Camera mistaken for RPG... do you buy it?

[sammyd56]

According to the video released by http://www.wikileaks.org on Monday (warning: makes for disturbing viewing), an Apache helicopter pilot in Baghdad mistook a Reuters journalist's telephoto lens for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, prompting him to open fire and ending with the death of eight people.

Forget bothersome security guards and police notes under your door, this is what happens when your camera draws suspicion in Iraq...

 

[PsiFox]

mistakes always happen and that guy peering round the wall at the apache did look suspicious.

i can't say what the video feed looked like in cockpit as i don't own one.

 

[purpleclouds]

mistakes always happen and that guy peering round the wall at the apache did look suspicious.

i can't say what the video feed looked like in cockpit as i don't own one.

It'd be true to say that they don't have 32" HD TVs in there to spot the smallest of detail.. I can't imagine them having anything larger than 8-9"

A sad occurrence but very testing conditions for the pilots

 

[Arkady]

It happens...
Used to be the case that carrying any recording device was regarded as an offensive act, due to the militants filming all of their IED attacks on the coalition forces.
It could have been handled better, but at the end of the day, if the pilot was convinced it was an RPG, who are we to argue?
We can sit here and replay the tape over and over, he had one moment in real-time to make a decision...it's what happens in wars...people die, sometimes wrongly.

 

[david1701]

and the americans are very fond of friendly fire, remember all those 'taliban' chinooks they shot down

 

[weiran]

The real story is why the Pentagon lied and covered up the truth about this, not whether the killings were within the rules of engagement. It's a shame that's been lost in the mainstream media.

 

[jamesb84]

Hmmm...the photographer in me says "of course you can tell it's an L series...probably a 70-200".

However, it's not exactly clear if you're not a tog and in the "heat" of battle it could be difficult.

The bit I find morally unacceptable is the desire to shoot/kill the people who come to pick up "the bodies"...

Is there any need/reason to do that? Had that not happened, and they'd waited until the ground-based troops appeared, the 2 children wouldn't have been injured and there was a possibility that Saaed would not have been killed.

The other slightly disturbing aspect is the attitudes of the pilots when shooting...I understand the fact that constant IED attacks and a general unwelcomeness from the local citizens can be tough...but their attitudes were crap, just as bad as the My Lai "de-sensitized" attitude.

 

[jamesb84]

The real story is why the Pentagon lied and covered up the truth about this, not whether the killings were within the rules of engagement. It's a shame that's been lost in the mainstream media.

Completely agree...and that goes hand in hand with what I said about the attitudes of the pilots.

They were enjoying killing 12 innocent civilians and their commanders/top-brass have also displayed a tremendous lack of moral consideration by lying about the entire event afterwards.

 

[Marc]

Completely agree...and that goes hand in hand with what I said about the attitudes of the pilots.

They were enjoying killing 12 innocent civilians and their commanders/top-brass have also displayed a tremendous lack of moral consideration by lying about the entire event afterwards.

But they weren't enjoying killing innocent civilians were they? As far as they were concerned, they were killing bad guys who were trying to kill them.

 

[trencheel303]

A sad occurrance indeed I can see why they thought it was a weapon, it sure looked like one. The soldiers attitude towards killing people was what I found upsetting though.

 

[treeman]

Slightly off topic, but how far away are those helicopters when they fire like that? Out of ear shot?

 

[TG.]

But they weren't enjoying killing innocent civilians were they? As far as they were concerned, they were killing bad guys who were trying to kill them.

Indeed they did, plus the fact they have a micro second to make a decision, if it's a case of you or them how would we decide, well i know how i would.

 

[jamesb84]

But they weren't enjoying killing innocent civilians were they? As far as they were concerned, they were killing bad guys who were trying to kill them.

Hmmmm, I take your point...but even if they did think they were "bad guys" then it's still a little unsavoury to be urging your victim/foe to 'just pick up a weapon' so that you can finish him off.

Also, does anyone know the reason why they shoot/shot the van coming to retrieve the dead bodies?!

 

[Flash In The Pan]

and the americans are very fond of friendly fire, remember all those 'taliban' chinooks they shot down

probably wouldn't have stood out so much with a Nikon and it's black lens

 

[mastertrinity]

them stupid americans, of course the guy did look suspicious but mistaking a 70-200mm lens for an rpg thats not even a 1:1 scale is ridicolous. and as trencheel303 says, its horrible hearing the americans reaction to it.

 

[purpleclouds]

A sad occurrance indeed I can see why they thought it was a weapon, it sure looked like one. The soldiers attitude towards killing people was what I found upsetting though.

