Anyone who has perused the DU snakepit over the last 36 hours or so has to have seen the slobbering frenzy over some Apache guncam footage from Iraq in 2007 obtained by wikileaks.org, a website that specializes in leaking sensitive government data, and subsequently posted on the net. The footage is from a chopper which I believe was called in following an infantry patrol reporting taking fire from the area. The Apache orbits the area after identifying insurgents with weapons, obtains clearance to engage and then fires on a group of insugents with its 30mm chain gun, killing most of them.
Unfortunately, mixed in with the insurgents are two journalists whose telephoto equipment look suspiciously like weapons, and they too are mortally wounded in the assault. An unmarked van approaches just moments after the initial engagement and attempts to rescue one of the wounded and it too is taken under fire. Invisible from the air and unbeknownst to the Apache crew, the van contained two children who were wounded and a few minutes later evacuated for medical attention by U.S. ground troops.
Now, most people would see this as a regrettable but unavoidable consequence of war, especially urban warfare against an enemy which insists on mixing with and hiding behind the civilian populace. When I say "unavoidable" I am speaking of those tasked with prosecuting the war, not the journalists who exposed themselves to fire by mixing with the hostiles or the idiots who ferried their children into a kill zone. But "most people" are not DUmmies. DUmmies have their own, unique way of viewing the world. Every square peg of information must have its edges trimmed to fit into their round hole of hatred and mindless dogma.
tekisui (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-05-10 11:48 AM
Original message
WikiLeaks Releases US Military Video of Indiscriminate Killing of Over 12 (Including 2 News Staff)
Edited on Mon Apr-05-10 11:49 AM by tekisui
Collateral Murder
WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.
Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.
The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.
After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".
Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.
WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.
WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.
more w/video at link: http://collateralmurder.com/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8090566tekisui (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-05-10 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. Naturally, the US military labeled these dead civilians 'insurgents'.
Just like every dead person from our drones are labeled 'militants'.
tekisui (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-05-10 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. ****ing assholes murdered the rescuers.
Damned right they did. That's what you do to insurgents helping insurgents.
malaise (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-05-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Two words
War crimes
Bolo Boffin attempts to interject some sanity and gets roundly jumped on. By the way, Bolo Boffin is one of the staunchest, most common-sense debunkers in the otherwise loony September 11 forum, though he's pretty much a moonbat in everything outside that.
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-05-10 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. I'll defend this to a point.
A. The military thought they were engaging an insurgent group. And to a certain extent, they were. There were weapons on the scene. Why else would the Reuters employees be there taking pictures?
B. It's very clear that insurgents also try to get to attacks like this and clean up any overt signs of insurgency. That is what the soldiers were intent on stopping when the van pulled up.
C. The command structure is VERY apparent. There is no wanton destruction here. The attack is conducted by the book. I.E., no war crimes.
D. There is a certain amount of grisly humor. Show me a military that doesn't indulge in it.
E. No one in the military knew there were Reuters employees on the ground. This is one of the failings of war-by-video-camera.
F. For some reason not apparent in this video, the military was keeping a eye on this square. There are other videos from other helicopters, etc. In other words, we still don't have the full context of this engagement yet.
People who are surprised at the graphic nature of war will be shocked by this video. The Reuters employees were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
L0oniX (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-05-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Yea ...it's still a "war zone" and cameras can be weapons too...
as in "we don't want the truth to get out".
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-05-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. I don't see 'insurgents' in Iraq. I see Iraqi citizens.
If helicopters from an invading army ever fly over a U.S. street, I would expect Americans to react appropriately, especially if they have killed so many of their fellow Americans.
The war is illegal. No need to get bogged down in semantics. They don't belong there, the Iraqis citizens do, it really is that simple.
The always execrable California Bug ****er chimes in:
mike_c (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-05-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #57
74. that is utterly absurd-- there is no "tactical position" and they were not even aware...
...the gun platforms were there until the U.S. opened fire. Your numerous claims about weapons have already been debunked elsewhere. This was wanton murder, plain and simple. The victims were civilians, at least four of whom were acknowledged non-combatants (the Reuters journalists and the two children). The military LIED to cover it up for three years before WikiLeaks poked them in the eye. The Pentagon responded to the truth being revealed by deeming WikiLeaks a threat to U.S. national security.
I'll tell you who the real threat to national security is. It's the Pentagon and the rest of the military. When WE can no longer trust them, they are a threat to our security.
**** you, Bug Man.
No, really. Seriously. **** you.
