Collateral Murder

[Bismillah]

Based on what happened earlier in the video, I don't think he lied.

I think he mistook the equipment the men were carrying for weapons. He was probably too quick to do this, and maybe should have tried harder to confirm, but I think he was sincere.

... but even then, I'm not sure. Say the pilot's supposition was correct: they really were insurgents and they really did have AK-47s. An AK-47 is powerful enough to take down a helicopter. How long did they have before they were noticed and came under fire, or until the men just took cover, ran off, and didn't surface again until some other battle?

In their mind, it's a matter of life or death either way: if they treat them as insurgents and they're wrong, then innocent civilians die. If they treat them as innocent civilians and they're wrong, then their comrades will die.

He should have tried harder to confirm? Damn right he should have confirmed before hosing 12 men with bullets when only 4 could possible be mistaken to posses weapons. Ideally, it is ok to kill the other eight men in the group?

An Ak-47 is strong enough to take down an Apache? Lol! I don't think that can penetrate the armor of an humvee let alone an American gunship. And did their actions appear suspicious to you? From the moment that they are seen ambling down a street, the pilot requests permission to shoot. There has been NO indication of any hostile motive. Don't give me this crap of presenting a danger to soldiers because they were id'd as terrorists the moment they come on screen.

Clearly a van that comes to aid a dying man is also a matter of life and death. These sickos are jubilant in the way they kill these civilians.

How close does an Apache have to be before you can hear it over the noise of a city?

Interesting. Ok let's say hypothetically the men could see the Apache, then they didn't react to it and their intention is clearly not in harming Americans. Now let's say that the Apache is out of sight, how is a RPG going to shoot down a Helicopter at that distance, let alone the Ak-47.... They were in no danger at all throughout the entire video.

The Apache was specifically hunting for the combatants that had been involved in a skirmish earlier in the day and had fled into that neighbourhood. In that context, their mission wasn't about determining whether a group of people was a direct threat to them; it was about determining whether a group of people had been a threat to other American troops earlier.

What does this even mean? Do you realize how many people in Iraq carry weapons? This is not a Philly suburb! There are various allied militias, policeman, and Iraqi military forces. You don't shoot anyone with a gun. You shoot someone with hostile intentions, period.

Or... rather than a lie, it was a hasty conclusion based on the facts at hand. And rather than a murder, it was an unfortunate consequence of the nature of war.

Really? What facts support the lie that these men "engaged American forces"? What are the facts that the van was full of "hostile combatants"? What are the reasons for the eight men in the original group who had nothing in their possession who were murdered and then the brutal murder of two men who came to the assistance a dying man and and attempted murder of two girls.

So... you think that it's unreasonable to feel even a bit satisfied when you've killed someone who you think has murdered before and would have murdered again?

Only a sick man is satisfied machine gunning a group of people minding their own business and then defending their murder of innocents trying to help a dying a man. Only a sick man would laugh as a vehicle runs over the corpse of one of these civilians. Only a sick man would revel in the death of people who had done nothing to put Iraqi or Americans in danger. So yes, it is completely unreasonable.

 

[dust1n]

Saeed Chmagh. The driver whose livelihood was based on his mini-van and he stopped to help a dying man.

His son.

His daughter, in the van.

Another son...

Family's livelihood.

 

[kai]

very emotive dust1n , but Saeed Chmagh wasnt in the van? he was a driver with the journos.and thats not the van either.



Saeed Chmagh.

If you ever needed to get quickly to a dangerous area, passing chicanes of barbed wire and boobytraps, Saeed was your man.


Saeed Chmagh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Heres your van, not sure what thats all about.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It is astounding that a government that has the ability to read license plates from space cannot distinguish between a machine gun and a nikon. Also including the gunman, that would bring it within 4 individuals with possible weapons. In an group of 12? And they all are killed? You agree that even if the minority posses weapons it is ok to engage these people on a street?

