Camera mistaken for RPG... do you buy it?
- Thread starter sammyd56
- Start date
- Status
pete.rush
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
Harvey_nikon
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,749
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You have absolutely no proof that this is the case though. Why couldn't they be just innocent people trying to help someone that has been wounded?
At what point did they choose to work there or live there? Were they not there before we went in with our troops?
It's kind of like saying the Jews in Germany bought it on themselves because they chose to live there. Did the people that lived in Northern Ireland during the conflict there bring it on themselves?
Yes, war isn't clear cut, but clear intelligence is a must and yes, mistakes will be made and innocent people killed but at least we should put our hands up when we do make a mistake. The public know this, but they don't like being lied too.
As for the comments of glee from the pilots, these guys deal with it day in and day out, they become desensitised to it. The general public may not like it but it's not something we will understand unless we've been there!
Which would explain a lot regarding his views of the US policy in Iraq...
Actually we agree on that - as far as the politics goes...
Just that when push comes to shove, you either push first and worry about the rest of it later on...
...or get shoved...and that's never a good thing...
Actually we agree on that - as far as the politics goes...
Just that when push comes to shove, you either push first and worry about the rest of it later on...
...or get shoved...and that's never a good thing...
No I don't, but neither do you have any proof otherwise...
The decision rested with the pilot - as long as he was convinced they were insurgents or insurgent supporters (and that's another issue that I don't have eeither the time or energy to copy out 3,000-odd pages of policy documents about), then he was justified in opening fire under the ROE as they stood at that time.
What Washington or the Pentagon did subsequently is a seperate issue and not related to the legality of his opening fire.
If you want to debate Washington policy and cover-up issues, fine, but don't try to second-guess combat-soldiers decisions please.
Little John
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,051
- Edit My Images
- No
I have watched this video a few times and each time I see it I think the same thing, I would have done the same thing.
The copter was 750m+ away can you tell the difference between a camera with a long lens and a gun/rpg? An AK47 yeah but not an rpg but they had them on straps over their shoulders and at it round the back so the lens as it stuck out did look like the blunt end of a gun. Anything long and thin from that distance will look the same.
The guy hiding from the copter round the wall looked suspicious even more so when the camera stuck out in front of him.
You see 2 people with what looks like guns or rpg's in an area that is known for attacks on troops what do you do? hope they aren't what you think they are then find out to late that they were?
The insurgents are known to blend in with locals so 2 rpg carrying people in a group of others seems pretty normal actions of insurgents.
The van that turned up to help were they wrong to assume that they were armed just like those on the ground? after all they are helping people that were armed and not US forces. For all they knew they could have been armed to the teeth.
The other thing to consider is that they had called ground troops to the area, if the van was containing insurgents and the troops turned up all hell would have broke out.
The way it was covered up is wrong but if you have people in the field would you not protect them and back them in every way you can? In a normal situation you make a mistake you get reprimanded or disciplined in the worst case sacked but the chance you end up dead or the guys you work with end up dead you can't risk making a mistake that turns out against you like that.
Were they trigger happy? their joy and shooting people was shocking but these were suspected insurgents so they were doing what they were there to do and shoot the enemy and ensure they and other US troops don't end up dead.
The language used same thing they are a group of mainly blokes who are friends and would die for each other so they use language that is used in that situation.
It was tragic that apparently Innocent people died as a result of the actions of the gunship but if they hadn't taken the action then there could have been 20 or so US troops that approached the area dead. Is it a case of rather them than us I don't know there is the news of British troops returning and paraded through Wooten Basset every week nearly, if actions like this prevent another of our troops returning in a body bag then so be it.
These guys are out there in not the best conditions working under incredible pressure trying to make life better for the people of Iraq (make our fuel cost less) what ever the reason they are there and they need to be able to do their job and return home safe.
The copter was 750m+ away can you tell the difference between a camera with a long lens and a gun/rpg? An AK47 yeah but not an rpg but they had them on straps over their shoulders and at it round the back so the lens as it stuck out did look like the blunt end of a gun. Anything long and thin from that distance will look the same.
