The targetting symbology is consistent with an Apache IIRC. It’s moving in a big circle because the biggest threat in that environment are unguided RPGs and you can pretty effectively evade them just by keeping on the move. The apache also has a good sensor package and it’s easy enough to track targets from a distance while circling.
Incidentally, I don’t watch TV news - is this getting any play?
Nothing unusual about this incident; only that it has come to light.
Glenn Greenwald has a very good and extensive analysis of it:
Iraq slaughter not an aberration
Like he says, through no real fault of their own – that goes mostly to the press and those intent on “sanitizing” war – Americans are mostly ignorant of what goes on in these conflicts. Unlike the people actually involved (and victimized) by them.
Here’s a link to the Washington Post’s 07/13/2007 article on the incident. It’s amazing how they manage to describe the situation almost exactly how it didn’t happen.
They’ve upgraded the electronics just a bit since 1980. Also, the video you’re watching has been compressed who knows how many times while the pilots had a raw feed. It’s likely the image was sharper for them than it is for us.
Hey guys, check it out. When you conquer a country and occupy it this is the sort of thing that happens. I mean, what do you think has been happening over there for 7 years? Also, guess who the enemy is when the population is shooting back and organizing themselves to resist you? Civilians.
Trying to analyze and micromanage this small event is silly. No one should have a beef with the U.S. military personnel in this situation. Your ire should be directed towards Congress, the President, the media, and the moneyed interests who make a fortune off this happening.
But it’s OK, when Obama is elected president he’ll pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is a link to an interview on April 6th from NPR. The interview is with Washington Post reporter David Finkel who was with the battalion engaged in the operation on 7-12-2007. Finkel contribued to the story that appeared in the Post 7-13-07 and later wrote about the incident in his book The Good Soldiers.
And here is the crux of my disgust with the RO in this thread.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Yeah, our Outrage about the murder of unarmed civilians and good samaritans in an unjust war of aggression is totally Recreational.
[/QUOTE]
You know what? Let’s see some fucking cites. Back this assertion up. <deleted> Show me that A) These were ‘unarmed civilians’. I was verified cites. B) lets see some real evidence that this was ‘totally recreational’, i.e. that the crew really didn’t believe that these guys were armed, and that they deliberately lied or exaggerated in order to get to attack ‘unarmed civilians’.
Show me some god damned evidence, any of you (and of you RO bunnies in this thread). Don’t tell me you THINK this is what happened (based on the video ‘evidence’ presented thus far). Show me the written report from the investigation indicating that the crew ‘lied’, that there is clear evidence that the group of men were ‘unarmed civilians’ (there was a patrol that came in after the event…did they see any weapons?). Show me that the tactical situation in the area did not warrant this kind of response, and that there was no reasons this crew should have responded in the way they did.
IOW, back up your fucking case. Don’t accuse me of being agenda driven, when all I see in this fucking thread is a bunch of bullshit speculation based on a single video without context (save that supplied by a group that is obviously biased and is obviously trying to slant this whole event in a certain way to achieve their OWN fucking goals). IOW, be fucking 'dopers and do some fucking research before making assertions such as:
[QUOTE=Ogre]
It seems absolutely clear to me now that 1) the helicopter pilots were under a certain amount of pressure to clear the street for oncoming American forces, 2) they exaggerated the threat based on unclear information, 3) they gave erroneous info in order to receive clearance to fire, and 4) at least one of them told bald-faced lies during his sworn testimony. There were no units overlooking the ground. There was no confirmed sighting of an RPG.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely clear? Fine…prove it. Let’s see some evidence for any of the above assertions, including that there was no confirmed sighting of RPG’s or other weapons.
[QUOTE=Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party]
Come on, you honestly can’t see why people would be pissed off by that video and then the cover-up after the fact? Any decision to fire should have been weighing up two competing possibilities: on the one hand there’s the possibility that the men were civilians standing around in a civilian neighbourhood, and on the other, there’s the possibility that the men really were insurgents. It seems, based on the video, that only one possibility was ever considered, and from then on, everything was viewed through that lens: a journalist’s camera becomes an AK47 and a camera tripod becomes an RPG.
[/QUOTE]
There was a cover up? Ok…let’s see the evidence that this is the case. Do you have any, or just an assumption that the investigation into this event was a whitewash? Because, frankly, I DON’T see why people are so pissed off, based on the level of actual, solid, reliable EVIDENCE presented so far in this BS thread. I can see why I am pissed off, after the accusations being thrown at me in this thread.
It seems that everyone is jumping to conclusions here. You say that the AK-47’s were a camera and tripod…ok, what is your evidence that this was so? I’ve seen no evidence, one way or the other, as to whether these folks were armed. We know that there was a camera crew…but that doesn’t preclude the others in the group from being armed. So…what is your evidence that the group was unarmed? Please present it.