First: It wasn't really "possible" weapons, in the video it looks pretty clear to me that there are weapons, and furthermore wikileaks posted eyewitness testimony which confirmed there were weapons including an RPG. And we have the circumstantial evidence that the U.S. patrol had been fired on, and the guy with the camera suspiciously peered around the corner directly at the U.S. patrol. He was indeed aiming something at them -- his camera, one of the photos on his recovered camera was a U.S. humvee. I honestly cannot imagine a situation where it would be more "understandable" for soldiers to mistakenly shoot a journalist with a camera.

Second: I don't think the helicopter weapons were capable of sniping the 4 individuals with weapons out of the group of 12. All the men in the video were clearly participants even if each one was not holding a weapon. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that 8 innocent civilians decided to watch over the shoulder of 4 insurgents as they aimed an RPG, they made a decision to endanger themselves and implicate themselves with insurgents.

I say all this, because I honestly think it's true ..... but OTOH I'm a bit disgusted that I am even bothering to argue about these details. Our slight disagreements notwithstanding, I agree with your conclusions: this should have been a violation of ROE, a crime, and it demonstrates the folly of U.S. participation in Iraq. It's certainly a tragedy of human life and a view of a sadistic mentality.

Do you have any links that states that the camera was pointed towards a humvee?

I haven't found it yet but kai posted a link, I believe on this thread, to the U.S. investigation of the incident which was leaked by wikileaks. The report included a photo taken by the camera that day, looking around a corner down a street at a U.S. humvee.

 

[kai]

Spinks how can you say it should have been a violation of ROE when you dont know what the ROE were? if you do let me in on them? i will be the first to agree.

 

[kai]

Spinks how can you say it should have been a violation of ROE when you dont know what the ROE were? if you do let me in on them? i will be the first to agree.

Let me just throw this out there. heres a some examples of a rules of engagement.

1. self defence
   
2. your troops are in contact
   
3. enemy deliberately targeting your troops

The first ones out
the second ones possible because of the operation going on
the second one is the reason used by the weapons operators .




i tell you one thing politicians and everybody that makes the decision to send in troops should be made to sit down and watch full blown videos of what happens in a war zone in fact they should be taken to points of contact to see the aftermath then maybe they might think twice about it.

 

[Danmac]

Saeed Chmagh. The driver whose livelihood was based on his mini-van and he stopped to help a dying man.

His son.

His daughter, in the van.

Another son...

Family's livelihood.

Somehow I can hear you chanting, "free the 9/11 terrorists". I suppose if he were a Christian you would be elated. Our guys over there don't even know who the enemy is half of the time. They have to guess because the enemy likes to wear civilian clothes. If they had any integrity they would wear military uniforms any we could try to be more accurate. My suggestion to your buddy here. Don't help terrorists and you wont get shot.

 

[dallas1125]

Real fast is everyone aware of the details left out of this vid? Just watching the video it looks bad, but wiki leaks left out some crucial details that change the whole interpretation of the video.

 

[kai]

Real fast is everyone aware of the details left out of this vid? Just watching the video it looks bad, but wiki leaks left out some crucial details that change the whole interpretation of the video.

Hi dallas1125

Yep if you have the inclination start at the beginning of the thread and work your way through , by the time you get back here you have lost the will to live

 

[Kathryn]

We have to put this event in context. In context, there had been a LOT of fighting and firing in the streets that day, which was ongoing at the time of the incident in question. It was definitely a COMBAT situation, not some random "Hey, look, there are some people in the street down there and they look like they might have weapons."

 

[kai]

We have to put this event in context. In context, there had been a LOT of fighting and firing in the streets that day, which was ongoing at the time of the incident in question. It was definitely a COMBAT situation, not some random "Hey, look, there are some people in the street down there and they look like they might have weapons."

I agree

 

[dallas1125]

First, the "Collateral Murder" video was edited -- the parts edited out include video of men with AK47s and a rocket propelled grenade. There was also a firefight in the area before this footage. The film was also given a title, "Collateral Murder." The full video was featured on another page of the former WikiLeaks site.

