# US military WikiLeaks video release **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 5, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047 "2010-04-05T17:37:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/101 "2010-04-06T01:14:17Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Considering where they were, I suppose that’s a good point. I still can’t see taking my kids onto such a battlefield…though I have to admit, I don’t live in the middle of such a fucked up situation, so maybe that wasn’t all that unusual. Keep in mind that you, with the benefit of having watched the video, know that this was a helicopter shooting. The driver of the van and the 2 men trying to drag the survivor to safety/help could have thought that a car bomb went off. That does happen over there, a lot. Simply seeing the end result of a helicopter blowing shit up doesn’t signify “battlefield”, it only signifies “shit got blowed up”. ---
**Author:** ![in\_hiding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c5a1d2/32.png) [@in\_hiding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/in_hiding)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/102 "2010-04-06T01:16:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Freaky creepy. You see the images, here the gun go off, and nothing happens, maybe he missed, and then suddenly the people are lying around all tore up. I’d guess the bullets are supersonic anyway. Depending on the wind, you don’t hear the helicopter, don’t see it, and suddenly the guys next to you explode. And **then** you hear the gun, if you are still alive and not deaf. IIRC this “invisibile” Helicopters and sudden strikes are a very strong psychological weapon against … well, pretty much everyone on the ground without radar, i guess. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/103 "2010-04-06T01:20:14Z")
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] Keep in mind that you, with the benefit of having watched the video, know that this was a helicopter shooting. The driver of the van and the 2 men trying to drag the survivor to safety/help could have thought that a car bomb went off. That does happen over there, a lot. Simply seeing the end result of a helicopter blowing shit up doesn’t signify “battlefield”, it only signifies “shit got blowed up”. [/QUOTE] Maybe you are right. I just can’t imagine driving into something like that, not knowing it just happened and that whatever killed and wounded those men did so only moments before. And I certainly can’t imagine taking my kids into that kind of situation. It’s one thing to be caught in a cross fire…another to deliberately drive up to the scene of something like this that has obviously just happened, without knowing what you are driving into the middle of. If it had been a gun battle it probably would have ended just as badly for the van, as they would have been caught in the cross fire, been hit by and RPG or missile, or shot by a sniper. It’s hard to imagine what those people over there have been through. [QUOTE=EasyPhil] It’s a suburban neighorhood not a battlefield, this is the point that I think you are missing. [/QUOTE] Sure looks like a battlefield to me. I think what you are missing is that a place can be more than one thing at a time… -XT ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/104 "2010-04-06T01:21:29Z")
I can see a rifle at one point, but it turned in to a feeding frenzy. There was a lot of time that passed between the shooting stopping and the van pulling up, and for them to think that picking up an injured person somehow makes a person a combatant is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/105 "2010-04-06T01:24:41Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > No real point responding to this part… Come, now, I’m just pointing out the inevitable implication of the people saying that it was wrong of him to stop and try to help people. People killed by soldiers who didn’t seriously try to avoid killing innocents. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/106 "2010-04-06T01:50:57Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Maybe you are right. I just can’t imagine driving into something like that, not knowing it just happened and that whatever killed and wounded those men did so only moments before. And I certainly can’t imagine taking my kids into that kind of situation. > > It’s one thing to be caught in a cross fire…another to deliberately drive up to the scene of something like this that has obviously just happened, without knowing what you are driving into the middle of. If it had been a gun battle it probably would have ended just as badly for the van, as they would have been caught in the cross fire, been hit by and RPG or missile, or shot by a sniper. > > It’s hard to imagine what those people over there have been through. > > Sure looks like a battlefield to me. I think what you are missing is that a place can be more than one thing at a time… > > -XT Think about the people who ran to help at the Murrah Bldg in OK City. The people who rushed _into_ the Twin Towers on 9/11. The people who scramble to help when a gas line blows, a car explodes in a freeway accident, etc. People will try and help other people who are obviously suffering and injured. The people in that van prolly had no knowledge that a helicopter almost 2 kilometers away was firing into their neighborhood. All they knew was that a bunch of shit was blown up, and there was a hurt guy who needed help. And for their efforts, they either died or got shot up themselves, and maybe lost a parent. That’s bad PR, right there. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/107 "2010-04-06T01:51:54Z")