The guy hiding from the copter round the wall looked suspicious even more so when the camera stuck out in front of him.
You see 2 people with what looks like guns or rpg's in an area that is known for attacks on troops what do you do? hope they aren't what you think they are then find out to late that they were?
The insurgents are known to blend in with locals so 2 rpg carrying people in a group of others seems pretty normal actions of insurgents.
The van that turned up to help were they wrong to assume that they were armed just like those on the ground? after all they are helping people that were armed and not US forces. For all they knew they could have been armed to the teeth.
The other thing to consider is that they had called ground troops to the area, if the van was containing insurgents and the troops turned up all hell would have broke out.
The way it was covered up is wrong but if you have people in the field would you not protect them and back them in every way you can? In a normal situation you make a mistake you get reprimanded or disciplined in the worst case sacked but the chance you end up dead or the guys you work with end up dead you can't risk making a mistake that turns out against you like that.
Were they trigger happy? their joy and shooting people was shocking but these were suspected insurgents so they were doing what they were there to do and shoot the enemy and ensure they and other US troops don't end up dead.
The language used same thing they are a group of mainly blokes who are friends and would die for each other so they use language that is used in that situation.
It was tragic that apparently Innocent people died as a result of the actions of the gunship but if they hadn't taken the action then there could have been 20 or so US troops that approached the area dead. Is it a case of rather them than us I don't know there is the news of British troops returning and paraded through Wooten Basset every week nearly, if actions like this prevent another of our troops returning in a body bag then so be it.
These guys are out there in not the best conditions working under incredible pressure trying to make life better for the people of Iraq (make our fuel cost less) what ever the reason they are there and they need to be able to do their job and return home safe.
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't think in this case you can seperate the two things though. From the policy and cover up issues it loooks as though there is something to hide. Rightly, many of the actions of our armed services are under increased media scutiny, and the decision to cover up makes it look as though there was a problem relating to the legality of him opening fire.
Harvey_nikon
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,749
- Edit My Images
- Yes
At no point have I tried to second guess, despite (imho) it clearly being a camera as he looks around the wall. He made his decision in the heat of battle and that was that.
However, your point about me needing proof that the people helping weren't guilty, isn't one of the points of fighting over there is to give them a freely democratic society like ours? one in which you are innocent until proven guilty?
I understand why the mistake was made, however, the shooting on the van wasn't based on any intel at all, they didn't see weapons, they just saw people helping someone else.
regarding the washington policy comment I believe falloutboy has put it well
However, your point about me needing proof that the people helping weren't guilty, isn't one of the points of fighting over there is to give them a freely democratic society like ours? one in which you are innocent until proven guilty?
In an ideal situation, yes.
In combat (which is never ideal), no and under the ROE as they stood at the time, no.
There was a curfew in place - they were in violation of that. They were assisting insurgents or suspected insurgents.
Therefore they were a legitimate target.
It's not perfect.
It's not fair.
It's not nice.
But it's what we have to deal with.
We`ve not been much in contact with British units. Primarly we operated with us marincorp( both Iraq and Afghanistan) which was eye opening experience. Also we worked with Germans, Spanish (short period, afetr train bombs they left) and with few other nations taking part in MND CS in camp Echo or Lima.
If you've worked with the US Marines then I fully understand where you're coming from and I sympathise.
I worked with them in Nowzad back in November and yes - it was an eye-opener!!!
Nice blokes but they really don't get it with regard hearts and minds...
I worked with them in Nowzad back in November and yes - it was an eye-opener!!!
Nice blokes but they really don't get it with regard hearts and minds...
I think its all about how much you are willing to pay to safe guard you interests.
Governments are willing to risk hasty plans and preparations, lose personnel, equipments, hostiles and civillians. No visible bars hold up to the point the media starts squeezing them.
