Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

The video tape is horrible, but in some wars, it is difficult to tell who the enemy is and who are the civilians. And, sometimes, the enemy can be women and children, and frequently have been. While I am against mass killings, sometimes it can't be helped, when you don't know who the enemy actually is. The phrase "Kill them all, and let God sort them out" was used by Alexander Haig during the Vietnam war, but the expression has been used in almost every war ever fought, and actually goes all the way back to the Middle Ages.

It is unfortunate that civilians die in war, but it is also a fact that they do. Untold thousands of civilians died on both sides during WWII. "War is hell", so Sherman said, and he was so right. It is one good reason to only fight one as a last resort, and in Iraq, we failed to follow that advise. The result is hell on Earth for some. To question whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place is one thing, but we are at war now, and the deed is done. As a result, civilians get killed.

Mistakes will always be made in war, and people will die. We are only human, and that applies to commanders on the ground, as well as armchair quarterbacks back here in the US. I am not going to judge anyone, based on the tapes, because I am not over there. I am here at my computer. However, that does not make these deaths any less horrible, and horrible is what they are. In the end, all you can say about war is that it is what it is.

When it is all over, I hope my fellow countrymen will pray for those unfortunates who died for nothing, as well as for our soldiers who gave their last measure over there. Do we have the capacity to remember "theirs" as well as "ours"? I believe we do, and I also believe we must. We should remember this as a stark reminder of what war really is, not fun and games, but death on a massive scale, so that we are more careful about starting one in the future.

texmaster said:

Can you imagine 1942? I'm sorry, you can't attack those Nazi troops.

Click to expand...

This presumes you knew they were Nazi troops, which is why this example doesn't apply at all here and is completely silly and stupid.

Look, you can use the idiotic "this is war!" excuse to justify anything. Bomb a hospital? Well, too bad, this is war! People die every day, because they're in a war! Rape and murder civilians? This is war! That kind of stuff is unfortunate but that's what happens in a war! The mass systematic extermination of entire ethnic/religious groups? Oh well, too bad, take it in stride, because this is war!

So what kind of excuse is this? Essentially, it is an excuse for any single action taken by any single individual as long as it is in a war. Why are people using this defense? Because with this video blatantly showing the murder of civilians by US forces they don't have any other explanation. And they're certainly not going to give up their lemming-like devotion to the greatest country on earth.

Nice straw man.

People aren't using "This is war" to justify everything. Using your emotional pleas of "bombing a hospital" or "raping someone" is pathetic low debating on your part, showing the weak stance you actually have on this.

This was not a case of them going "hey look, its some ****ing rag-head kids and unarmed folks. Lets shoot'em up". This was not raping people or purposefully firing on a hospital because they dislike sick people. This was a situation in a hot spot where they saw what they believed to be enemy forces with weapons, including potentially a weapon that could actually have a severe impact on them, and acted accordingly.

Is it unfortunate that it happened this way? Yes. But attempting to compare it to purposefully raping a person or exterminating a race is absolute bull**** on your part and nothing but pure and utter ignorance.

"This is war" is not a way to "justify anything", however simply because it isn't a justification for any and all atrocities doesn't mean its not a statement and sentiment that can explain some unfortunate acts whose purpose and intent was in no way evil nor vicious in their nature. Just because an excuse or justification, when used in an extreme circumstance, does not work does not mean its unfit for any situation.

MetalGear said:

Wikileaks can be found here:

WikiLeaks

The video can be viewed here:

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.



BBC News - WikiLeaks posts 'killing' video

I served in Iraq and witnessed many strategic errors that cost the lives of many innocents, but unfortunately war is trial and error and we need to learn from our mistakes and minimize the risk while increasing success.

This footage depicts one of those mistakes, but the killings where unintentional and nobody is to blame but those who ordered the operation. I know as i have seen that there are many more videos yet to be brought to the public eye and its only a matter of time they do.

Click to expand...

Footage like this is why the American government now controls media access to their campaign zones. If enough videos like this got posted, the war would be ended in rapid sequence. Instead, censorship ensures that the running propaganda of "calculated attacks with minimal casualties" can continue to spin.

The media should have full access to document cases like this so that the tax payers who are funding this war can decide for themselves if their money is being put to good use or not.

The whole argument that death is inevitable in war is such a cop out because war itself does not need to be inevitable. War is the result of a complete and utter breakdown of human effort and desire to find non-violent solutions. The war in Iraq, especially, was the result of a pathetic excuse for diplomacy and a blatant exaggeration and cover up of the facts.