On and on it goes in thread after thread.
NJmaverick starts a thread calling for restraint, but alas, it's like trying to bale back the tide with a teaspoon:
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-05-10 05:26 PM
Original message
A request for fairness in reference to the Iraq video
Edited on Mon Apr-05-10 05:34 PM by NJmaverick
I have watched the troubling video from Iraq. I have also seen it described here on DU. It looks to me that there could have been weapons in that crowd. It also looks to me like the pilot and gunner should have shown more restraint. However that judgment I temper with the fact that I am viewing it from the safety of my computer and not in an unarmored helicopter where I could be killed by either an AK47 or an RPG. Still it looks to me like the pilot and gunner exercised poor judgment.
Now what I find troubling is DUers calling it murder and the like. What is CRYSTAL CLEAR from that video is that the pilot and the gunner BELIEVED THEY WERE FIRING ON ARMED INSURGENTS. So it is not only inaccurate to call what happened murder but by doing so you insult every person that puts on the uniform in defense of our nation.
Be mad at George Bush for putting those men in that situation. Be mad at the senseless tragedy. Hell, be mad at the men for exercising poor judgment. BUT PLEASE TO NOT CALL IT MURDER OR DESCRIBE THE MEN AS COLD BLOODED KILLERS.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8093169Oh no no no. That will never do.
lumpy (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-06-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #44
211. Hey, those GIs were itching to fire...at anything.
Warren Stupidity (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-05-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. The audio made it clear they really liked killing people.
kenny blankenship (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-05-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
50. The gunner begs the crawling wounded man to grab a weapon. So he can shoot him again.
Edited on Mon Apr-05-10 06:41 PM by kenny blankenship
or just to get up. So he can shoot him again.
They beg their controller for clearance to shoot up the ambulance.
The word fairness is tortured and defiled when someone like you utters it.
taught_me_patience (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-05-10 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'll call as I see it
a slaughter of people who posed no real threat.
Nice try, mav, but you obviously forgot where you were for a moment.
Heartbreakingly, after two full business days with only minor news blurbs and their icons ignoring the event, reality starts to dawn:
no limit (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-06-10 04:01 PM
Original message
Ed Schultz just totally whitewashed the wikileaks video. I am so sick of these people
Edited on Tue Apr-06-10 04:14 PM by no limit
He played a very small part of the video and totally took out the part where they shot up the makeshift ambulance who turned out to be a good samaritan with his two small children in the van. They killed these children's father with absolutely no provocation and severely injured them in the process. In the discussion that followed with an MSNBC general none of these facts were ever mentioned and all they said was this followed the rules of engagement because they believed there was a threat and that they were carrrying weapons. Then they shifted the topic to the pentagon not releasing this sooner. Not a single mention that 2 small children were badly injured, that their father was killed, and that there was absolutely no reason to shoot at that ambulance.
Absolutely disgusting. When even Ed Shultz toes the corporate line I really have this sinking feeling that there is no hope left. I didn't get to watch Kieth and Rachel Maddow last night, did they cover this story honestly?
"Oooooooo. Surely Kweef and Madcow were able to muster outrage. They're my heroooooes."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8099747laughingliberal (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-06-10 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm pretty sure they are under pressure from 2 sources
1) Their corporate owners
2) White House. Just as with the * administration, I believe journalists risk losing access if their coverage is too negative.
Oh nooooeess!!1111! The corporations got to Big Ed! Ed, we hardly knew ye.
dflprincess (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-06-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Except that this administration prefers to "look forward"
they aren't interested in dealing with any crimes related to Iraq or Afghanistan.
"This administration" is hanging on for its political life. After pissing off 60% of the country with this Health insurance debacle, they're not going to attack the military and seal their fates.
RUMMYisFROSTED (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-06-10 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. Not Ed Schultz!
tridim (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-06-10 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
10. Another casualty of Shuster's "suspension"
MSNBC has been destroyed in two freaking days.
I hope this effect doesn't affect KO and Rachel, but I fear it will.
disillusioned73 (36 posts) Tue Apr-06-10 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
19. This story was not touched by either..
Rachel or Keith last night - very disappointed in them.
Our "media" is MIA
Cali_Democrat (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-06-10 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
32. Ed Schultz works for General Electric
General Electric is an arms manufacturer. He's protecting the hand that feeds him, suckling on the military industrial complex teet.
All these years and still (still!) no Chimpeachment on the table. What a tragic tale of woe.