The guys on the ground want to be safe and have their buddies safe even if that means relaxing what is understood to be a threat or justified measures.
Civilians at home don't want any innocent people to die, and killing is justifiable where a clear threat is present.
We operate on the mindset of our situation and lawful rules.
Although I can find despicable that the people involved in this war (on both sides) have flexed their boundaries of the acceptable so much I know that I am not there and I cannot say I would not do the same.
It is very tempting to take high ground, because we know it is right thing, and the people on the ground knew that at same point too. But that is also a luxury we have and others not.
Modern warfare also helps, killing is made easier. Not that the mind, but still, I am sure that you do not have now the huge numbers of soldiers failing to hit the target or even fire their weapons that you had in WWII.
Governments are willing to risk hasty plans and preparations, lose personnel, equipments, hostiles and civillians. No visible bars hold up to the point the media starts squeezing them.
The guys on the ground want to be safe and have their buddies safe even if that means relaxing what is understood to be a threat or justified measures.
Civilians at home don't want any innocent people to die, and killing is justifiable where a clear threat is present.
We operate on the mindset of our situation and lawful rules.
Although I can find despicable that the people involved in this war (on both sides) have flexed their boundaries of the acceptable so much I know that I am not there and I cannot say I would not do the same.
It is very tempting to take high ground, because we know it is right thing, and the people on the ground knew that at same point too. But that is also a luxury we have and others not.
Modern warfare also helps, killing is made easier. Not that the mind, but still, I am sure that you do not have now the huge numbers of soldiers failing to hit the target or even fire their weapons that you had in WWII.
Grow up little man. These are trained professionals who excel at killing hostiles. Unfortunately these professionals are also human, and humans make mistakes. The exam question was:
'do you buy the story about a camera being mistaken for a weapon?'
(my view is yes I do - the gungho comments are unfortunate but, taken in context are probably at the extreme end of understandable.)
The exam question was not:
'please have a pathetic rant about a war that you don't understand and aren't disciplined enough to learn about'
Expecting a tirade of small minded abuse but, as the saying goes 'sticks and stones ......'
Cheesy
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
no abuse but my answer to the question is
"I could of believed it, but the unfortunate cover up coupled with the unfortunate gung ho commentary makes me think they knew they had something to hide - and as far as I can see that something can only be they exaggerated the level of threat they believed they were under at he time"
Splog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
I can think of no justification whatsoever for either the war in Afghanistan or Iraq or even the forthcoming war on Iran and absolutely detest the politics, lies, propaganda and corruption that fuels the support for such wars! ... I seriously disagree with The US World Police, Gung Ho shoot first and shoot again policy :thumbsdown:
However:
Having watched the video all 17 mins. or so I honestly feel these guys acted both professionally and correctly! They assessed the situation as they saw it and dealt with it professionally. The sad outcome is exactly that and nothing more! .. Look at the way they tried to help the children, hardly uncaring, they really did their best to help them.
I just wonder if this thread referenced the daily mail instead of WikiLeaks :shrug: how difference the response would have been by some :shake:
However:
Having watched the video all 17 mins. or so I honestly feel these guys acted both professionally and correctly! They assessed the situation as they saw it and dealt with it professionally. The sad outcome is exactly that and nothing more! .. Look at the way they tried to help the children, hardly uncaring, they really did their best to help them.
I just wonder if this thread referenced the daily mail instead of WikiLeaks :shrug: how difference the response would have been by some :shake:
ding76uk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,096
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cheesy, you are no the only person on this forum who knows about war and why or why not we are there, even some people who have not been to war will know, they are called educated human beings!
Anyway, my point
This is what makes me sick about all this. Innocents get killed which are non US/UK and all we here is "Deal with it" "Man up" "You're not there, you will never be able to know", even through to "kill em all" "they all deserve to die anyway". Sorry but that is ********, innocent people died, a mistake, which is unfortunate did happen and I have no issue with that, but the comments both on the video and on here are sickening.