[QUOTE=Princhester]
xtisme if the heli crew were just battling in good faith why did they lie to the people they needed permission from to engage, in order to get that permission?
[/QUOTE]
What is your evidence that they lied? I’ve seen none…just speculation extrapolated from a single blurry and confusing video. Do you have any real evidence that the crew in fact knew or suspected that the men were in fact not armed? If not, they what do you base your assertion that they were lying on?
Should I call you a liar here? Because you are quite wrong. I’ve watched the video several times and read the transcripts, and the gunner says exactly 2 times (BEFORE the van pulls up) that he SPECULATED that they are coming in to retrieve the bodies and the weapons (a common tactic for insurgents at this time in Iraq btw). So…do you lie? Or are you just wrong…or are you perhaps misremembering or conflating things, you know, like humans tend to do? Or am I lying? Or am I wrong? Or am I misremembering, or conflating things?
But they DID get permission, since after the gunners initial speculation he told them exactly what was going on…i.e. that they were in the process of removing the bodies. He doesn’t mention picking up weapons again, and frankly, they didn’t give them time to TRY and pick up any of the weapons, since the attack happens as soon as they start picking up the first man. What do I think? I think the officer on the other end of the line conflated the report about a 4 door black car seen picking up and dropping off insurgents into a battle zone all day (which this area was that day) with the report of his helicopter engaging hostiles and a black van driving in to apparently pick up the wounded (and possibly to go onto pick up weapons afterward). IOW, I think it was a fog of war incident, where everyone was confused, had limited or bad information, and mistakes were made.
But, you know, since all of you are so sure, let’s see some real evidence. Trot it out. Let’s see some evidence that the investigation was a white wash. Let’s see some evidence that no arms were found in the area. Let’s see some evidence of deliberate lying. Show. Me. The. Money.
-XT
Personally, I wouldn’t accept there were weapons found unless I saw them photographed, with a time and date stamp, in situ.
Have you seen anything like that, xtisme?
xtisme, your calm, rational and even-handed approach to this issue is quite laudable.
ETA: You almost seem to be saying, “These things happen in the fog of war, but I don’t believe it.”
Yeah, who are you gonna believe, the military or your own lying eyes?
[QUOTE=xtisme]
There was a cover up? Ok…let’s see the evidence that this is the case. Do you have any, or just an assumption that the investigation into this event was a whitewash? Because, frankly, I DON’T see why people are so pissed off, based on the level of actual, solid, reliable EVIDENCE presented so far in this BS thread. I can see why I am pissed off, after the accusations being thrown at me in this thread.
[/quote]
The investigation clearly was a whitewash. The Apache wasn’t taking fire from the victims at any point, which the gunner claimed. Nor were there any signs of “rooftop teams”, again, as the gunner claimed. There wasn’t “5 or 6 people armed with AK47s” as the gunner claimed, as he attempted to attain authorisation to fire. Nor were the men picking up the wounded in the SUV picking up weapons, again as he attempted to gain authorisation to re-engage. Freedom of Information requests for the video were denied for two years. Now the military are even claiming that they’ve lost the original video and can’t find it any more! This whole thing is a joke.
Go and read the Washington Post story on the attack, based on what story the military released, and attempt to square that with the video that you’ve watched. It’s impossible. The story that was released is completely distorted from the reality of the attack.
Let’s be clear here. This tape wasn’t stolen from the military by interlopers. It was released anonymously by sources from within the Pentagon. Clearly there’s some amount of discomfort from within the ranks of the military itself when it comes to what happened here.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
It seems that everyone is jumping to conclusions here. You say that the AK-47’s were a camera and tripod…ok, what is your evidence that this was so? I’ve seen no evidence, one way or the other, as to whether these folks were armed. We know that there was a camera crew…but that doesn’t preclude the others in the group from being armed. So…what is your evidence that the group was unarmed? Please present it.
[/quote]
Wait. I have to present evidence that the group were unarmed, now? Why don’t you present evidence that they were armed? Point to the precise timestamp in the video presented in the OP where you can positively identify a weapon. You can’t. No positive ID can be made.
And the reason there was no attempt to verify that the “insurgents” actually had weapons by those in the Apache, is because prior to this incident, the forces in this area were having a bit of a hard time - you know, getting shot at and the usual stuff you have to endure when you join the military - and those soldiers in the helicopter were just aching to bag some bad guys.
Reading that almost makes me want to shoot a US soldier, so I can well imagine how the average Iraqi might feel.
