Thoughts on WikiLeaks "Collateral Murder" video leak

Raesvelg

Raesvelg

I Reckon.
Adventurer
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
3,650
Age
50
Location
Delawhere?
Nation Banner
Bastok
Main Job
Paladin-Male
Secondary Job
DarkKnight-Male
Third Job
Corsair-Male
Server
Quetzalcoatl
Linkshell
PhoenixPimps
FFXIV
Raesvelg Helheim
Warning: This video does indeed show people getting gunned down with a 30mm chain gun.

This bugs me.

Not so much the fact that an Apache pilot, supposedly called in to provide air support after ground forces came under attack, gunned down a bunch of people, several of whom were armed, two of whom were reporters.

What bothers me currently is that an awful lot of the media are simply parroting the line "mistook cameras for weapons" without evidently watching the video and discovering that yes, indeed, there were a significant number of weapons in evidence.

Many people call the attitude of the pilots into question; again, that doesn't particularly bother me. They're operating (probably correctly, given some of the weapons in evidence) that the people they're targeting are insurgents (insurgents with reporters following them around, evidently), and given the sort of things that said insurgents do in Iraq on a daily basis, I wouldn't shed many tears if I fed one or more of them into a meat grinder myself.
 
I find it a bit odd that you find the methods of the reporters to be bothersome, when it's quite clear that many official statements from military personnel were fabrications. Now, it's not like I thought the military and government didn't do that kind of thing on a regular basis, but I find it far more bothersome than a couple of lazy reporters.

It's unfortunate that the cameras were mistook for weapons, but I can understand how that would happen given the quality of the video being worked with and the reason for the apache helicopters being there.
 
I despise it when people attempt to manufacture news. Which is basically what's happening in this instance; sure the incident is regrettable, but they're basically lying to people and half of them aren't even bothering to look at the truth when it's right in front of their faces.

And yes, the cameras were mistaken for weapons, but there were armed people in that crowd. It makes it a bit more understandable, given the circumstances. Screw the quality of the video; when a guy with a big honking tube is standing next to a guy with an AK-47, you tend to assume that it's a weapon.
 
Raesvelg said:
I despise it when people attempt to manufacture news. Which is basically what's happening in this instance; sure the incident is regrettable, but they're basically lying to people and half of them aren't even bothering to look at the truth when it's right in front of their faces.
Click to expand...

IMO this happens all the time. What I really hate is when they take something retarded like Tiger Woods cheating on his wife and blow it up to the proportion of a damn terrorist attack. Seriously that nonsense was covered for days. Don't even get my started on their "news" when Michael Jackson died.

Raesvelg said:
And yes, the cameras were mistaken for weapons, but there were armed people in that crowd. It makes it a bit more understandable, given the circumstances. Screw the quality of the video; when a guy with a big honking tube is standing next to a guy with an AK-47, you tend to assume that it's a weapon.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to condemn the actions of the soldiers, merely stating it's unfortunate those reporters were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
Raesvelg said:
And yes, the cameras were mistaken for weapons, but there were armed people in that crowd. It makes it a bit more understandable, given the circumstances. Screw the quality of the video; when a guy with a big honking tube is standing next to a guy with an AK-47, you tend to assume that it's a weapon.
Click to expand...

Agreed. You are the company you keep. My stance would be the same if they had been American journalists traveling with U.S. soldiers who were fired upon by enemy combatants.
 
I'm not sure how this counts as "manufactured news." It's an easy pattern to follow: soldiers slaughter civilians, military lies about it, journalists point out the truth, military is forced to recant their story.
 
Halifirien said:
I'm not sure how this counts as "manufactured news." It's an easy pattern to follow: soldiers slaughter civilians, military lies about it, journalists point out the truth, military is forced to recant their story.
Click to expand...

Except that when you're walking around with weapons in what is arguably a war zone, you have to expect that maybe you might be placing yourself in harm's way.

Being armed in a situation like this means you forfeit the "civilian" definition.

Nobody is telling the whole truth in this situation, but in some ways the military version is sadly closer to the truth.
 
Being armed in Iraq is considered extraordinary by you? Are you kidding?
 
Extraordinary? No. Forfeiture of civilian status? Sure.

Particularly in an asymmetrical warfare situation.
 