I made some screen captures from the video. \*\*Guys the gunner thought had AK47s \*\*[1](http://bit.ly/dmYGaf) [2](http://bit.ly/cT15nU)[3](http://bit.ly/ca2sRz) **Guy the gunner thought had an RPG** [1](http://bit.ly/ang3zW)[2](http://bit.ly/bra18S) Also, this video doesn’t give any context to the whole engagement. I was wondering if US forces came under fire, and the helicopter crew believed that someone in this group was responsible. There’s this comment, for example: [“Yeah, we had a guy shooting, and now he’s behind the building.”](http://bit.ly/9C7k7K) There’s clearly no gunfire in this video, so I imagine that the “shooting” took place earlier. If someone knows of any additional documentation on the whole incident (from the investigation?), that would be good. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/108 "2010-04-06T02:00:19Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > And, frankly, there was fuckup-age on all sides. Why were these guys moping around with any guns at all in what was clearly a war zone (look at the buildings…a lot of them had combat damage, the streets had rubble in them, etc). Maybe it’s because that’s where they live? Quite a lot of Iraq looks like that right now. > [@](#): > > Why in the name of the 7 gods would anyone in their right mind drive a van (with their kids) onto a battlefield that is pretty clearly still going on? To help someone who clearly needs it? > [@](#): > > Intent is the key in such a situation, IMHO (and I believe the military agrees). It’s like a bomber pilot. If his intent was to shoot at target A, but instead (and through no fault of his own) he hits school house B, you don’t court martial the guy and throw him in prison. Or, if he bombs target A but finds out that there were civilians there instead of the insurgents that he was told were there. Or if a tank is trying to engage an enemy vehicle but hits a store instead. Or engages and enemy vehicle, only to find out that it wasn’t an enemy vehicle at all, but an ally…or a civilian. How do you hold the people who pulled the trigger responsible for any of this? And if you do, how are you going to get anyone to do anything except CYA in the future? These examples don’t fit. They didn’t aim at target A and hit target B, they aimed at target A and hit target A. They looked at the school and said ‘Yup, looks like a chemical warfare factory, permission to fire?’ > [@](#): > > These guys believed that the people they were attacking were armed hostiles (and, frankly, I’ve still seen no evidence that they weren’t…just because reporters were with the group, doesn’t really mean anything. I know that there are embedded reporters in Afghanistan that are with insurgent groups from time to time, because I’ve seen reports from said reporters, and interviews with Afghan warlords or Taliban groups). Have you seen any evidence that they were actually armed hostiles? You know, like hostile activity? > [@](#): > > They had seconds to assess, report and engage. Watch the video…or go to the link in the original cite and look at the time line. The entire engagement lasted maybe 5 minutes. Think about that. Of course they had only seconds, cuz of all the fire coming from the hostiles. Or maybe it was cuz they had been seen and all of the hostiles were taking cover. Or maybe it was because, ah fuck it. They had lots of time. The engagement took 5 minutes because they went into it looking for any excuse to fire, and it doesn’t take very long to gun down unarmed civilians who aren’t aware of you when you’re using a cannon. > [@](#): > > So…do I believe this excuses them? Yeah…I do. Just like I believe that a pilot trying to hit target A that hits the school instead is not to blame for carrying out his orders to the best of his ability. You can’t run a military in any other way, frankly. People are only human, and they can only do the best they can do. Put them in pressure situations with the fog of war, time constraints, stress, and ambiguity that is rife in something like Iraq, and mistakes are going to get made. If the soldiers think that they will be punished even when they are following their orders and doing what they are told to the best of their abilities, in the end none of them will do anything. That might sound good, but it would totally paralyze the military. This is complete bullshit. The military has always had rules of engagement, and it seems to still function. Soldiers know they will be punished if they shoot up a bunch of random people hanging out in front of a drug store. Or maybe not. > [@](#): > > THEY followed the rules and did what they were supposed to do. You go ask William Calley’s men how that worked out for them. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/109 "2010-04-06T02:04:48Z")