The war in Iraq did not have to happen. The word "inevitable" makes me wretch, in this case.

Khayembii Communique said:

This presumes you knew they were Nazi troops, which is why this example doesn't apply at all here and is completely silly and stupid.

Look, you can use the idiotic "this is war!" excuse to justify anything. Bomb a hospital? Well, too bad, this is war! People die every day, because they're in a war! Rape and murder civilians? This is war! That kind of stuff is unfortunate but that's what happens in a war! The mass systematic extermination of entire ethnic/religious groups? Oh well, too bad, take it in stride, because this is war!

So what kind of excuse is this? Essentially, it is an excuse for any single action taken by any single individual as long as it is in a war. Why are people using this defense? Because with this video blatantly showing the murder of civilians by US forces they don't have any other explanation. And they're certainly not going to give up their lemming-like devotion to the greatest country on earth.

Click to expand...

Well, not in this day and age. You are right, the WW2 comparisons are stupid. This is not the 1940's. The world has changed, standards have changed, how things are done has changed.

Targeting a hospital now is clearly wrong. However, mistakes do happen, and hospitals may in fact get bombed. Mistakes happen in every line of work, and when you are in a line that involved a ton of high explosives, the mistakes are painful. It's a tragedy when it does happen, but it does not make the military somehow bad people.

Which leads us to this video. Mistakes are almost certainly made. Some young men who are trying to protect the ground forces err on the side of being overaggressive, and probably took out a bunch of innocents, and certainly 2 innocent photographers. It's tragic, it sucks, I wish to god things like that did not happen. Unfortunately, they do, and it is impossible to eliminate mistakes like this. The military does put a lot of effort into minimizing them, sometimes at the risk of our own troops. I will promise you that the crew of the Apache went over the video with superiors, who pointed out to them mistakes they made and how they could do better...it's done after every encounter.

I remember a story of a guy who ended up getting out due to PTSD. He was manning a .50 cal at a roadblock. A car came at them and looked like it was not going to slow down. He had a split second to react. He opened fire, killed a man, his two kids and pregnant wife. He was taking her to the hospital to give birth. This poor guy may never be right after that(this is what I mean the stress they are under), but he acted properly for the situation. If it had been a car bomb and he did not open fire, the guys this man was tasked to protect would have been the ones who died.

If every act of war was broadcast and showed to the average citizen there's probably a good bit we'd never get into any wars, even the ones those that are against all modern ones would approve of such as WW2.

The fact of the matter is that the average citizen does not have the stomach to endure or witness such horrors that makes up war; its why not every person is fit to survive the rigors of the life of a soldier.

Zyphline said:

People aren't using "This is war" to justify everything. Using your emotional pleas of "bombing a hospital" or "raping someone" is pathetic low debating on your part, showing the weak stance you actually have on this.

Click to expand...

They are using it to dismiss any critical investigation into this issue. My point wasn't that they were using it to justify everything, but that it could be because it's simply a dismissal rather than an argument.

Khayembii Communique said:

This presumes you knew they were Nazi troops, which is why this example doesn't apply at all here and is completely silly and stupid.

Look, you can use the idiotic "this is war!" excuse to justify anything. Bomb a hospital? Well, too bad, this is war! People die every day, because they're in a war! Rape and murder civilians? This is war! That kind of stuff is unfortunate but that's what happens in a war! The mass systematic extermination of entire ethnic/religious groups? Oh well, too bad, take it in stride, because this is war!

So what kind of excuse is this? Essentially, it is an excuse for any single action taken by any single individual as long as it is in a war. Why are people using this defense? Because with this video blatantly showing the murder of civilians by US forces they don't have any other explanation. And they're certainly not going to give up their lemming-like devotion to the greatest country on earth.

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree that these pilots acted over-zealously (they could use some serious work on their weapon-ID proficiency), but I'm hesitant to jump on the cold-blooded-murder-bandwagon. You're correct that "it's war" is not a sufficient justification for anything that takes place during conflict, but it must be recognized that ambiguity is inherent to armed conflict, especially one of this nature in which the enemy wantonly disregards the laws of war.

I watched the video a couple of times and it seemed like there was a ground unit in the area, which could explain the pilots' desire to open fire without taking the time to properly ID their targets; paranoia can easily take over when you think your comrades are in mortal peril.