I dont care who you are, if you're dumb enough to walk around the streets of Baghdad with armed insurgents, you're begging to be shot at by the U.S. military. In any case, there's a dozen or so dickheads with guns that our soldiers don't have to worry about. Gotta love those chain guns.
 
I might agree if they were acting hostile, running around, taking up positions for combat or even, I dunno... reacting to the helicopter's presence. These are guys milling around in the street. As if it's not bad enough that the Apache guns them down, it then fires at a van where the people inside were doing nothing more hostile than trying to get the wounded out of the area. And of course the military covered up by saying they were all armed insurgents. All very matter-of-fact, that's just war, etc.

But of course they hate us for our freedoms. It has nothing to do with us killing a shitload of people who had nothing to do with the war.
 
Last edited:
That video made me heave. I think that anyone who asks "when can I shoot?" should be shot themselves.
 
Doesnt bug me at all. Deserves em right... They could be terrorist... if not.. they are collateral damage...
 
Michael Moore has to have a boner from this. People just tend to forget who we're at war with over there.
 
Ryu said:
Doesnt bug me at all. Deserves em right... They could be terrorist... if not.. they are collateral damage...
Click to expand...

I'm glad you're probably not being serious.
 
You do realize that the helicopter(s) in question are QUITE a ways away, right? Watch the video (not that I expect people to actually do so, since apparently most of them just assume that the anti-war media are telling the truth, while always assuming that the government is lying) and count the seconds it takes between when the helicopter starts firing and when the rounds start impacting, and realize that the weapon in question has a muzzle velocity of about 800 m/s. Takes about two seconds for the rounds to impact. That's at least 1600 meters.

The guys on the ground don't react to the helicopter because they probably have no idea that they're being targeted. The chopper is about a mile away.

And watch the video again, one of them does take up what looks like a combat position at the edge of a building, just before the chopper completes its rotation and opens fire. Yes, it's a guy with a camera.

But.

At this point, the gunner has already seen numerous other weapons, so his erroneous identification of the camera is understandably reinforced to him. So he sees what he believes to be one of several armed individuals take up a firing position against US forces in the area, and subsequently opens fire.

Sucks to be the cameraman, but it is just the way things happen.
 
Raesvelg said:
You do realize that the helicopter(s) in question are QUITE a ways away, right? Watch the video (not that I expect people to actually do so, since apparently most of them just assume that the anti-war media are telling the truth, while always assuming that the government is lying) and count the seconds it takes between when the helicopter starts firing and when the rounds start impacting, and realize that the weapon in question has a muzzle velocity of about 800 m/s. Takes about two seconds for the rounds to impact. That's at least 1600 meters.

The guys on the ground don't react to the helicopter because they probably have no idea that they're being targeted. The chopper is about a mile away.

And watch the video again, one of them does take up what looks like a combat position at the edge of a building, just before the chopper completes its rotation and opens fire. Yes, it's a guy with a camera.

But.

At this point, the gunner has already seen numerous other weapons, so his erroneous identification of the camera is understandably reinforced to him. So he sees what he believes to be one of several armed individuals take up a firing position against US forces in the area, and subsequently opens fire.

Sucks to be the cameraman, but it is just the way things happen.
Click to expand...

Well your missing the point Raes. The people who hate war and in turn...hate the government more believe we should make sure we go up to these people and verify they are terrorists. So hopefully the helicopter folks will do it right next time they see a group of people holding AK-47s and cameras. Land first, ask them if they are terrorists or not and if they mean them harm THEN they can fly back up and shoot them if they are. I'm sure they'll be nice enough to let them know.
 
Miros said:
Well your missing the point Raes. The people who hate war and in turn...hate the government more believe we should make sure we go up to these people and verify they are terrorists. So hopefully the helicopter folks will do it right next time they see a group of people holding AK-47s and cameras. Land first, ask them if they are terrorists or not and if they mean them harm THEN they can fly back up and shoot them if they are. I'm sure they'll be nice enough to let them know.
Click to expand...

Oh, but of course. I mean, it's not like anyone has ever been shot in the back by armed "civilians" who identified themselves as friendlies.
 
Raesvelg said:
Oh, but of course. I mean, it's not like anyone has ever been shot in the back by armed "civilians" who identified themselves as friendlies.
Click to expand...

And it's not like they have to worry about being captured and have their head chopped off by extremists. I mean, this isn't a real war...right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top