Hmmmm, I take your point...but even if they did think they were "bad guys" then it's still a little unsavoury to be urging your victim/foe to 'just pick up a weapon' so that you can finish him off.

Also, does anyone know the reason why they shoot/shot the van coming to retrieve the dead bodies?!

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with you, and wish that this not be the case in every other soldier.. I think the only way to get the job done would be to have absolutely no connection to the 'targets' and to treat it as if were a computer game..

 

[Almost_Invisible]

The other slightly disturbing aspect is the attitudes of the pilots when shooting...I understand the fact that constant IED attacks and a general unwelcomeness from the local citizens can be tough...but their attitudes were crap, just as bad as the My Lai "de-sensitized" attitude.

Sadly that's probably the attitude required. I have never been in the military so don't know. Being over cautious and triple checking when you have that much money's worth of helicopter possibly being lined up by an RPG is probably not encouraged.

Watching that video with the benefit of hindsight isn't so fair on the pilots. I never spotted the 2 kids in the van on the initial normal speed/non-zoomed run through. I did get the impression the one pilot/gunner was a bit too keen to get firing again but if I was in a situation where I was convinced I was fighting insurgents I can't see me wanting any of them moving either.

 

[Almost_Invisible]

them stupid americans, of course the guy did look suspicious but mistaking a 70-200mm lens for an rpg thats not even a 1:1 scale is ridicolous. and as trencheel303 says, its horrible hearing the americans reaction to it.

Was it definitely the still camera they were concerned about or the film camera?
The film camera is nice and large and gets raised up to the shoulder in readiness much like a RPG.

 

[sammyd56]

The most shocking part for me was the way that the pilots were talking about the situation. I guess it's a question of desensitisation, but also the language used bears thinking about as well. These actions are much easier to carry out when you are talking about 'engaging targets' and 'eight KIA' rather than 'shooting people' and 'eight dead bodies'...

Hmmmm, I take your point...but even if they did think they were "bad guys" then it's still a little unsavoury to be urging your victim/foe to 'just pick up a weapon' so that you can finish him off.

Also, does anyone know the reason why they shoot/shot the van coming to retrieve the dead bodies?!

The most interesting analysis of the video I've found so far is this one:

http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/

The guy says he can find no justification for attacking the van.

 

[weiran]

Also does anyone know how far the helicopter was from the ground? It looks like to me the chances of a RPG hitting it are very slim to none.

 

[Arkady]

The bit I find morally unacceptable is the desire to shoot/kill the people who come to pick up "the bodies"...

Is there any need/reason to do that? Had that not happened, and they'd waited until the ground-based troops appeared, the 2 children wouldn't have been injured and there was a possibility that Saaed would not have been killed.

The other slightly disturbing aspect is the attitudes of the pilots when shooting...I understand the fact that constant IED attacks and a general unwelcomeness from the local citizens can be tough...but their attitudes were crap, just as bad as the My Lai "de-sensitized" attitude.

I hate to sound-off on this, but Grow-Up, people, please!

The guys coming to claim the bodies today will be the ones shooting at us tomorrow. Kill them now, or they might kill us tomorrow or the next day - it's as simple as that.

As to the other aspect, I'd rather have people who 'enjoy' and who are thus good at this kind of work covering my back, than others who might hold back under fire.
When the decision has been made to go to war, the only variables I want to know about are the ones that will get the maximum number of 'our' guys back in one peice...
The number of enemy dead is of no concern whatsoever, nor the whys and wherefores of their passing...

It is unfortunate that civilians were killed here, but 'innocent' - not entirely.
They chose to work in War-zone, with all the attendant risk that decision entails.

 

[weiran]

I hate to sound-off on this, but Grow-Up, people, please!

The guys coming to claim the bodies today will be the ones shooting at us tomorrow. Kill them now, or they might kill us tomorrow or the next day - it's as simple as that.

As to the other aspect, I'd rather have people who 'enjoy' and who are thus good at this kind of work covering my back, than others who might hold back under fire.
When the decision has been made to go to war, the only variables I want to know about are the ones that will get the maximum number of 'our' guys back in one peice...
The number of enemy dead is of no concern whatsoever, nor the whys and wherefores of their passing...

It is unfortunate that civilians were killed here, but 'innocent' - not entirely.
They chose to work in War-zone, with all the attendant risk that decision entails.

Nice try Pentagon...

 

[jamesb84]

The most shocking part for me was the way that the pilots were talking about the situation. I guess it's a question of desensitisation, but also the language used bears thinking about as well. These actions are much easier to carry out when you are talking about 'engaging targets' and 'eight KIA' rather than 'shooting people' and 'eight dead bodies'...