Another thing left out was that the van that stopped to pick the wounded guy up had been circling the area for hours; it was not simply a van that was just passing by. The disturbing part was that children were indeed inside -- which was only obvious after the fact. This who video gives the impression that Americans were just killing a bunch of civilians. Also take into account that the soldiers are not superman. They dont have X-ray vision; so to expect them to see through a suspicious van is a bit crazy. This video alone paints U.S. forces, all of them, in a negative light -- much in the same way videos of insurgent attacks paint Muslims in a negative light.

One thing we forget is that these soldiers who are sleep-depraved and under enormous stress -- their lives threatened each day -- might be a little too gung-ho -- might be a little too edgy. Why? Because most have served repeated tours and their lives could end at any moment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I say all this, because I honestly think it's true ..... but OTOH I'm a bit disgusted that I am even bothering to argue about these details. Our slight disagreements notwithstanding, I agree with your conclusions: this should have been a violation of ROE, a crime, and it demonstrates the folly of U.S. participation in Iraq. It's certainly a tragedy of human life and a view of a sadistic mentality.

Personally, I agree that it's a horrible incident, but the thing I take issue with is the war itself.

I think these sorts of incidents are the inevitable result when two parties try to fight a war amongst civilians: innocent people will die.

The soldiers were fighting in a war zone. In a war zone, it's appropriate to act with lethal force against your enemy. It's also often not appropriate to hesitate in doing so, even if it's to be "extra sure".

OTOH, the civilians were simply out in their neighbourhood. In your own neighbourhood, you should feel that you have the right to go about your business without being shot.

The problem, IMO, is that in this circumstance, the war zone and the neighbourhood were the same place. This necessarily brings the two competing sets of guiding principles into direct conflict... but neither the helicopter crew nor the people on the ground had any hand in causing this conflicting situation to come into existence.

It's unreasonable for someone who hasn't even broken any law to be shot in the street. It's also unreasonable to expect that a soldier won't follow his best judgement in protecting his comrades. The conclusion that I draw from this is that war is sometimes (always?) unreasonable.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Spinks how can you say it should have been a violation of ROE when you dont know what the ROE were? if you do let me in on them? i will be the first to agree.

You're right, I shouldn't have said it was definitely a violation of ROE. I don't know for sure. What I am sure of is that it *ought* to be a violation of ROE, otherwise the rules themselves are criminal.

I am not encouraged by the testimony of the U.S. soldier posted by wikileaks, who said that standing orders were to fire in every direction if an IED went off, and his commanding officer told them in such situations to "kill every mother f***er in the street". The soldiers I've spoken to personally have confirmed that this is standard procedure and they are aware it will result in civilian casualties. It's a despicable practice, which either needs to be changed in accordance with Iraqi wishes and enforced by their laws, OR if we can't tolerate the risk to our troops then we need to withdraw our troops and avoid the risk. The unacceptable decision is to keep our troops in Iraq, against the popular will of Iraqis, and insist that our troops provide "security" for themselves first, civilians a distant second.

(It's somewhat of a moot point now thought, right? Since U.S. combat forces all but withdrawn and control has been ceded to the Iraqi government? Anyway ... )

 

[Kathryn]

Personally, I agree that it's a horrible incident, but the thing I take issue with is the war itself.

I think these sorts of incidents are the inevitable result when two parties try to fight a war amongst civilians: innocent people will die.

The soldiers were fighting in a war zone. In a war zone, it's appropriate to act with lethal force against your enemy. It's also often not appropriate to hesitate in doing so, even if it's to be "extra sure".

OTOH, the civilians were simply out in their neighbourhood. In your own neighbourhood, you should feel that you have the right to go about your business without being shot.

