Reuters access previously censored footage via WikiLeaks.

conory

Old-Salt
DPM_Sheep said:
Precisely my point.

I know I'm looking at a pair of reporters, so when I see a long cylindrical object I think camera tripod and a dark L sharped object being carried under one arm I think, DSLR with big telephoto lens.

If I was an Apache pilot look for insurgents and I see a long cylindrical object, I'm going to think RPG. I see a dark L-shaped object I'm going to think AK. I see one of them get on the ground and point those objects round the corner into a contact, I'm going to think Insurgents and then I'm gonna blast the bastards.

The follow up may have been a bit much, but if your already faily confident your dealing with insurgents you're not going to be thinking "what if they civvies?" You'd second guess yourself into indecisiveness.

Totally Agree with this.
In a war zone, the pilot isn't going to see a long 'RPG like' object, and think "Canon 300mm lens", they're obviousily going to think its a RPG.
 

omegahunter

War Hero
conory said:
DPM_Sheep said:
Precisely my point.

I know I'm looking at a pair of reporters, so when I see a long cylindrical object I think camera tripod and a dark L sharped object being carried under one arm I think, DSLR with big telephoto lens.

If I was an Apache pilot look for insurgents and I see a long cylindrical object, I'm going to think RPG. I see a dark L-shaped object I'm going to think AK. I see one of them get on the ground and point those objects round the corner into a contact, I'm going to think Insurgents and then I'm gonna blast the bastards.

The follow up may have been a bit much, but if your already faily confident your dealing with insurgents you're not going to be thinking "what if they civvies?" You'd second guess yourself into indecisiveness.

Totally Agree with this.
In a war zone, the pilot isn't going to see a long 'RPG like' object, and think "Canon 300mm lens", they're obviousily going to think its a RPG.

But it wasn't a war zone - and the Americans were acting in support of the lawful government - maybe the gunner should of spent a couple more seconds making his decision - Certainly from the voice recorder, they sound overly aggressive.
 
Idrach said:
Which part of this (emphasis added) ...

jumpinjarhead said:
My point in the previous post was merely to show all aspects of the situation as a reminder that none of us know exactly what happened (context etc.) on the scene

True enough - but many of us have been in combat and we can make our own judgements

Leads you to this?

what in your assertion that merely because you or I may have been in combat that we can know for sure the entire story of this or any other situation that is depicted on a video like this.

Anyway

I stand by my point that none of us on these wise fora know all the facts

yes ...

and just as so many on ARRSE remind me when there is a post about some alleged or apparent wrongdoing by a member of the UK forces, comments are usually withheld until the matter is sorted.

I'll stand by my judgement on the US corporate reputation (which may be unjustified but it definitely exists) for not 'covering up' but investigating and officially completely exonerating personnel involved in overly-enthusiastic application of fire-power - blue on blue or blue on civilian. Just as, with the information I have seen, I'll stand by my judgement on the shooting. More information comes forward, my judgements may change. But what more evidence would we expect to uncover from an action nearly 3 years ago?

While the point about knowledge is fine and there is a general limitation on commenting on trials, you see lots of comment on here?

You (nor I as I keep saying) do not know what, if any action, has been taken in this particular case thus far and knowing the system as I do (and with respect I would hazard a guess that I know the US military justice system a bit better than you) and I am very confident that if there has not been a proper investigation thus far due to a cover up etc.

Personally, I have got my information about what has been officially done in this case from here. I appreciate that it is not going to be complete but it is the official record as produced. I'm also quite interested in some of the redactions - although it's against site policy to post names, it's not too hard to discover who were Brigade Commander and Deputy Commander 1st Air Cav, for instance. A couple of seconds of google-fu got both their bios and current appointments.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on some of these points involved and wait to see what the ultimate outcome may be as I very much doubt this matter is final. As for our "corporate reputation" however, it is very difficult to intelligently discuss this as how does one determine such a thing? I could refer to such things about many groups and even nations (including the UK I might add) but how useful is it?
 
omegahunter said:
conory said:
DPM_Sheep said:
Precisely my point.

I know I'm looking at a pair of reporters, so when I see a long cylindrical object I think camera tripod and a dark L sharped object being carried under one arm I think, DSLR with big telephoto lens.

If I was an Apache pilot look for insurgents and I see a long cylindrical object, I'm going to think RPG. I see a dark L-shaped object I'm going to think AK. I see one of them get on the ground and point those objects round the corner into a contact, I'm going to think Insurgents and then I'm gonna blast the bastards.

The follow up may have been a bit much, but if your already faily confident your dealing with insurgents you're not going to be thinking "what if they civvies?" You'd second guess yourself into indecisiveness.