I suppose the de-sensitization is perhaps necessary to justify it to yourself, but just doesn't quite sit right with me. Perhaps if I watched a load more cockpit videos of insurgents being "engaged" then I'd possibly be more informed about what attitude is necessary!

The most interesting analysis of the video I've found so far is this one:

http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/

The guy says he can find no justification for attacking the van.

It is a good analysis. I'm particularly interested in the statement saying that if the people on the ground were to point their weapons or "weapons" at the helicopter then he wouldn't have hesitated to authorise action...however, they didn't at any point.

That all seems to imply that the pilots had more time that the split second spoken about here and in other comments on the video.

 

[sammyd56]

It is unfortunate that civilians were killed here, but 'innocent' - not entirely.
They chose to work in War-zone, with all the attendant risk that decision entails.

What is your definition of innocent Arkady? Mine is something like "free from evil or guilt". Does choosing to work in a war-zone make them not entirely innocent? What I read from what you're saying is, if you're in a war-zone you're fair game... but this is a country, just like the UK, where people live and work.

Let's keep the debate amicable please...

 

[Arkady]

It's not just like the UK - there was an insurgency happening at that time, with a curfew in place. The area that the Apaches were operating in was a contested area, with contacts occurring against the coalition forces on a daily basis...

Last time I checked there hadn't been too many IED strikes in Knightsbridge...

 

[jamesb84]

The guys coming to claim the bodies today will be the ones shooting at us tomorrow. Kill them now, or they might kill us tomorrow or the next day - it's as simple as that.

I had assumed as much, but it struck me as being a little disrespectful to the dead...however, if the allies of the dead are happy to blow themselves up on occasion, then the argument about respect for the dead loses a little credibility.

As to the other aspect, I'd rather have people who 'enjoy' and who are thus good at this kind of work covering my back, than others who might hold back under fire.
When the decision has been made to go to war, the only variables I want to know about are the ones that will get the maximum number of 'our' guys back in one peice...
The number of enemy dead is of no concern whatsoever, nor the whys and wherefores of their passing...

I've said about this in my post above...given that this is the only cockpit video of an engagement i've seen, perhaps I'm guilty of bias...I'll hold my hands up and admit that.

I guess your attitude is the best to have when you're there...why question the "why" when you're there...just deal with the "getting home".

It is unfortunate that civilians were killed here, but 'innocent' - not entirely.
They chose to work in War-zone, with all the attendant risk that decision entails.

This is where I have to disagree, respectfully. These guys were locals, employed by Reuters to do a job. They didn't ask for the constant attacks by either insurgents or coalition forces. I am well aware that if I were asked to go out to Iraq, I would consider my position with my employers very carefully...and I'd be reading the green book from cover to cover. I agree that by my choice to work out there I would have to accept the risk.

However, these guys were living and working in their own country, if I were to play devils advocate, then;

1. Could we say that life should be put on hold because of the war, and I thought we were trying to "rebuild" Iraq and let people "return to normal"

2. Could we apply the same philosophy of "they chose to work in a war-zone, with all the attendant risk that decision entails" to the many UK soldiers who return injured or dead from Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't imagine I'd be well received back in Wooton Bassett any time soon if I had that view.

Arkady, I fully appreciate your opinions, and they are by far the most valid and factually based here...however, my opinion is different to yours. Is that fair enough!?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

It's not just like the UK - there was an insurgency happening at that time, with a curfew in place. The area that the Apaches were operating in was a contested area, with contacts occurring against the coalition forces on a daily basis...

Last time I checked there hadn't been too many IED strikes in Knightsbridge...

Most of these incidents seem to involve American troops though Rob. I could be wrong, but I don't think our lads have killed any journalists, have they?

 

[Arkady]

...However, these guys were living and working in their own country, if I were to play devils advocate, then;

1. Could we say that life should be put on hold because of the war, and I thought we were trying to "rebuild" Iraq and let people "return to normal"

2. Could we apply the same philosophy of "they chose to work in a war-zone, with all the attendant risk that decision entails" to the many UK soldiers who return injured or dead from Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't imagine I'd be well received back in Wooton Bassett any time soon if I had that view...

I'll deal with #2 first: actually yes - though you're probably right about it not going down well in WB...
We discuss this sort of thing quite a lot - there's no beer there and what else are you going to talk about over an Orange Fanta?
We volunteered to go there, twice, in fact - once to join the Armed Forces and second to go to a combat unit destined for Afghanistan - statistically it's the infantry and EOD engineers that are most at risk there. There are no pressed-men there, we all made a choice.

