Video is gun mounted camera. 2 Reuters news staff were killed in this video as well.
Possibly nsfw, due to violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik)
In case Youtube url gets taken down:
http://collateralmurder.com/ (http://collateralmurder.com/)
:tinfoilhat:
Jesus. That's pretty fucking stunning--thanks for being evil, guys!
just one more stunning example of how fucked up this war is...
or 'engage' me.
Not sure what I missed. Looked like the usual SNAFU. Don't see any outright evil. What time segment was it at?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 06, 2010, 01:04:29 AM
Not sure what I missed. Looked like the usual SNAFU. Don't see any outright evil. What time segment was it at?
Firing at civilians doesn't count as evil?
Quote from: Remington on April 06, 2010, 02:30:51 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 06, 2010, 01:04:29 AM
Not sure what I missed. Looked like the usual SNAFU. Don't see any outright evil. What time segment was it at?
Firing at civilians doesn't count as evil?
A group of civilians with an RPG and at least two rifles doesn't count as civilians.
i guess it's the normal SNAFU, but it just points it out again.
they have some grainy ass image that they decisively call an insurgent with an RPG when it turns out to be a reporter with a camera.
they mow them down.
some folks come by to collect the bodies.
they mow them down.
they make snarky comments about 'the bastards' and 'nice shootin'', etc.
kids died.
y'know.
SNAFU.
:sad:
Quote from: Iptuous on April 06, 2010, 02:35:51 AM
i guess it's the normal SNAFU, but it just points it out again.
they have some grainy ass image that they decisively call an insurgent with an RPG when it turns out to be a reporter with a camera.
Who says it was a camera? And why would a camera need an RPG round (as was found on the scene)?
I keep hearing how there was a camera, but I haven't seen any evidence at all.
because it's on youtube, and youtube wouldn't lie to us!
why do you hate freedom!?
Quote from: Iptuous on April 06, 2010, 02:50:46 AM
because it's on youtube, and youtube wouldn't lie to us!
why do you hate freedom!?
Because now I have to "freedom kiss". :argh!:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 06, 2010, 02:43:15 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 06, 2010, 02:35:51 AM
i guess it's the normal SNAFU, but it just points it out again.
they have some grainy ass image that they decisively call an insurgent with an RPG when it turns out to be a reporter with a camera.
Who says it was a camera? And why would a camera need an RPG round (as was found on the scene)?
I keep hearing how there was a camera, but I haven't seen any evidence at all.
Early in the fotage, there was a part where the photographer was kneeling behind a building and the end of his camera was sticking out. That's what they thought was an RPG. All the RPGs I've ever seen (and I looked around bit after this video) have pointy ends--the camera had a telephoto lens on it, which is round with a blunt end. Previous to that, there was a bit where the photographer slung his camera behind him, which they thought was a weapon of some sort as well--I would argue that it was sloppy identification on their part, since an AK-47, which is what they thought it was from what I got, would be much longer and stick out more than the camera did.
Further, there were those kids in the van. "It was their fault for bringing them here" <--something I'd consider kind of evil, since they certainly didn't have a choice in the matter and the gunmen didn't seem to give a shit. And then "come on, let us shoot". Maybe this is my inner hippie coming out, but I would prefer that no one give me a reason to shoot.
Edited to account for Dok's post in the other thread
From what I read, one person slightly out of the group had a rifle. The man driving the van was delivering his kids to a tutoring session, and stopped by the people shot. As to whether the military was within in its boundaries in shooting the group of civilians is up to debate, but I would be hard pressed to find an argument for shooting unarmed civillians trying to help wounded people. If you find a man dying on the street, you help him.
Quote from: Pariah on April 06, 2010, 05:15:24 AMIf you find a man dying on the street, you help him.
You can always tell the ones that live in the decent parts of town. :lulz:
I'd probably try to find out what caused him to be dying first, so I could make sure it wouldn't happen to me.
Then I'd check his pockets.
:ECH:
I have to go with Roger on this, what happened was fucked up, but I can't fault the judgment of the people on the site from what I see in the video.
Just as important as whether or not the shootings were "valid" is how this is going to be presented/used/misued/taken out of context in the media, both foreign and domestic.
Don't matter if it was justified if everyone else says it was badwrong.
In international and especially Arab circles it is commonly accepted that US troops target journalists if those journos catch them doing something they shouldn't have.
So, no change there, I suppose.
What about Western Media?
The Journalists: Could go either way whether it was justified
The Van: Again, not so much. If they were so concerned about it they should've sent the Hummer (the one they talk about numerous times in the beginning of the video) to go check out what the hell was happening, check id, etc.
Quote from: LMNO on April 06, 2010, 03:17:07 PM
So, no change there, I suppose.
What about Western Media?
Well Italy hasn't forgotten its journalist who got shot to pieces back in 04, IIRC. Apart from that, I suspect no-one is paying too much attention, though occasionally some British broadsheets might mention it, in the back pages of a Sunday edition paper.
So: Outraged progressives, and otherwise no change?
(http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/5D0kb.png)
Quote from: LMNO on April 06, 2010, 02:46:13 PM
Just as important as whether or not the shootings were "valid" is how this is going to be presented/used/misued/taken out of context in the media, both foreign and domestic.
Don't matter if it was justified if everyone else says it was badwrong.
Domestically, I don't think it will be much of an issue. The Reuters employees that were killed were both of Middle Eastern descent, so most Americans will think they had it coming anyway. At least, if the vast majority of the thousands of comments on the Yahoo article about this are to be believed.
(http://i.imgur.com/Udtnt.jpg)
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 06, 2010, 04:46:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO on April 06, 2010, 02:46:13 PM
Just as important as whether or not the shootings were "valid" is how this is going to be presented/used/misued/taken out of context in the media, both foreign and domestic.
