WikiLeaks editor on Apache combat video

Will-O'-The-Wisp

Will-O'-The-Wisp

Cardcaptor
(This might be a bit destressing sorry, so if you come to AUKN "for the happy", click the back button!)

I'm sure a lot of you have seen or atleast been told about the recent 'US Apache killing innocent reporters' video, if not, read and watch below:

Please note: This is a full uncut version of the video primarily intended for research purposes. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrf... for a short and concise version with added context.

----

Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on http://collateralmurder.com
Click to expand...

(That 'RPG' was a camera tripod by the way)

Wikileak's 'founder' has been interviewed about the unedited, released material and is questioned on it's source, how long it took to unencrypt the data and his personal opinion on the actions made by the US soldiers:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7QEdAykXxoM&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7QEdAykXxoM&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
 
incase you want to see the actual video

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

be warned, it's not for the screamish
 
Jesus F*cking Christ. Even as someone opposed to the wars we are currently engaged in, for the fist eight minutes I was ready to say that it was simply a tragic mistake by the pilots misinterpreting the cameras as weapons. But when the van showed up to take away wounded people with no sign of weapons... and they f*cking blew it up... Under what rules of engagement do you kill unarmed people going to help the wounded?

"It's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle." F*ck. I don't know what to say. That's the true face of war for you. That's the kind of thinking it instills in people... the kind that leads down the road to My Lai.
 
right 1st off

part 1

if i was in the chopper i'd do the same. the guy with a camera could be taken as an RPG. Add to that the fact they were walking with guys who had AK47's.

then the camera had the brilliant idea of taking his Camera, crouching behind a building, and point it towards the chopper


you have armed men with him, he is carrying what could possibly be an rpg/SAM, what else are you going to do, you have freindly troops in the area too, if they were to escape and attack the convoy because of you, you'd feel guilty too.

As for, who brings thier kids there? a kind hearted person who was nipping to do some shopping and try get on with his life, that's who

part 2:

yes i agree 100% Ayase, good samaritans see a guy dieing on the floor, are you going to drive past? no you're going to get out and help them.

So yeah, i'm supportive of the original attack, but the 2nd one, i can't make any excuse for.

As for, who brings thier kids there? a kind hearted person who was nipping to do some shopping and try get on with his life, that's who.
 
I completely agree with Ayase's post. Once the guy with the tripod peered around the corner carrying the, then thought to be, RPG, I could understand why they felt threatened and why they made the decision they did. But once they took out the van, I changed my mind on the soldiers. Even aftrwards, they were clearly just looking for an excuse to kill the survivors "c'mon, all you need to do is pick up that gun"
 
stuart-says-yes said:
We hail these guys as hero's when they come home injured, I think thats the worst possible description for allied soldiers.

If some one flew into our country and started shooting civilians would we take that sitting down, like f*ck we would, so why is it ok to shoot the iraqi citizens, no-wonder the "extremists" hate the western world, they have plenty of right too and the presence of allied soldiers just makes it worse, no wonder we can't leave iraq for another 40 years , were just digging our selves a bigger hole.

no-wonder the British and American governments want to censor this website, Because it would allow people to know what there country is actually up to :roll:

@ Ryo, to me it seemed pretty clear that they weren't armed and the man wasn't holding a RPG considering the way it was being carried under his arm, plus if they were armed, its not like they made an attempt on the Americans
Click to expand...

may want to take another look

it's clear as day 2 of the guy had AK47's

and no, they didn't take a shot at the gunships, probually because the gunship were about 3 miles out

it's more the convoy that was around that they were worried about. And RPG's don't just come in the russian design, plenty of them you can make to carry underarm, remember, they haven't got captions or time to analyse the video we do
 
stuart-says-yes said:
Ryo Chan said:
stuart-says-yes said:
We hail these guys as hero's when they come home injured, I think thats the worst possible description for allied soldiers.

If some one flew into our country and started shooting civilians would we take that sitting down, like f*ck we would, so why is it ok to shoot the iraqi citizens, no-wonder the "extremists" hate the western world, they have plenty of right too and the presence of allied soldiers just makes it worse, no wonder we can't leave iraq for another 40 years , were just digging our selves a bigger hole.

no-wonder the British and American governments want to censor this website, Because it would allow people to know what there country is actually up to :roll:

@ Ryo, to me it seemed pretty clear that they weren't armed and the man wasn't holding a RPG considering the way it was being carried under his arm, plus if they were armed, its not like they made an attempt on the Americans
Click to expand...

may want to take another look

it's clear as day 2 of the guy had AK47's

and no, they didn't take a shot at the gunships, probually because the gunship were about 3 miles out

it's more the convoy that was around that they were worried about. And RPG's don't just come in the russian design, plenty of them you can make to carry underarm, remember, they haven't got captions or time to analyse the video we do
Click to expand...

I suppose, I jumped the gun,it does look like they are carrying AK47 though I suppose we'll never know the reason why , now, though the shooting of the van was rather unnecessary and the running over of the body was pretty disgraceful
Click to expand...

can't argue with the van issue

but running over the body, if you've ever been inside a bradley you would forgive them, it's like trying to drive a bus where your only window is the size of a letterbox, i honestly don't belive he'd of seen the body at all
 
American military as malicious as Israels, who would have ever thought.
Though I do thank you thank you Will and Ryo for providing the material to show their darker then an African mud bath
 
To be fair to the soldiers in this video, it was a large misinterpretation. At the start, clear as day 2 men with guns, they have not choice but to try to eradicate the insurgent threat. When the vehicle arrives things get a bit sketchy as far as how you can imagine what the soldiers were thinking. For example, who knows who or what was hidden inside the van? More men with guns was a possibility and it was a risk that the soldiers didn't want to take so they decided to open fire. Personally i think i most likely would have opened fire aswell if i were under the impression that they had weapons. Hindsight is a great thing, because if they knew that the van only wanted to take away survivors then they wouldn't have fired but alas hindsight is only possible once the event had unfolded.
 
I could go off on a total existential tangent about Godot's idea there, but I'll try and stick to the topic at hand... (in a nutshell, I think that because it's your own choice to internalise a stereotype, that is who you are - in other words your perception of self is entirely self-created anyway).

@Kirrimir - Not once did the van appear to pose a threat though - They opened the sliding door and it was clear there was nothing inside. The only observation the pilots can make on it is that it is "picking up bodies" - it's pretty poor that they were actually given permission to fire on so little information, but this was likely because of the forceful, hasty attitude of the pilots (another psychological point which may have affected the ground crew - They seem so certain and very rushed for time, perhaps we'd better just give them permission).
 
ayase said:
I could go off on a total existential tangent about Godot's idea there, but I'll try and stick to the topic at hand... (in a nutshell, I think that because it's your own choice to internalise a stereotype, that is who you are - in other words your perception of self is entirely self-created anyway).
Click to expand...

In the debriefing many of the participants of Zimbardo's experiment, including himself said they never realized they would act like they did. Zimbardo didn't stop the experiment because he was finding it so interesting, but without realizing how sick it really was.

Also with Milgrams experiment, many during the debrief were in utter shock to realize that they had given a 450V shock to another person just for answering a question wrong.

I think there is a lot of credibility to these studies, and that they're worth bearing in mind at times like these. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest you do not internalize stereotypes out of choice. You many comply with them, but not internalize. There are often many, many other factors that have a huge effect.
 
Back
Top