I don’t know what percentage of the military is made up of people with these thoughts, but I don’t want them representing me. And obviously this applies had it been a British unit that had carried out this attack.
So…no evidence yet? That’s sad.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
xtisme, your calm, rational and even-handed approach to this issue is quite laudable.
[/QUOTE]
Really? Where did I seem to be saying that?
[QUOTE=Terraplane]
Yeah, who are you gonna believe, the military or your own lying eyes?
[/QUOTE]
The video presented is ambiguous. What I believe is facts. Do you have any?
[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
Have you seen anything like that, xtisme?
[/QUOTE]
The video evidence presented thus far is unclear. It’s entirely subjective, due to the type of camera used and how it was shot. The gunner wasn’t focusing in on taking pictures of the weapons, he was looking at the people. So…no…I haven’t seen anything like that. Which is beside the point. Do you have any evidence that there were no weapons involved? Something other than your subjective opinion based on viewing the video?
Um…thanks Red. Maybe you meant to post this in another thread?
[QUOTE=Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party]
The investigation clearly was a whitewash.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent. If it was clearly a whitewash then let’s see your evidence for this. It should be very easy to prove.
What is the time stamp or the transcript mark for when the gunner claimed to be taking fire from the group of men (a.k.a. ‘the victims’)? Could you link to it or just tell me what time frame you see this happening?
Again, same request.
So you assert. What is your proof that the gunner knew that these guys weren’t armed (or in fact that none of them WERE armed)? Are you basing this on your subjective (and non-expert) opinion strictly from viewing the video, or do you have other evidence to present? If so, let’s see it. It’s ‘clear’ to you, after all…so, make it ‘clear’ to me.
Why should I do that? I’ve skimmed the actual report from the investigation…why would I want to read a second or 3rd hand subjective opinion from the Post on the events? Is THIS the basis for your evidence? A news article in the Washington Post, and a chaotic and blurry thermal video? Or do you have other evidence to present?
And I’m not disputing the authenticity of the video…I’m merely saying that the video is not conclusive, in and of itself. It’s ambiguous. It’s also not the sum total of what the gunner and pilot were seeing…nor does it put the events into context. And, let’s be clear here…it was released by a group that is not unbiased about this, and has been doctored at least enough to insert text, comments and helpful pointers and tags.
Wait…are you saying that when you make an assertion you don’t need to back it up with facts? I didn’t assert (I speculated that I THOUGHT I saw weapons…and I still do) one way or the other whether these guys were armed (I said I didn’t think it was important on the broader issue of legality)…YOU (and others) have frequently and firmly asserted that these guys weren’t armed. So…what is your evidence? If you can’t, based on this video well…you know, that’s sort of the freaking point I’m making, ehe? THINK about it. Please.
-XT
"It’s also not the sum total of what the gunner and pilot were seeing."
Why, what else do you imagine they were seeing from that distance? If they couldn’t see it through their viewfinder, they couldn’t see it at all.
If you listen to the NPR interview with David Finkel that tbook posted, we get an answer on the weapons issue. Finkel says that one of the bodies was found lying on top of an RPG, and that EOD was brought in to dispose of it. He also says there was at least one man with an AK. He does say that most of the men were not armed.
It’s a good interview. Finkel doesn’t take sides, hell he goes way out of his way not to take sides. He paints a good picture of the mood of the day.
ETA: Of course, you may choose not to believe Finkel for whatever reason, so when I said it’s an answer, I meant one answer, not a definitive answer.
[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
Why, what else do you imagine they were seeing from that distance?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have to imagine…I’m 100% sure that the gunner and pilot weren’t using only the thermal gun sight for the entire engagement. The pilot, for instance, has other visual aids that, you know, allow him to fly the helicopter. The gunner also would have had an array of visual choices that weren’t part of the recording. If nothing else, they would have had mark-1 eyeball (which is why I can assert this with 100% certainty).
How far away did you think they were? IIRC, the readings on the HUD for the gun sight were talking about 1 and a half kilometers, but I could be misremembering. More importantly…why do you believe that the gun camera recordings were the sum total of the visuals available or used by both gunner and pilot? Do you have any (clears throat) evidence that this is the case?
-XT
WTF are you talking about? YOU are the one who’s claiming that this outrage is totally recreational. So it’s up to YOU to provide evidence of this.
I don’t recall Finkel saying he saw this with his own eyes. And one man with an AK in a country where the enemy isn’t just US soldiers, but their fellow countrymen, is hardly to be unexpected.
I’m saying that without electronic aids or binoculars, the Apache crew would not have been able to see anything of any worth… certainly so if they were 1.5 kilometres away. And if any of their other devices caught anything more conclusive, wouldn’t that evidence have been made readily available?