Khayembii Communique said:

They are using it to dismiss any critical investigation into this issue. My point wasn't that they were using it to justify everything, but that it could be because it's simply a dismissal rather than an argument.

Click to expand...

Because some people may stupidly use it to dismiss anything doesn't mean its not reasonable to dismiss it in this situation when why one thinks its worth dismissing is expanded upon.

Read Goshin or Redress's posts, which both use the "That is war" justification and explain it in more detail. Dismissing their point because it COULD be used, or more attempted to be used, to excuse genocide is as idiotic and ignorant as simply saying "that is war" and leaving it as that. Its an asinine straw man that doesn't even really warrant discussion based on its pleas to emotion rather than substance.

These men were not committing genocide, they were not raping someone, and at best you'd have a severe argument to truly label it as murder in the sense you're using it. An idiot trying to justify rape through the use of "That is war" has no more relevance to this topic and the dismissing of it by some people in this thread that have given further explanation than saying that the sky is blue.

Khayembii Communique said:

They are using it to dismiss any critical investigation into this issue. My point wasn't that they were using it to justify everything, but that it could be because it's simply a dismissal rather than an argument.

Click to expand...

It's not a dismissal, it's an explanation. The first step in any military investigation is to determine why something happened. This is why. Young men under stress, in a war zone, wanting to protect the ground troops(this ideal is drilled into them from the beginning of their training, they are there to protect the ground troops, it is their job, their reason for existence), and they appear to have made mistakes. Next step is to determine what can be done to reduce the likelihood of it happening.

Redress said:

I remember a story of a guy who ended up getting out due to PTSD. He was manning a .50 cal at a roadblock. A car came at them and looked like it was not going to slow down. He had a split second to react. He opened fire, killed a man, his two kids and pregnant wife. He was taking her to the hospital to give birth. This poor guy may never be right after that(this is what I mean the stress they are under), but he acted properly for the situation. If it had been a car bomb and he did not open fire, the guys this man was tasked to protect would have been the ones who died.

Click to expand...

And sadly the only way you'd likely hear about the story if he DIDN'T open fire was if it was being used as a "Woe is us, look at our troops dying, we have to bring them home". So they open fire and they're a horrible person killing innocents, they don't fire and they're lives are used as political propaganda.

Which is why in part I'm still angry how both of these wars have been handled by both sides, and hate our society that has caused war to have to happen in this way. War works best when the dirty details are not in the publics eyes, but that can only work successfully in pure, total, complete war where an enemy is known and destruction is key not necessarily "Winning hopes and minds" in a lengthy elongated campaign.

Zyphlin said:

And sadly the only way you'd likely hear about the story if he DIDN'T open fire was if it was being used as a "Woe is us, look at our troops dying, we have to bring them home". So they open fire and they're a horrible person killing innocents, they don't fire and they're lives are used as political propaganda.

Click to expand...

To be honest, if just the raw footage had been posted, I would not be too upset. I will explain that more in a bit. What does piss me off about this was the inclusion of the pictures of the reporters son that opened the video. That took it clearly into the realm of propaganda, just there to elicit an emotional reaction. It makes watching what does happen particularly painful. And so people jump to conclusions.

Which is why in part I'm still angry how both of these wars have been handled by both sides, and hate our society that has caused war to have to happen in this way. War works best when the dirty details are not in the publics eyes, but that can only work successfully in pure, total, complete war where an enemy is known and destruction is key not necessarily "Winning hopes and minds" in a lengthy elongated campaign.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this. I think people have to see things like this(minus the propaganda part). We have to see what war is, so we can make informed decisions on whether to send our young men and women into war. It's not some WW2 from the 40's where a snap happens and the tragic young guy spins down cleanly, gasps a line about his mom and girlfriend and dies. People need to know the costs of war, so we can decide properly if we should go to war.

Zyphlin said:

If every act of war was broadcast and showed to the average citizen there's probably a good bit we'd never get into any wars, even the ones those that are against all modern ones would approve of such as WW2.

Click to expand...

I agree with you up to the point of WWII, considering that Germany was a direct threat to the livelihood and liberty of many people the world over. I've seen plenty of archived footage of what went on in WWII, and I would have supported the campaigns. I probably would have become involved in the war as a doctor or even a soldier, and I'm a fairly anti-war kind of guy.