By this logic, when someone from allied forces dies, surely the same applies. They are doing there job. They knew the risks when they joined up, so if they die, tough it does not make them heroes, just an accident, never mind, wrong place wrong time. We should all "man up" and "get over it" etc. etc. But no we go all Hope for Heroes and how everyone who dies or is injured in the war is a hero who deserves our support, when by the logic (and racism in some cases) of this thread it is a case of they should not have been where they were at that time, death happens, deal with it.
The point is, an innocent life is an innocent life, and unfortunately the innocents that die are English speaking!
Anyway, my point
This is what makes me sick about all this. Innocents get killed which are non US/UK and all we here is "Deal with it" "Man up" "You're not there, you will never be able to know", even through to "kill em all" "they all deserve to die anyway". Sorry but that is ********, innocent people died, a mistake, which is unfortunate did happen and I have no issue with that, but the comments both on the video and on here are sickening.
By this logic, when someone from allied forces dies, surely the same applies. They are doing there job. They knew the risks when they joined up, so if they die, tough it does not make them heroes, just an accident, never mind, wrong place wrong time. We should all "man up" and "get over it" etc. etc. But no we go all Hope for Heroes and how everyone who dies or is injured in the war is a hero who deserves our support, when by the logic (and racism in some cases) of this thread it is a case of they should not have been where they were at that time, death happens, deal with it.
The point is, an innocent life is an innocent life, and unfortunately the innocents that die are English speaking!
ding76uk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,096
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry for my little outburst towards Cheesy offends, but surely responding to someone as "little man" is also worthy of a comment from yourself? I found his comment insulting towards a lot of people, but my outburst was not the right way to respond. I stand by the rest of my post though!
- Messages
- 10,135
- Edit My Images
- No
Just read a qoute by Little John, and quote....I have watched this video a few times
Now its ok for everyone to do this and come up with quotes like, its a camera, but thats because we have the power to rewind the video or slow it down yet the pilots probably got a fleeting glance and couldnt rewind.........they had to make a desision and pretty damm quick, I am with Rob on this one the pilots simply didnt have time to see the real picture and had no alternative but to engage or maybe lose a gunship to what at first glimpse does look like a suspect item being pointed around a corner, as for the van why was there no markings on the roof so it could be identified from the air and shown as friendly, it all stacks up to a tragic accidental engagement that couldnt be avoided
Now its ok for everyone to do this and come up with quotes like, its a camera, but thats because we have the power to rewind the video or slow it down yet the pilots probably got a fleeting glance and couldnt rewind.........they had to make a desision and pretty damm quick, I am with Rob on this one the pilots simply didnt have time to see the real picture and had no alternative but to engage or maybe lose a gunship to what at first glimpse does look like a suspect item being pointed around a corner, as for the van why was there no markings on the roof so it could be identified from the air and shown as friendly, it all stacks up to a tragic accidental engagement that couldnt be avoided
Amp34
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,859
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Now this I think is the main problem people have. Very few people see the war in Iraq as just and that makes incidents like this much harder to swallow. If we were in a WW2 situation people probably wouldn't bat an eye lid, however the fact most people believe we shouldn't even be there is a major deal. In essence those people shouldn't have had to have died.
That also gives a lot of people from the UK a certain amount of sympathy for those in Iraq who are fighting our Army. All they are doing is defending their country, just like we would do if someone invaded us (disregarding any foreign fighters for a minute). That, followed by the fact gun ownership in Iraq (and the middle east as a whole) is almost 100% and you have a problem, just because they have a gun doesn't mean they are insurgents...
It's a real shame we have had to stick our armed forces in that position and our soldiers were dying fighting an illegal war against people defending their country from an illegal invasion.
Amp34
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,859
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The problem is it's not quite as simple as that.
For those saying "why didn't he see the Helicopter", well it was over 1km away, on it's own not a major distance but considering it's a war zone with helicopters flying around all day and night there are probably helicopters closer than that daily.
