called in regard to unconfirmed reports of gunfire in the area, and identified no one acting combative at all.

Sure thing pal. http://i.imgur.com/twrSH.jpg

I know there were 2 hence why I said "crews".

More than a photographer taking a picture, which could be reasonably mistaken for someone aiming an RPG at first glance, but which was most obviously nothing of the sort long before death rained from above. For the love of God, if the guy had been using an RPG, the others wouldn't have simply been kickin' it casual on the cub just beside him, and they would have been watching out for attack choppers in the sky. Common sense much?

What would they have been doing? Dancing? Marching Single file?

The helicopters were in the range of 1-2km in the air. If they were even aware of the helicopter they wouldn't know they were focusing on them, they aren't psychic.

http://splodetv.com/video/apache-insurgent-attack

The only reason you are able to tell that's a camera and not an rpg is because your watching a recording of what happened and have the luxury of having it pointed out to you. The apache crews weren't sitting in front of a computer in their house with the foreknowledge of what happened, they were flying a helicopter on a battlefield.

 

[Noobtastic]

Journalists were in war zone, period.

I sincerely doubt the Apache crew deliberately targeted the journalists, and it is clear their occupational status was not known until AFTER the fact.

Problem with insurgent aholes is they exploit America's R.O.E. They dress up as civilians, pose as journalists, arm children, etc...all to deter attack.

Taliban found out US marines cannot engage unless an enemy is armed, so when moving from house to house during conflict insurgents merely put down their weapons and walk right in front of the soldiers, but we can't engage because the insurgent isn't armed.

This is the logic of the Left. They go crazy over relatively minor albeit tragic events like this, but complete silence and indifference regarding how the enemy behaves.

Like the 49 Iraqis killed by a suicide bombing yesterday. No protest, no flag-burning. No america to blame. Islamists can't be expected to behave like human beings, but the "good guys" need to coddle and treat them like infants.

 

[Sclamoz]

The full "unedited" video that wikileaks released is missing 30 minutes.

http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage

 

[Zorkorist]

Journalists were in war zone, period.

I sincerely doubt the Apache crew deliberately targeted the journalists, and it is clear their occupational status was not known until AFTER the fact.

Problem with insurgent aholes is they exploit America's R.O.E. They dress up as civilians, pose as journalists, arm children, etc...all to deter attack.

Taliban found out US marines cannot engage unless an enemy is armed, so when moving from house to house during conflict insurgents merely put down their weapons and walk right in front of the soldiers, but we can't engage because the insurgent isn't armed.

This is the logic of the Left. They go crazy over relatively minor albeit tragic events like this, but complete silence and indifference regarding how the enemy behaves.

Like the 49 Iraqis killed by a suicide bombing yesterday. No protest, no flag-burning. No america to blame. Islamists can't be expected to behave like human beings, but the "good guys" need to coddle and treat them like infants.

No.

Men at war need to exercise better judgement than kill everything that moves.

It is unacceptable to kill people that way.

-John

 

[kylebisme]

Sure thing pal.

Your reading comprehension sucks far too bad for me to even bother responding nonsense reply, feel free to try again.

 

[Sclamoz]

No.

Men at war need to exercise better judgement than kill everything that moves.

It is unacceptable to kill people that way.

-John

They didn't kill everything that moved they engaged enemy combatants. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Just because 2 cameraman were in the group doesn't change anything.

Had the Apaches recognized them as cameras instead of weapons they likely would have assumed they were filming attacks on American forces and engaged anyways.

Your reading comprehension sucks far too bad for me to even bother responding nonsense reply, feel free to try again.

You said the Apaches "were called in regard to unconfirmed reports of gunfire in the area" when it was confirmed, those are from the investigations that followed and have been available for about a year. Don't say it if you have no idea what you're talking about.

As far as I finding no one acting combative you are an idiot. People carrying weapons openly on a battlefield is combative and US forces are well within their ROE to attack.

 

[Zorkorist]

You saw a different movie than I.

I saw a bunch of people walking down a street.

-John

 

[Sclamoz]

You saw a different movie than I.

I saw a bunch of people walking down a street.

-John

Yeah just taking a nice afternoon stroll with the ole RPG. I'm sure they were going to see if they could offer any assistance to the soldiers lol.

 

[theflyingpig]

No.

Men at war need to exercise better judgement than kill everything that moves.

They did.

It is unacceptable to kill people that way.

-John

Yes, it is.

 

[theflyingpig]

You saw a different movie than I.

I saw a bunch of people walking down a street.

-John

Watch the 'movie' again. This time do it with your eyes open.

 

[Zorkorist]

Yeah just taking a nice afternoon stroll with the ole RPG. I'm sure they were going to see if they could offer any assistance to the soldiers lol.

What RPG?

Remember, I watched the same film you did.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

BTW, what is an RPG?

-John

 

[Sclamoz]

What RPG?

Remember, I watched the same film you did.

-John

You should try watching the "unedited" version. And reading all of the military's reports on the incident.

I just posted this a few posts up. Its a couple of frames from the video and paragraphs from reports..
http://i.imgur.com/twrSH.jpg

There is clearly a guy with an rpg and another with some kind of ak-47. The soldiers recovered them both from the bodies. The Wikileaks editor admitted they are there, they just chose to highlight the cameramen instead of the guys with weapons.

BTW, what is an RPG?

Rocket Propelled Grenade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTqXUK8V9iA&feature=related

 

[Zorkorist]

There were definetly people there with weapons, but they were slung over the shoulder.

Who would run around Iraq today without a firearm?

What is an RPG?

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

K, I'll watch the long version... but short version was people walking down a street, getting massacered.

-John

 

[kylebisme]

You should try watching the "unedited" version.

I've watched both, but didn't see even a single frame in the full video that contradicted what was in the edit. Can you present even one?

And reading all of the military's reports on the incident.

The military originally claimed they had no clue how the kids got hurt and other obvious nonsense, so their credibility here is basically squat.

 

[Sclamoz]

I've watched both, but didn't see even a single frame in the full video that contradicted what was in the edit. Can you present even one?

I never said it contradicted the edited version, but wikileaks edited it to be biased unfortunately. They have arrows pointing to the cameras and they slow the video down at those points but they don't do even mention the weapons. Its no surprise people are coming into this thread saying what weapons????

If you go and look at collateralmurder.com (they even picked a biased name for the webpage) you'll see the photos from Noor-Eldeen's camera yet they left out the Humvee picture.


In both versions they also incorrectly subtitle what the pilots are saying at points.

The military originally claimed they had no clue how the kids got hurt and other obvious nonsense, so their credibility here is basically squat.

Where can I find that?

There were definetly people there with weapons, but they were slung over the shoulder.

Who would run around Iraq today without a firearm?

Iraq isn't Afghanistan or Mogadishu. People don't walk around with RPGs and Ak-47s for fun typically. On top of that there was a war being fought and we were confiscating weapons from peoples homes to try and stop the insurgency. People who were walking around in public brandishing weapons openly are fighting.