The greatest asset to democracy is an informed populous. If an informed populous doesn't want to go to war, then that is their right. Preventing war correspondents from documenting what is going on is blatant dishonesty. Most of the photos we are seeing of bodies in Iraq were taken by people who did not have permission to do so, and they are the kind of journalists and activists that are key to an informed democracy. Yet they are the ones who would be arrested and thrown out.

If people see the coverage and decide to be against the war, then so be it. That is what democracy means. Not letting the public have access to the truth is against our government's service to us. Their job is to give us the facts and then we decide what they do.

Zyphlin said:

The fact of the matter is that the average citizen does not have the stomach to endure or witness such horrors that makes up war; its why not every person is fit to survive the rigors of the life of a soldier.

Click to expand...

That's well and good, but we're not talking about the criteria for joining the army. I'm talking about an informed democracy that should have the right to know where its tax dollars are going at all times, and be able to make decisions in kind. Our military exists to protect us from danger. If they are overseas killing people via my funding, I want as much access to know about what they are doing as is possible and have input into the political discourse regarding the war.

Even people who are fairly anti-war like me acknowledge that there is such a thing as just war. WWII was an example. When the government has to work hard to manufacture consent with propaganda campaigns, then you know there is shady business going on. WWII and Nazi Germany spoke for itself.

If our war is just and our government is honest, then they shouldn't have to hide behind a media blackout. Just saying.

I will agree about the propaganda part. I watched the unedited 30 minute version lacking the commentary other than subtitles. You'd think with a video like this, spin wouldn't be needed to get the point across. Using cheap tactics detracts from the objective seriousness of what really happened.

dirtpoorchris said:

The saddest thing of all.... This happened in 2007?

Click to expand...

Time to throw out the bombing of Dresden now to prove how Americans are killers at heart. What freaking difference does it make what year it was? It's war.

Apache takes out people setting markers for a field to be plowed. I remember seeing the final part to what would be this video a few years back. It is very gross and can see that no people have weapons in there hands. They then zoom in on a survivor that is crawling very, very slowly. Then they shoot again even though he has no weapon and cannot stand.

[ame=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6bea3ad073]LiveLeak.com - Technical analysis of apache helicopter shooting Iraqis.[/ame]

American said:

Time to throw out the bombing of Dresden now to prove how Americans are killers at heart. What freaking difference does it make what year it was? It's war.

Click to expand...

Why has it taken so long for this video to reach the public surface? What is so secret in this happening that has kept it classified for so long? The fact that a reporter got shot the only reason it was hidden to never be released?

dirtpoorchris said:

Why has it taken so long for this video to reach the public surface?

Click to expand...

Probably because the military knew that it would be used as propaganda against our efforts abroad, and that such things do not lend themselves to objective analysis given the polarized nature of politics. I think you and a few others have already proven my point with your insistence on labeling this a cold-blooded murder.

Singularity said:

That video is disgusting, and I find it appalling that a number of folks on this thread are either okay with the murder of the innocent civilians or outright condoning it. I find it difficult to believe that the majority of folks are okay with actions like this, be they liberal or conservative.

Click to expand...

I find your ignorance on the topic appalling. Go fly rainbow colored kites somewhere else. War is hell and the targets needed to be taken out. I would do what the military there did, in a heartbeat. And you do NOT know the whole story of what happened there.

You little girls that whine about these things are getting fed propaganda from our enemy!

MetalGear said:

Wikileaks can be found here:

WikiLeaks

The video can be viewed here:

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.



BBC News - WikiLeaks posts 'killing' video

I served in Iraq and witnessed many strategic errors that cost the lives of many innocents, but unfortunately war is trial and error and we need to learn from our mistakes and minimize the risk while increasing success.

This footage depicts one of those mistakes, but the killings where unintentional and nobody is to blame but those who ordered the operation. I know as i have seen that there are many more videos yet to be brought to the public eye and its only a matter of time they do.

Click to expand...

This video made me sick to my stomach. Where were the guns? And so what if they had guns? Maybe they had them for protection from Iraqi militants? How would you feel about being shot up by an apache for having out your pistol while walking around town?

Just listen to them gloat about it too. That is why I will never join the army. I could never get satisfaction out of killing another human being, even if they were my enemy.

And we wonder why they hate us over there?

Someone should have been put on trial for this war crime, mistake or not.