I recall someone saying that there had been a firefight in the vicinity. (I stand ready to accept chagrin if that memory is faulty, and plead ancient of daze…). If so, that may give us a bit more insight into the mindset. If they thought that they were looking for guys who had just attacked other American soldiers, they would be much more likely to presume hostility, and be naturally more eager to repay it in kind. Not attempting to excuse, or even accept, but perhaps understand a bit better. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/110 "2010-04-06T02:11:28Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > …You go ask William Calley’s men how that worked out for them. I have some sympathy for your position, but this was an ill-advised comparison. My Lai was committed as a deliberate massacre, there was not the slightest hint of armed resistance or military justification. And, of course, the numbers. Its like comparing a horny toad with Godzilla. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/111 "2010-04-06T02:40:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I recall someone saying that there had been a firefight in the vicinity. I just noted this above: [QUOTE=toadspittle] Also, this video doesn’t give any context to the whole engagement. I was wondering if US forces came under fire, and the helicopter crew believed that someone in this group was responsible. There’s this comment, for example: **“Yeah, we had a guy shooting, and now he’s behind the building.”** [/QUOTE] Again, I don’t have evidence for this, other than this stray comment. Would love to know the background of the mission. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/112 "2010-04-06T02:47:16Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] Maybe it’s because that’s where they live? Quite a lot of Iraq looks like that right now. [/QUOTE] Quite a lot of it looked like this in 2006, no doubt. And, sure…they may have lived there and just been carrying guns for protection. The thing is, though, that the guys in the helicopter didn’t know this, however. > [@](#): > > To help someone who clearly needs it? I suppose. > [@](#): > > These examples don’t fit. They didn’t aim at target A and hit target B, they aimed at target A and hit target A. They looked at the school and said ‘Yup, looks like a chemical warfare factory, permission to fire?’ The point was that mistakes happen. In your example, if the crew really thinks it IS a chemical warfare factory, and asks permission to engage, and is granted said permission, only to discover later that it’s a school…well, what would you have the military do? Punish the crew? For being wrong? > [@](#): > > Of course they had only seconds, cuz of all the fire coming from the hostiles. Or maybe it was cuz they had been seen and all of the hostiles were taking cover. Or maybe it was because, ah fuck it. They had lots of time. The engagement took 5 minutes because they went into it looking for any excuse to fire, and it doesn’t take very long to gun down unarmed civilians who aren’t aware of you when you’re using a cannon. I think you are missing some key points here. The helicopter didn’t fire because they were afraid the folks they took to be armed insurgents would get THEM…they fired because they didn’t want the presumed hostiles to get AWAY. They had a small window to engage them in. > [@](#): > > This is complete bullshit. The military has always had rules of engagement, and it seems to still function. Soldiers know they will be punished if they shoot up a bunch of random people hanging out in front of a drug store. Or maybe not. Did I say anywhere that the military didn’t have rules of engagement?? WTF are you talking about? Soldiers are certainly punished for shooting up a random bunch of people just hanging out…did I say otherwise? Of course, this isn’t exactly what happened here, is it? Or, in your fantasy world of RO, IS it what you think happened? > [@](#): > > You go ask William Calley’s men how that worked out for them. There really aren’t enough :rolleyes: for this level of complete horseshit. -XT ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/113 "2010-04-06T02:47:39Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I answered this earlier up thread, but what the hell…you aren’t going to read it until I do so again, so: > > The justification for engaging the van was that they were clearly attempting to get the wounded insurgents off the field…which is a pretty strong indication that they