The bloke on the phone could have been telling someone else about the Helicopter, or even getting information about it/coordinating an attack, a valid reason for engagement.
What doesn't sit right with me in the matter however is the fact they were just meandering around, not threatening. However I doubt those going to fight would be running around and sneaking along walls, generally looking suspicious, as they are more likely to get shot...
Amp34
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,859
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well good job you're not...
If that were the case there would be absolute chaos and even more dead and wounded on both sides and Iraq a total Vietnam...
The British "invented" the phrase "hearts and minds", meaning you don't win this kind of war with force alone. You use force, but sparingly and only when needed, the rest of the time you try and win the locals over, make their lives better and they will probably help you rather than the people fighting you. Shoot too many locals and they will turn against you, meaning you have to shoot them to, and then their family, and their family...
The US has grown up since Vietnam, where pretty much anything was fair game, but they still don't quite understand the whole "hearts and minds" thing as much as the British army, and partly why the areas the Americans controlled were in a worse state WRT insurgency than the British areas. We went around with berets and guns by our sides, the Americans went around with sunglasses, tanks, helmets and guns at the ready.
(Yeah I am simplifying it a lot but it's essentially correct)
Unfortunately not everyone is trained equally...
With regards to the Apache Pilots view of the action, as far as I can remember the cannon is connected to his head and a screen in front of one of his eyes (attached to the helmet). He moves his head and the cannon follows it, showing the video stream of what the cannon "sees" in front of one of his eyes. This is partly why you have the strange flick thing the cannon does before the bullets hit, he's flicking his head slightly whilst firing (and shows how dar away he is, it takes at least a couple of seconds to for the rounds to hit).
http://abinitioadinfinitum.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/apache-pilot.jpg
Like that.
So much better than a screen in the cockpit but not quite as good as a full HD screen, especially when his other eye is making sure he can see where he is flying!
...With regards to the Apache Pilots view of the action, as far as I can remember the cannon is connected to his head and a screen in front of one of his eyes (attached to the helmet). He moves his head and the cannon follows it, showing the video stream of what the cannon "sees" in front of one of his eyes. This is partly why you have the strange flick thing the cannon does before the bullets hit, he's flicking his head slightly whilst firing (and shows how dar away he is, it takes at least a couple of seconds to for the rounds to hit).
So much better than a screen in the cockpit but not quite as good as a full HD screen, especially when his other eye is making sure he can see where he is flying!
You do know that Apaches have two crew members, don't you - the pilot, who flies the thing and a gunner who shoots, independent of where the pilot happens to be looking.
Additionally, the US use Apache differently to the UK - we have less of them.
The US method is to deploy one 'Bowman' type command and control Apache with all the gizmos or a Kiowa (Jet-Ranger) fitted with the same 'eyes and ears' as a flying command post.
Around this flying commander will be four 'Gunfighters' - stripped-down Apaches just carrying guns and missiles. The footage from the gunfighters is up-linked to the C&C helicopter who controls the battle, leaving the gunfighters to concentrate on killing the targets that the controller selects for them.
The modern battlefield is a dynamic environment and one man cannot hope to know what's going on all around him all the time.
The CP will have 'Blue Force tracker' that gives instantaneous location reports of all friendly vehicles in the vicinity (to avoid repetitions of previous 'blue-on-blue' incidents, we now have them fitted in most of our vehicles too).
Again, even with this five-ship formation (usually in theatre it's scaled-down to two or three depending on the threat-level), they have over-watch by a ground-based controller - usually a Lt-Colonel or higher, who has ultimate authority over who fires what at whom.
The issue here isn't whether the pilot should have fired or not, it's what the Pentagon thought it would achieve by not releasing the footage sooner.
Maybe not, but it might help explain who all the voices belong to...
Just a thought
If we had not read the story before seeing the video, and just watched it for the first time without any knowledge
of there being a reuters cameraman amongst them.