#1. I have a big problem with the conflict in Iraq - primarily because it was illegal in the first instance and secondly because we dealt with it so badly following the collapse of the Iraqi Armed forces.
I say 'we' as in coalition, but in reality the USA FUBAR'd it...
The military on all side knew how to deal with it so that Iraq could return to normality within a matter of months, but were overruled by senior members of th Bush administration who were out to line their pockets.

However, regardless of why we were there, the reality once on the ground is that some people chose to pick up weapons and use them agaainst us.
The civilian population knew who the combatants were in many cases and were occasionally complicit in those attacks against us. If you know Akhmed and Abdul are planning an attack and you don't pick up the phone, how guilty are you?

The local stringers working for the western and Iraqi media know the dangers and accept them. I've met a few and they're unbelievable in their dedication to what they do.
It is sad, but it's a part of the job...seriously...

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

Its bizzare that people tend to judge a war situation sitting in the comfort of their home. How many here had to face a situation of 'kill or be killed' I wonder.

In war, people die. Sometimes they happen to be innocent ones. Some happen to be journos. But mostly, they are enemies. besides, these guys dont engage within the bounds of Geneva convention, do they.

And what's this thing about language? What were the pilots supposed to do? Hold a wake for the dead?

These are professional soldiers; they are doing their best in very trying situation. And most of the time, they are doing the right thing. Thats good enough.

I actually wonder what this wikileak is, and who funds that sort of propaganda machinery? Why don't the wikileaks go and report about the artocities of the terrorists; and their violation of human right.

As I said, its easy to be an arm-chair general sitting at home million miles away from the war zone.

 

[Arkady]

Most of these incidents seem to involve American troops though Rob. I could be wrong, but I don't think our lads have killed any journalists, have they?

It's come close - Julian Manyon and Tom Newton-Dunn are only alive today because of massive restraint by UK troops following repeated outbursts of petulance and teddys-out-of-prams incidents in Iraq and Afghan...

Our ROE differ quite markedly from US troops...they can legitimately shoot at targets after they've dropped thier weapons and are running away, for example - we cannot...there are other differences but without having a Card-Alpha in front of me I'm going to leave it at that...

It instills a different mindset.

We are quite reticent about opening fire, sometimes to our detriment, whereas the Americans are not - sometimes to the detriment of others...

But everyone there knows this and adjusts accordingly...
One way to avoid being 'brassed-up' by Apaches is to stay at home during curfew...

You notice that the pilot still had to gain clearance from a higher-authority before opening fire - these safeguards are there for precisely that reason - mistakes still happen, but a lot less than they did in Korea, Vietnam or even WW2...

 

[POAH]

I don't get the fuss here.

armed men where attacked in Iraq who where not part of the security force. If, as a war correspondant, you choose to shadow these people you have to accept the risk you'll get fired apon. The pilots require permission to fire as per the ROE. Yes its sad that these journos where killed but its a risk they take.

The main problem with these videos is the media and what they write about them.

 

[weiran]

F*** Off Zhang.
I've been there, you haven't.

I actually wonder what this wikileak is, and who funds that sort of propaganda machinery? Why don't the wikileaks go and report about the artocities of the terrorists; and their violation of human right.

The mainstream press does enough of that already. Wikileaks is exposing the lies of the Pentagon rather than the brutality of war. Is anyone really surprised that innocents got killed in Iraq? Of course not, but the Pentagon's cover up of those accidental killings is the real issue here.

They're the ones creating propaganda, they want to create a very clean image of war for public support reasons. To say that they didn't know how the photographer and his driver died is a clear lie to cover up this accident.

 

[jamesb84]

...However, regardless of why we were there, the reality once on the ground is that some people chose to pick up weapons and use them agaainst us.
The civilian population knew who the combatants were in many cases and were occasionally complicit in those attacks against us. If you know Akhmed and Abdul are planning an attack and you don't pick up the phone, how guilty are you?

The local stringers working for the western and Iraqi media know the dangers and accept them. I've met a few and they're unbelievable in their dedication to what they do.
It is sad, but it's a part of the job...seriously...

I agree, the local stringers do know the dangers, and without wanting to sound harsh...I'm glad it's them and not me. Not for the "phew I'm still alive and what do they matter" thought, but actually, who are the locals going to trust more?! Guys from nearby or the white boy from the UK!! Plus, they do get some outstanding pictures...