were probably insurgents themselves. As it turned out (or has been claimed), they were just some good Samaritans coming in to help (with their children)…but the crew didn’t know that. The guy back at the other end of the radio (CrazyHorse-7 IIRC) didn’t know that. And they had SECONDS TO MAKE A DECISION. > > Does THIS answer your question? > > -XT Seconds to make a decision or what? One wounded insurgent gets taken to a hospital? The split-second decision thing matters if the cost of not acting is high - if you think a guy might be pulling out a SAM to take out your helicopter, or may be about to shoot your forces on the ground, such a snap judgement is understandable. But what’s the downside here, one half-dead insurgent gets away? That’s not the sort of terrible downside that requires risking killing a rescuer. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > And when did the gunship crew make sure that the people on the ground weren’t on our side? Or is that part of the assumptive process at play here: “if they were on our side, they wouldn’t have been on the ground”? At one point the helicopter clears with the local ground forces that their men aren’t in the area, the guy on the ground says something like “there are none of us east of my position, you’re good”. > [@xtisme](#): > > Here, let me helpfully clear this up for you (again…I’ll probably be forced to do so through several more iterations of straw-man-age on your part): The crew believed the ‘wounded man’ was an insurgent. They believed the van was coming to help said ‘wounded man’ because they were ALSO insurgents. They believed the group they had engaged were armed (I believe this to be true too, based on what I saw). They had no reason to believe that the people in the van weren’t similarly armed. They had seconds to assess the situation (maybe 20 seconds from when they were told an unmarked van was approaching), seconds to ask for permission to engage what they clearly felt was a target, and seconds for the guy at the other end of the line to weigh and assess their request and give permission. They were given permission to engage the van and they did so. Your analysis leaves no room for how reasonable their judgements and beliefs are. You are essentially saying that so long as they can articulate a reason, no matter how justified, then you can’t second guess them. If they saw a 5 year old walking on the street with an ice cream cone but somehow thought it was a hand grenade, they could be justified in saying “that sick fuck! He’s licking a hand grenade! He’s dangerous!” and blowing him away. I exaggerate only slightly. The helicopter crew seemed to be itching for a reason to engage that targets and were using any flimsy evidence they could to justify their actions. The guy on the other end making the decision as to whether to give permission or not only has their report to go on - and their report is clearly designed to get them the permission they seek. For instance the helicopter crew reported that the men in the van were getting bodies and weapons (9:15 in the video). This was before the van even stopped, so the crew had no idea of its intent at this point. The person on the other end of the radio was using this information to decide whether they were authorized to engage the van. This information was completely unjustified - at no point did anyone in the van remotely even appear to be doing anything other than helping a wounded man, and so the permission to fire was based on a false premise. This isn’t ambiguous to the footage - this was just a guess (and maybe wishful thinking) from the helicopter crew who wanted to open up on the van. Similarly, “that guy has something vaguely weapon shaped” turned into “there’s 6 guys with AK47s! They’re shooting behind the building!” … they were clearly wrapping what was something vaguely threatning into a clear and immediate danger so that they’d get permission to fire. Why isn’t their judgement subject to question? You seem to think that so long as they came to the conclusions they did, even if they were essentially trying to make the vague facts fit what they wanted, then they’re justified. I call BS. Would every Apache crew have made the same decision there? Would a more cautious crew investigated further or decided not to attack? Their judgement is definitely in question here. > [@xtisme](#): > > Given that, it’s not unreasonable to think that a van pulling up to start clearing off the wounded would be associated with them in some way…since, IMHO, no reasonable person who has no connection to or stake in the event is going to be foolish enough to drive into what is pretty obviously a war zone. As for your attacks on the guy driving the van - quite frankly I find them kind of disgusting. The guy seems to be a hero - he saw someone bleeding to death and decided to help him. Let’s say this was a car bomb or IED instead of a helicopter attack - what happens then? The guy rushes in, picks up the half-dead reuters