Would any us watching on large screens with the benefit of freeze frame, slo mo playback and sitting comfortably in our safe homes, would ever have noticed or even realised the guy was carrying a camera and not an rpg rocket launcher, I THINK NOT
If we had not read the story before seeing the video, and just watched it for the first time without any knowledge
of there being a reuters cameraman amongst them.
Would any us watching on large screens with the benefit of freeze frame, slo mo playback and sitting comfortably in our safe homes, would ever have noticed or even realised the guy was carrying a camera and not an rpg rocket launcher, I THINK NOT
But they do. While the aircrew have to make thier decisions based on real-time evaluation, the ground-based command post watches that footage on 32" plasma screens - one observer to each set of four screens. A typical CP will have four banks of four screens and will be showing continuous footage from any drones that are on-station as well as up-linked footage from other aerial assets that are involved in an incident.
When an incident is on-going, that footage will be streamed to the commander's screen in addition to all the other screens as well as that of the nominated controller.
When something 'kicks-off' you'll have about four or five highly-trained analysts all crowding round so as to give the maximum eyes-on any given situation, passing their assessments to the ccontroller who will in turn filter what he's getting from the analysts and pass that on to the pilot or the airborne controller.
I can't give you too much detail on this for obvious reasons, but we do have the ability to freeze-frame and replay footage as the incident plays out.
I've actually watched this happen and what we initially thought to be a weapon turned out to be a shovel carried on a bloke's shoulder, but it took about five minutes with six people looking at the screen as a drone circled round filming this guy for them to make a positive identification.
I couldn't tell what was what from looking at it...it's a lot more difficult than you'd think.
Nicci
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 675
- Name
- Nic, Nicci, Nicola
- Edit My Images
- Yes
TG.
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,905
- Name
- Tel
- Edit My Images
- No
Indeed, whatever the rights and wrongs of this issue, i've found some of the info from Rob on here fascinating, you just don't realise how much go's into the workings of a war, no wonder they cost so much bloody money.
Matt Rimmer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 283
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes they were doing there job. Yes they made a mistake. I havent been to war as I disagree with British troops being in Afghanistan and Iraq. For one Iraq was and still is illegal but I doubt Bush will be brought to trail for war crimes. Afghanistan led us to being attacked.
Back to topic. The Pilots and rest of the crew in the Apache had a few moments to judge the situation. They acted how they did trying to protect themselves and colleagues. For that we cant blame them. However there total disrespect for the dead cant be defended. You cant defend them when they were laughing at the fact one of the Hummers ran over a dead body. I also think it would have been different had the U.S not tried to cover it up. And on a side note I would be interested to see the second attack that the Apaches did on the third photographer at the same site.
Back to topic. The Pilots and rest of the crew in the Apache had a few moments to judge the situation. They acted how they did trying to protect themselves and colleagues. For that we cant blame them. However there total disrespect for the dead cant be defended. You cant defend them when they were laughing at the fact one of the Hummers ran over a dead body. I also think it would have been different had the U.S not tried to cover it up. And on a side note I would be interested to see the second attack that the Apaches did on the third photographer at the same site.
Amp34
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,859
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, however I couldn't remember 100% (I did say as far as I remember).
Interesting to know.
And I agree, I didn't mention the did anything wrong, although I disagree with what they did I see why they did it.
Have been following this thread with interest from work where I don't have YouTube access. Based on the comments here, I was expecting a group looking shifty slash diving for cover when the Apache was sighted, then somebody poking round the corner with a big camera that could be mistaken for pointing a RPG or other weapon at the helicopter, the gunner having a split second to react and thinking "hostile" in which case, fair play there's enough to suggest they are at best "up to no good" and it would seem reasonable to engage.
Before continuing, I'm very much not anti-war and fully support our troops and appreciate the difficult and frankly awful conditions out there (as much as one can remotely - nobody can understand unless they've been there, as has been pointed out in this thread; but that doesn't rob us of an opinion). But having viewed the video, my expected reaction of support is quite the opposite and I find it very difficult to defend.