Don't matter if it was justified if everyone else says it was badwrong.
Domestically, I don't think it will be much of an issue. The Reuters employees that were killed were both of Middle Eastern descent, so most Americans will think they had it coming anyway. At least, if the vast majority of the thousands of comments on the Yahoo article about this are to be believed.
American journalists have been killed by western military. I'm fairly certain it was due to negligence. It didn't seem like a big deal to anyone but other journalists.
As far as this incident is concerned, I don't think it would have been as big a deal if there was no attempted cover-up.
Just saw this on the news here. In the accompanying web article (http://nos.nl/artikel/148670-video-amerikaanse-aanval-op-iraakse-burgers-is-echt.html) (partial translation follows), they said an "anonymous US military" confirmed the images as real. Also, that Reuters has been trying to get at the truth about the circumstances under which their employees were shot. The incident happened nearly 3 years ago, 12 july 2007. The two reporters were Iraqis.
So, I guess they were real reporters. Still leaves open the possibility that their cameras that were mistaken for weapons might in fact have been weapons, that the reporters were carrying around for some reason.
The article also states that two weeks after the incident a couple of Reuters editors were shown this video in an off-the-record briefing: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL05399965 [english article, this time].
Then, Reuters filed a request (a "WOB request", unsure if this is an English or Dutch term) to the US DoD to be able to make the video public. This request has not been honoured to this date.
The Dutch Computer Scientist and founder of first Dutch ISP XS4ALL Rob Gonggrijp (http://nos.nl/artikel/148768-nederlander-gonggrijp-werkte-mee-aan-wikileaksvideo.html) was involved in the production of the video.
In that article, the one about Gonggrijp, he talks about the care they took in making the video: (partial translation follows)
Wikileaks works thoroughly and spends a lot of time to validate the authenticity of the video. They worked for months on the video from Iraq. "We watched the video frame by frame, probably at least a thousand times. What are we looking at here? Is the weapon we hear being fired really an AK-47?".
At last, a team of Icelandic reporters travelled to Baghdad to check the facts. They spoke to several eye witnesses and were shown colour photographs of the wounded children. "When we saw the images in Iceland, it suddenly felt real. That's when something breaks inside of you, it really shocks you", says Gonggrijp.
"I think it is very important for people to see the reality of war. Apache helicopters that provide aerial protection from 400 meters are basically gambling about what they are shooting at. People should start to doubt the larger narrative of a war."
"The most shocking for me is that a bus arrives, at some point in the video. The passengers just want to get the wounded reporters off the street. Then the helicopter pilot asks permission to shoot these helpers as well, and it is granted. That shocks one immensely. This is apparently the reality of war."
The US DoD has not officially commented on the video images. "There are American generals on television and they just say you endanger the mission by making these images public. They support the troops and say you only see the exceptions to the good work the soldiers do over there. But that is just war propaganda."
(this Rob Gonggrijp fellow is probably one of the activist freedom hacker types of XS4ALL, which has always made a point about freedom and freedom of speech. though usually more in the context of the Internet and privacy, censorship and data retention laws. if they weren't so expensive I'd get my internet from them, just to support their causes)
aaanyway, so much for translating Dutch news articles.
What I wondered about--even though the interview with Gonggrijp does not really seem to support this--is that Wikieaks got into a fight with the Pentagon just 1-2 weeks ago, and was deemed "a national security threat". Could it not have been that Wikileaks had been sitting on this video for a while, and release it just now, to send a message to the Pentagon such as "don't mess with us, we got a whole lot more beans to spill" ?
Or, even if that's not exactly how it went, it's still kind of a coincidence that these events happen right after eachother?
I do seem to remember first hearing about this about a week or two ago...
Quote from: Ten Ton Mantis on April 06, 2010, 09:38:58 PM
I do seem to remember first hearing about this about a week or two ago...
You sure you're not mixed up with the "Pentagon deems Wikileaks national security threat" story? cause that happened two weeks ago, the video, afaik, is new.
just a curiosity....
would it be SOP to request permission to 'engage' if the vehicle coming to get the injured/killed has a red cross/red crescent on it?
i mean, we don't wantonly kill medics, right?
that's one of the things that got me in the video because the guys that came to collect them weren't claimed to be armed, were they?
and the gunner didn't even fire warning shots to let the people in the van know to back off....
from what i've read in the past 2 days insurgents in iraq during 2007 (when the conflict itself was the most violent) would use darkened vans/vehicles to recover any weapons/intel their wounded or KIA's may have had in their possession before coalition forces could move in to search the bodies.
and i would think the only "medic" vehicles in an active warzone (which is where this video was) would be known and noted ambulances/medivacs.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 06, 2010, 09:41:23 PM
Quote from: Ten Ton Mantis on April 06, 2010, 09:38:58 PM
I do seem to remember first hearing about this about a week or two ago...
You sure you're not mixed up with the "Pentagon deems Wikileaks national security threat" story? cause that happened two weeks ago, the video, afaik, is new.
IIRC the Pentagon's opposition to Wikileaks in the previous weeks was brought to a head by Wikileaks' announcement that they were going to release the Baghdad video.
Oh ok that clears that up, then.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 06, 2010, 09:41:23 PM
Quote from: Ten Ton Mantis on April 06, 2010, 09:38:58 PM
I do seem to remember first hearing about this about a week or two ago...
You sure you're not mixed up with the "Pentagon deems Wikileaks national security threat" story? cause that happened two weeks ago, the video, afaik, is new.
I remember something on Twitter where the Wikileaks guys were talking about being followed at an airport.