reporter, rushes him to a hospital, and gets labelled a hero. But in this case, because he rushed to the site of a helicopter attack that he couldn’t see, he’s an idiot instead? This man should not be demonized for trying to do the right thing. Even then - maybe he did know it was a helicopter attack. Maybe he was one of the Iraqis that actually liked the Americans or at least respected them, so he thought “well, even if was an air attack, the Americans are too decent to attack me if all I’m doing is trying to rush a wounded guy to the hospital.” Woops. > [@](#): > > Watching the video, the crew in the helicopter never said the van was armed…they reported that the van was attempting to remove the injured from the field. This is probably a gray area, since I don’t know what the rules are for engaging presumed insurgent vehicles that are merely attempting to remove wounded from the battlefield. Again, they did at 9:15. The helicopter crew obviously knew that this wasn’t actually happening, but they didn’t report that fact to their command, so the guy on the other end of the radio may still think the van is full of insurgents picking up the weapons. It probably played a role in his decision to authorize them firing on the van. Look, I honestly normally take the “it’s easy to be critical in hindsight, but when people are shooting at you and you don’t have all the information available to you, it’s easy and justifiable to make mistakes” side of the argument. But this is bullshit. You might be able to justify the original attack (I don’t think the men are armed, but they may be), but the attack on the van was pure bullshit and unjustifiable. The crew in question here was just begging for the people down there to do anything to justify killing them, and they stretched the facts in reporting to their command in order to get permission to do so. They clearly wanted to make this attack happen. It’s hard to say without the overall context of what had happened in the area before this attack, but it seems like the crew were going beyond what was necesary in order to make this attack. I mean, really - you need some threshold of confidence that you’ve identified an enemy to justify attacking him. What point is that at? If you’re 1% sure they’re an insurgent, are you justified in killing them? 20%? 50%? If your life, or the lives of others, are in immediate obvious danger, then you can shoot with lesser confidence. But there was no urgency here - the helicopter was in no danger, the people on the ground were just walking around, not on the attack or acting threatning in any way. A vague notion, or a low probability, that they may be insurgents just does not justify an attack. They were killed just on the vague notion that they were holding something that a few pixels suggested just maybe could be a weapon, or maybe not. This was not a life or death split second decision, this was a deliberate judgement to kill people for who there was little evidence of their evil intent. If the helicopter crew misreported the situation in order to ensure they got permission to open fire from command, then they should be punished in some way. If the helicopter crew followed proper procedures, and it’s our policy in Iraq to just blow up anyone who vaguely may be an insurgent even in a non-life-or-death situation, then the people making our policy should be punished. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/114 "2010-04-06T02:48:48Z")
What is the “time” for that comment, i.e., how do I review just that portion without watching the whole godawful? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/115 "2010-04-06T02:49:55Z")
Which comment are you referring to? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/116 "2010-04-06T02:52:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I have some sympathy for your position, but this was an ill-advised comparison. My Lai was committed as a deliberate massacre, there was not the slightest hint of armed resistance or military justification. And, of course, the numbers. > > Its like comparing a horny toad with Godzilla. Yeah, I know, it’s a stretch, but it’s the big precedent for ‘I wuz just following orders.’. This was a pretty deliberate massacre, I didn’t see a whole lot of military justification or resistance, and an Apache helicopter shooting at best lightly armed civilians from 1.5km ain’t exactly an even match. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Duality](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.duality/32/4098_2.png) [@Mr.Duality](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Duality)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/117 "2010-04-06T03:00:13Z")