Totally Agree with this.
In a war zone, the pilot isn't going to see a long 'RPG like' object, and think "Canon 300mm lens", they're obviousily going to think its a RPG.

But it wasn't a war zone - and the Americans were acting in support of the lawful government - maybe the gunner should of spent a couple more seconds making his decision - Certainly from the voice recorder, they sound overly aggressive.

Um, it was over an area just south of Sadr city and in some of the worst fighting the US has seen over there since Fallujah.

A patrol had just been fired on buy AK and RPG. You're telling me you wouldn't be aggressively looking for bad guys?
 
For those who care about such things here is the report of the original investigation:

Linky
 
jumpinjarhead said:
For those who care about such things here is the report of the original investigation:

Linky

That's a pretty hefty document, froze-up my browser just to download it!

Thanks though, I'll flick through later.
 
Invictus_88 said:
jumpinjarhead said:
For those who care about such things here is the report of the original investigation:

Linky

That's a pretty hefty document, froze-up my browser just to download it!

Thanks though! I'll flick through later.
Cheers!
 
Gates says video of U.S. helicopter attack in Iraq out of context

By Julian E. Barnes



Reporting from Lima, Peru
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Tuesday took a swipe at the website that released secret military video of a 2007 helicopter gunship incident in Iraq in which civilians, including two news agency employees, were killed.

Gates said the videos released by the group WikiLeaks were out of context and provided an incomplete picture of the battlefield, comparing it to war as seen "through a soda straw."

"These people can put out whatever they want and are never held accountable for it," said Gates, speaking to reporters aboard his plane en route to Lima, Peru, for a defense ministers conference this week. "There is no before and no after. It is only the present."

The WikiLeaks website last week released classified video of a 2007 shooting in Iraq by an Apache helicopter that killed two Reuters news agency employees and 10 other civilians. Those wounded included children.

Helicopter crew members said they mistook the people on the ground for insurgents.

The video ignited international outrage for showing the helicopter crew praising one another's shooting and seeking more "targets." The incident had been investigated by the military, and crew members were not found guilty of any wrongdoing. Reuters had been turned down in its efforts to obtain the video.

Gates told reporters that millions who have viewed the video on YouTube and elsewhere could not have understood what was going on before or after the strike.

"That is the problem with these videos," Gates said. "You are looking at the war through a soda straw, and you have no context or perspective."

U.S. officials have said the journalists were walking with or near people who were armed and in the proximity of a battle.

A WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, said a website set up to host the video, CollateralMurder.com, provides ample context for the Apache attack and shows what was happening in the area before and after the shootings.

Assange said the military should reopen an investigation.

"We are extremely disappointed with this spinning coming out of the U.S. military representatives," he said.

WikiLeaks said this week that it may soon release video of a 2009 U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan that killed nearly 100 civilians.

The Times and several other news organizations and public interest groups intervened in a 2008 court case in which a U.S. judge ordered the American version of the website shut down for publishing confidential business documents from Switzerland. The judge lifted that order two weeks later.

Despite his criticism for the leaks, Gates also emphasized that he takes the issue of civilian casualties seriously.

He said he supports restrictions on airstrikes and other tactics that Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has put in place in Afghanistan to reduce civilian casualties there.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-gates-video14-2010apr14,0,708305.story
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
To the media Vietnam was their greatest moment. From the beginning of operations in Iraq they have wanted it to be another Vietnam. Reporters have desperately wanted to uncover their own Mai Lei and too many of them are quite happy not to let the facts or the potential damage they might do get in the way.
 
BuggerAll said:
To the media Vietnam was their greatest moment. From the beginning of operations in Iraq they have wanted it to be another Vietnam. Reporters have desperately wanted to uncover their own Mai Lei and too many of them are quite happy not to let the facts or the potential damage they might do get in the way.

Not new or surprising of course--it is a mixture of the old adage in journalism that "blood sells" and their established (and increasingly evident) predisposition toward "liberalism" and "progressivism." I suppose the Vietnam experience in this regard is instructive as to how far our media has degenerated in terms of its journalistic ethos since in those days it was the US government generally (without much regard as to which party was in power at any given time) that they assailed.

While I disagreed at the time with some of the tactics and substance of the media in those days, I have come to see that at least their motivation was generally in keeping with the vital role the media was given under our Constitutional system (and indeed the reason the press is given special protection under the Constitution itself) which is to keep our government accountable to the people for its actions.

That stands in stark contrast to the highly politicized approach most of the media now takes even to the point of acting as a sort of collective Leni Riefenstahl on behalf of His unabashed efforts to "fundamentally transform" America.
 
Top