The problem, IMO, is that in this circumstance, the war zone and the neighbourhood were the same place. This necessarily brings the two competing sets of guiding principles into direct conflict... but neither the helicopter crew nor the people on the ground had any hand in causing this conflicting situation to come into existence.

It's unreasonable for someone who hasn't even broken any law to be shot in the street. It's also unreasonable to expect that a soldier won't follow his best judgement in protecting his comrades. The conclusion that I draw from this is that war is sometimes (always?) unreasonable.

Frubals to you for the most complete and succinct analysis so far!

CS Lewis has a good quote that goes something like this, "If war is sometimes right, then peace is sometimes wrong."

That being said, I believe that the roots of ALL wars are ALWAYS unreasonable and ALWAYS involve abuse, disrespect, greed, ego, and most other unsavory human traits we can dig up.

Often the result is that good people find themselves in insane situations where they must defend themselves and their comrades or be killed. And the truth be known - they hardly know how they even got there.

War in and of itself is tragic and full of the most gut wrenching, heart breaking vignettes.

By the way, I've read a lot about the video in question here, including court transcripts, and interviews with the soldiers and the AP journalists involved, on the ground, and inbedded with the unit, and not a one of the "players" in this small tragedy are monsters. They are all human beings in the grip of a war machine created and sustained by many, many countries and powerful entities - not just the US military and US interests.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's unreasonable for someone who hasn't even broken any law to be shot in the street. It's also unreasonable to expect that a soldier won't follow his best judgement in protecting his comrades. The conclusion that I draw from this is that war is sometimes (always?) unreasonable.

The only detail where we disagree is on the issue of shooting the van. Even in the context of a war zone there are wrongful actions, such as shooting enemies who are trying to surrender, or using chemical weapons or carpet bombing civilian areas. Shooting unarmed civilians who are assisting a wounded man in the middle of a city falls into this category of wrongful actions in a war zone, i.m.o. And even beyond that: WHO should get to decide how much force is justifiable to root out insurgents? The people living there, not Americans.

 

[dallas1125]

Retracted

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Did you not read my post? They were justified in shooting that van.

I did read your post. Respectfully, you've provided no evidence or argument that justifies killing the guys in the van.

Another thing left out was that the van that stopped to pick the wounded guy up had been circling the area for hours; it was not simply a van that was just passing by. The disturbing part was that children were indeed inside -- which was only obvious after the fact.

I concede they did not know beforehand that children were in the van. This does not justify shooting unarmed people who get out of their van and assist a wounded man. I watched the entire, unedited video, and I read the leaked U.S. investigation along with pilot testimonies. I do not recall any evidence the same van was circling the area for hours prior to the incident, although it would not justify the killing even if this were true. There was another encounter with a suspicious vehicle later on, and they did not open fire because they could not ID any weapons -- they should have held fire on the first van, too, since there were no weapons. Even though I feel this is a moot point, can you show me the evidence that this same van was circling the area for hours?

 

[dallas1125]

I did read your post. Respectfully, you've provided no evidence or argument that justifies killing the guys in the van.
I concede they did not know beforehand that children were in the van. This does not justify shooting unarmed people who get out of their van and assist a wounded man. I watched the entire, unedited video, and I read the leaked U.S. investigation along with pilot testimonies. I do not recall any evidence the same van was circling the area for hours prior to the incident, although it would not justify the killing even if this were true. There was another encounter with a suspicious vehicle later on, and they did not open fire because they could not ID any weapons -- they should have held fire on the first van, too, since there were no weapons. Even though I feel this is a moot point, can you show me the evidence that this same van was circling the area for hours?

Plus the fact that there was firefight in the area before? It is suspicious and when it pulls up and stops to help out people that were terrorists...

 

[kai]

Plus the fact that there was firefight in the area before? It is suspicious and when it pulls up and stops to help out people that were terrorists...

In fact the operation was ongoing at the time of the incident thats why the Apaches were there.

But do you have any sources to refer to that the van was circling the area for hours?