Jucon said:

This video made me sick to my stomach. Where were the guns? And so what if they had guns? Maybe they had them for protection from Iraqi militants? How would you feel about being shot up by an apache for having out your pistol while walking around town?

Click to expand...

War is a dirty business. It was also a stupid mistake on the part of all parties involved. Emotionally charged orders usually result in civilian deaths however. Firstly, Iraq, Waziristan, Pakistan....irrelevant. We make it clear as military personnel repeatedly that they should NOT walk around with guns in open public, especially RPG's. Thats our job.
If they get shot in the arse for holding a weapon you can hardly blame the military for engaging them as a precautionary weapon and deterrent against terrorism.

Just listen to them gloat about it too. That is why I will never join the army. I could never get satisfaction out of killing another human being, even if they were my enemy.

Click to expand...

In that case its best you dont join.

Khayembii Communique said:

Yes, I'm sure it was stress that was causing him to chuckle as he shot an innocent reporter to death. :roll:



This isn't a war; this is an occupation.

Click to expand...

You would recoil in horror at some of the things we laughed about...... its a coping mechanism....

Ockham said:

It assumes civilians who help armed men who were just shot, would also be armed and therefore would also get shot. It means that innocents get killed in all wars or conflicts. It means that during an engagement, civilians keeps their head and ass on the ground in a non-threatening manner until the shooting stops.



.

Click to expand...

The shooting had stopped.

Goshin said:

As for the van that attempted to pick up the wounded or bodies... granted that doesn't look so good. However there may well be contextual reasons that we are not aware of. Possibly there has been an established pattern of other militants showing up to evac dead/wounded militants, and they were operating on that assumption. There was no way of knowing there were children in the van... and as mentioned above, we've been dealing with an enemy who deliberately uses women and children as shields and "martyrs" for propanganda purposes.

Click to expand...

To tell you the truth G. The initial actions of the Apache crew were correct under the circumstances. They identified (correctly or incorrectly) the group as armed. They reported the contact, got permission to engage. and did so. From the video it appears justified.
No issues there.

Then the van arrives.
Guess what? They were justified in taking out the van also. Remember that they had just identified an armed group of insurgents. Anyone giving aid to same is an insurgent also. That's what makes it a valid target.
As it turns out the initial sighting was incorrect, and an error on the part of the US. But an understandable one given the quality of the video feed. But the steps taken after that were the correct ones.

Its regretable, but bound to happen given the nature of the conflict.

This isn't the first time and it's far from being the last time.
Mistakes like this are saddening, it is right to grief for the innocents lost in this attack.

Now a quick analysis of the thread and incident:

Some folks here have said that this was a murder of innocents.
Murder is an intended killing, and this video acts as a cutting evidence that there was no intention from the soldiers to take the life of the innocents, who were mistaken as combatants in this unfortunate incident.

One dude here has made the claim that the guys carrying AK-47s were not insurgents but simply regular Iraqi innocent civilians who have carried firearms in defense from paramilitary organizations.
That claim is of course false(and also quite absurd).

A group of people(not an individual) hanging out(together) with exposed(non-holstered) AK-47s.
Unless they were planning to go on a hunting, which was probably not the case here since this is the heart of Baghdad we're talking about, there exists zero doubt that those folks were insurgents.
Their deaths is hence, by all means, justified.

The ones who've attempted to pick up the bodies were most probably also part of the insurgent team, and have attempted to gain control of their co-workers bodies. But we can only assume.
Nevertheless, you cannot just walk into a battle zone and start picking up dead bodies, even if you're innocent, and then act all surprised when you try to escape with the bodies and get shot at.
In the more probable case, those guys were insurgents.

The mistaken identification of the journalist's camera as an RPG is understandable.
He was partially hiding behind the corner and was apparently aiming his camera towards the chopper.
That's an understandable false identification and the larger part of the blame goes to the journalist, may he rest in peace, who was risking his life by pointing the camera towards the chopper(and more noticeably by hanging around a group of ****ing insurgents).

As said before, mistakes like this unfortunately play a part of every war and operation, especially against insurgents and terrorist organizations, who do not follow the rules of law and do not deter from placing kids in the face of danger.
In fact, they do it deliberately, to blame their attackers(The US army in this case) for the expected casualties.

Since there was no intention to cause or harm innocents, I do not understand the big shock here, as if nobody knew here that civilians die out there.
The war will, however, go on, and mistakes like this would have to be used for the further attempted minimizing of innocent casualties.