With regard to your first point (well, actually I cut out the first bit of your reply) about being complicit...is there not an element of intimidation surrounding the insurgent attacks?! If you phone the police/coalition forces about Abdul and Akhmed...surely Abdul and Akhmed's mates will come round and kick the crap out of you...or worse? I know it's devils advocate again, but can you blame the local population for not doing anything about it!!??

As for the comment from "ujjwaldey8165"...surely you've just become the armchair general there by dismissing the wikileaks video? No-one said wikileaks wasn't biased...just the same as clearly Fox News is biased. You've also been guilty within your post of judging the situation from your armchair haven't you?

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

. Wikileaks is exposing the lies of the Pentagon rather than the brutality of war. Is anyone really surprised that innocents got killed in Iraq? Of course not, but the Pentagon's cover up of those accidental killings is the real issue here.

They're the ones creating propaganda, they want to create a very clean image of war for public support reasons. To say that they didn't know how the photographer and his driver died is a clear lie to cover up this accident.

How do you know pentagon lies? Are you not making unsubstantiated allegations here? I would rather believe pentagon than a shadowy organisation with dubious funding like wikileaks. How do we know that some other country - china or russia for example- is not funding wikileaks to weaken USA/UK?

War is never clean, the whole aim of war is to kill. Mostly kill the enemy, but if in doubt, kill anyways. And that means innocents get killed. Where is the big deal in this? And whats the need for cover ups?

Of course, for those who have already made up their mind due to their political position/belief/ vested interests, nothing can convince them otherwise

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

As for the comment from "ujjwaldey8165"...surely you've just become the armchair general there by dismissing the wikileaks video? No-one said wikileaks wasn't biased...just the same as clearly Fox News is biased. You've also been guilty within your post of judging the situation from your armchair haven't you?

I have not made any judgements about the situation. I have simply chosen to believe that the coalition forces are highly trained professional soldiers, and are doing the best under the circumstances. And if they have made any mistake, its just unavoidable and only to be expected in a war situation. In other words, I trust that the coalition forces are doing the right thing.

And I have expressed my distrust at wikileaks, and their motives; and selective release of videos to prove a point. I am not paranoid about governments in USA, UK etc. I much more distrustful and paranoid about these shadowy internet based harbingers or truth and reality

 

[Myky D]

Edited.

 

[jamesb84]

And I have expressed my distrust at wikileaks, and their motives; and selective release of videos to prove a point. I am not paranoid about governments in USA, UK etc. I much more distrustful and paranoid about these shadowy internet based harbingers or truth and reality

Though the video has been verified by the US DoD? Would you have believed it more if it had been sent to The Sun/Daily Mail/Telegraph/Fox News/CNN or displayed on a US Gov website?

What you're describing though, with selective releases of a video, motives etc is exactly the same as any newspaper or television channel...there's no difference is there?

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

Though the video has been verified by the US DoD? Would you have believed it more if it had been sent to The Sun/Daily Mail/Telegraph/Fox News/CNN or displayed on a US Gov website?

What you're describing though, with selective releases of a video, motives etc is exactly the same as any newspaper or television channel...there's no difference is there?

What has not been told is the events that happened before what was shown in the video. For example, why was air support called in? what was the intelligence available. What happened in a similar circustance before?
You and me will not know it; because we will not have access to these info. And I for one will assume that the soldiers did the right thing, unless there is overwhelming proof to the contrary, which is absent here. And even then, I'll say : all's fair in a war.

With newspapaer and video channels one knows the ownership. I would not have relied on a Pravda for accurate journalism, for example. In any case, I am not justifying the news reporting of news paper or another, simply expressing my distrust for the shadowy internet based organisations

 

[Hairyduck]

Slightly off topic, but how far away are those helicopters when they fire like that? Out of ear shot?

They start off at 1200m away and move to 750m away to fire

Having watched it a few times I'd defo say rocket launcher and put in the same position in the helicopter I would be firing too, they're definitely armed when they start walking towards the corner and one defo appears to be carrying an RPG. Have a look on a large screen in the hd setting and you'll see a lot more.

At the end of the day it's a war zone, people get killed in wars, it's not very nice but then nothing to do with war is

 

[AndyB]

It's a scarey video and there may wel have been innocent people there. However if I was innocent and had a couple of choppers flying roung and round like that I would be inclined to stand in the open and let them see I wasnt armed or threatening. If I was there collecting the wounded after the first shooting I would certainly put my hands up in surrender.

Nobody on the ground made any attempt to communicate with the chopper crews in anyway and whilst i might have had tears in my eyes when I did it - I would have fired at them. I wouldnt have gone gung ho like those guys who seemed a little over proud of themselves but showing you mean business might have been better.