I’m ex-military and I know an AK-47 or an RPG when I see one. I did not see anything which could clearly be identified as a weapon. The guy crouching at the corner has a camera with a long lens. Perhaps two guys have unidentifiable items slung from their shoulders. Somebody was entirely too eager to pull a trigger. But the camera guys were taking their lives in their own hands by being there. I’m thinking that’s life (and death) in Iraq. Kids would never go to school if gunfir was a reason to stay home. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/118 "2010-04-06T03:06:05Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Which comment are you referring to? We are in sequential confusion. I was talking about the guy lurking? hiding? at the corner, with his “RPG”, as described by **Toady**. I did, in fact, check that you posted about the van still moving when it was described as picking up weapons and bodies. Did you note they described it again that way but inserted the word “possibly”? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/119 "2010-04-06T03:07:10Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Quite a lot of it looked like this in 2006, no doubt. And, sure…they may have lived there and just been carrying guns for protection. The thing is, though, that the guys in the helicopter didn’t know this, however. They didn’t know, huh? Well obviously military policy is to just shoot first and award medals later. I mean, knowing who those people were couldn’t possibly have changed the encounter. There was more than one of them, one or two of them were carrying something, clearly they all had to die. > [@](#): > > The point was that mistakes happen. In your example, if the crew really thinks it IS a chemical warfare factory, and asks permission to engage, and is granted said permission, only to discover later that it’s a school…well, what would you have the military do? Punish the crew? For being wrong? Holy fucking shit YES! You identify your target before you shoot. You don’t guess, if you’re not sure you don’t fucking shoot. A solider that misidentifies a school as a chemical weapon factory has screwed up big time, and when all those kids die guess who’s fault it is? What, you just wanna send that soldier back into action without even checking if he needs glasses? Someone screwed up, and innocents died. Why did it happen? What can be done to prevent it from happening again? Should this soldier be allowed to continue what he’s doing, or should he never be given anything more dangerous than white out? Being a soldier is not open license to screw up unaccountably. > [@](#): > > I think you are missing some key points here. The helicopter didn’t fire because they were afraid the folks they took to be armed insurgents would get THEM…they fired because they didn’t want the presumed hostiles to get AWAY. They had a small window to engage them in. Right, cuz they were obviously hauling ass for cover, and not standing out in the middle of the street talking. > [@](#): > > Did I say anywhere that the military didn’t have rules of engagement?? WTF are you talking about? Soldiers are certainly punished for shooting up a random bunch of people just hanging out…did I say otherwise? Of course, this isn’t exactly what happened here, is it? Or, in your fantasy world of RO, IS it what you think happened? I saw a bunch of guys standing around in the street. I did not see any hostile actions, any large number of guns, anything that could threaten the helicopter, or any indication at all that they were insurgents. I don’t see anything that precludes that they could have been just hanging out in front of the drug store. That is kind of what it looks like. So, if you can show that they weren’t in fact just hanging out in front of the drug store, please do so. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/120 "2010-04-06T03:20:48Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > We are in sequential confusion. I was talking about the guy lurking? hiding? at the corner, with his “RPG”, as described by **Toady**. I did, in fact, check that you posted about the van still moving when it was described as picking up weapons and bodies. Did you note they described it again that way but inserted the word “possibly”? 9:05: “Yeah Bushmaster we have a van that’s approaching and picking up the bodies” 9:15 “Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.” 9:20 [van has stopped but no one has gotten out and nothing has happened] “Let me engage” 9:25 “Can I shoot?” “Roger, break.” 9:29 “Crazyhorse One-Eight requests permission to engage” [at this point one man in the van went to the wounded man, the other opened the van door] 9:33 “Picking up the wounded?” “Yeah, I’m trying to get permission to engage” 9:38 [Men from the van pick up the wounded guy and start dragging him to the van] “Come on, let us shoot!” 9:46 “They’re taking him” 9:55 “We have a black SUV.. Bongo truck picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage” The helicopter crew definitely sees that all they’re doing is trying to rescue the wounded guy, but rather than correcting their earlier speculation that they were going for weapons, they basically just keep begging to shoot. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047.md?page=7)