The subject of this post is misleading - it's not a camera mistaken for an RPG, it's a camera being mistaken for an AK47 that lead to the "roger, engage" - they'd already got the go ahead, having seen a couple of guys walking in a crowd with a strap over their shoulder, to open fire on the group (and dunno how it suddenly went from "that's a weapon" to "5-6 AK47s"). To me (naive as I may be), it looked like just a fairly normal group of people in a courtyard and then subsequently milling about on a street corner - I appreciate they may not have been "allowed" to be there, but there is nothing that I can see that leaps out "threat" to me. At worst I'd want to be very damn sure that was a gun before firing rather than "ye, that's a weapon, permission to engage?".
And even post-"camera mistaken for an RPG on the street corner", if the group had really pointed an RPG at an Apache would they stand around perfectly innocently in view of the Apache. Maybe, but I would have imagined that the group would disperse and take cover if they were "hostiles".
I appreciate what Arkady and the others are saying and there are definitely mitigating factors at play, and maybe this is just the cold face of war. But to me seeing a couple of camera straps and claiming you've got 15 hostiles totting AK47s and RPGs is a bit hard to swallow. If they were "behind enemy lines" then fair enough, but in a courtyard in the capital city where there are more non-hostiles than hostiles? Of course there's no such thing as "behind enemy lines" in most conflicts today, but that to me suggests you need to be even more - not less - careful to avoid "collateral damage" (horribly clinical term). You surely need to remove all reasonable level of doubt before engaging not less, particularly where there is no immediate threat - remembering they got the thumbs up to engage based on the guys walking along with their cameras, not pointing the "RPG".
The experts will say this is within the "rules of engagement" and they may be right, but to me this strongly suggests that they're not or that the rules of engagement are wrong, and the "cover-up" would seem to support that.
Before continuing, I'm very much not anti-war and fully support our troops and appreciate the difficult and frankly awful conditions out there (as much as one can remotely - nobody can understand unless they've been there, as has been pointed out in this thread; but that doesn't rob us of an opinion). But having viewed the video, my expected reaction of support is quite the opposite and I find it very difficult to defend.
The subject of this post is misleading - it's not a camera mistaken for an RPG, it's a camera being mistaken for an AK47 that lead to the "roger, engage" - they'd already got the go ahead, having seen a couple of guys walking in a crowd with a strap over their shoulder, to open fire on the group (and dunno how it suddenly went from "that's a weapon" to "5-6 AK47s"). To me (naive as I may be), it looked like just a fairly normal group of people in a courtyard and then subsequently milling about on a street corner - I appreciate they may not have been "allowed" to be there, but there is nothing that I can see that leaps out "threat" to me. At worst I'd want to be very damn sure that was a gun before firing rather than "ye, that's a weapon, permission to engage?".
And even post-"camera mistaken for an RPG on the street corner", if the group had really pointed an RPG at an Apache would they stand around perfectly innocently in view of the Apache. Maybe, but I would have imagined that the group would disperse and take cover if they were "hostiles".
I appreciate what Arkady and the others are saying and there are definitely mitigating factors at play, and maybe this is just the cold face of war. But to me seeing a couple of camera straps and claiming you've got 15 hostiles totting AK47s and RPGs is a bit hard to swallow. If they were "behind enemy lines" then fair enough, but in a courtyard in the capital city where there are more non-hostiles than hostiles? Of course there's no such thing as "behind enemy lines" in most conflicts today, but that to me suggests you need to be even more - not less - careful to avoid "collateral damage" (horribly clinical term). You surely need to remove all reasonable level of doubt before engaging not less, particularly where there is no immediate threat - remembering they got the thumbs up to engage based on the guys walking along with their cameras, not pointing the "RPG".
The experts will say this is within the "rules of engagement" and they may be right, but to me this strongly suggests that they're not or that the rules of engagement are wrong, and the "cover-up" would seem to support that.
- Status