US Soldier Charged with Leaking Video of Reuters' Photographer Being Killed

Tbh, if I wasnt told they were civilians before hand, and there was no audio on the clip then I would have gotten twitchy in the situation (I imagine). then when they say 'Its an RPG!' when he is ducking down around the corner, and honestly with that grainy image it could well look like one.

I can see Fracster's point, if someone in a warzone, (all-be-it one in the middle of a town) has what you think may be a RPG then I think anyone would want to assess the situation further.

All that said though, the fact they were willing the fatally wounded man crawling around on the floor to magically pull a weapon so that they could continue shoot him again with a 30mm cannon is disgusting.
That and laughing at tanks driving over bodies, 'oh well their fault for bringing their kids to battle' and "keep shooting, keep shooting, keep shooting" at the stationary seemingly dead body on the floor makes my stomach turn. Could tell that all that guy wanted to do was shoot and just keep shooting (admittedly it's what they are paid for, but bloody hell..).

Disclaimer:
I'm not claiming to know the stresses etc of war, I have never served, doubtfully ever will which makes me respect those stronger than me (mentally/physically) to do/have done such a profession.
 
It's not only about actions, it's about attitude.... and no, they're no more in danger sitting in their armoured apache a mile away than I am sitting in my lounge... too much 'Ha, ha, look what we just did' for my liking.... extreme is what they did, not what I wrote...
 
Just Dave said:
Good Analogy Sean, but zoom and lens come to mind
Click to expand...

Yes, which you can see them using throughout the video.

They zoomed in, they assessed the situation before engaging. They see a guy crouching behind a wall corner with a long barrel object which they already think is an RPG, his body position almost confirms this.

I'd hate to go and call you ignorant because I know you aren't, but you're doing exactly what these US troops have done: you're looking for something and finding it because you want to.

If you didn't know he had a camera and the video didn't explain what had happened, I'd challenge you to see it. I really would.

I would just like to confirm that I don't condone those actions - they couldn't wait to pull the trigger. But imo under the rules of engagement their first engagement was a valid one, irrelevent of their attitude. Their attitude is disgusting and very separated from the understanding of the consequences of their actions, and the rest of the video confirms this.
 
neil_g said:
that makes sense, thank you :)
Click to expand...
I might be wrong though, but that was the rule during the UK peacekeeping in Kosovo.

The way I see this, and many people have said this before me, is that the men in the Apache are watching people on a screen. They are emotionally removed from the fight, it's like playing a computer game to them. They aren't under stress, they just want to kill people. Blood lust does not give people the right to kill.
 
looked at this, the helicopter is roughly about 3500-4000 feet away, so the crew are definitely removed from the situation, and the group are showing no signs of threatening behaviour, at that distance the group are not even alerted/evasive to the presence of the helicopter, i can see no reason to engage this group, unless there had been activity in the area immediately prior to this engagement. then these where unfortunate souls who got court up in an aftermath.

Regards merc
 
Arkady said:
Hard to disagree with that assessment - it's not the first time either...

Maybe the initial contact is understandable - with hindsight the Canon lens is clearly identifiable, but if you're expecting to see an RPG, then that's what it looks like.
I did see one individual in the background behind the photographer with what looked to me like an unloaded RPG-launcher...

The subsequent attack on what was obviously a civilian ambulance (I've been there - they all look like that) was totally outrageous...no weapons visible, no immediate threat other than the removal of the 'combatants'...
Click to expand...

I don't get it, when this same video was posted a few months ago your opinions were the polar opposite of this post. May I ask what has changed?



Coldeh said:
they just want to kill people. .
Click to expand...

To be quite frank, I think that is a given for wanting to join the army anyway. I am pretty sure people don't go in the army with the intention of being killed, and while a lot will probably say they're doing it for Queen and Country, I find it very hard to believe.

Two people I know; one is in the army, and one is heading that way. Both have violent personalities, and one actually told me that the reason he's headed into the army is because he wants to kill people.
 
The Media Guy said:
Tbh, if I wasnt told they were civilians before hand, and there was no audio on the clip then I would have gotten twitchy in the situation (I imagine). then when they say 'Its an RPG!' when he is ducking down around the corner, and honestly with that grainy image it could well look like one.

I can see Fracster's point, if someone in a warzone, (all-be-it one in the middle of a town) has what you think may be a RPG then I think anyone would want to assess the situation further.

All that said though, the fact they were willing the fatally wounded man crawling around on the floor to magically pull a weapon so that they could continue shoot him again with a 30mm cannon is disgusting.
That and laughing at tanks driving over bodies, 'oh well their fault for bringing their kids to battle' and "keep shooting, keep shooting, keep shooting" at the stationary seemingly dead body on the floor makes my stomach turn. Could tell that all that guy wanted to do was shoot and just keep shooting (admittedly it's what they are paid for, but bloody hell..).

Disclaimer:
I'm not claiming to know the stresses etc of war, I have never served, doubtfully ever will which makes me respect those stronger than me (mentally/physically) to do/have done such a profession.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's my thoughts too. But respect other views from those who have served in similar conditions, and not the views of those sitting safely in their safe (European) home using names such as Rednecks.
 
DekHog said:
It's not only about actions, it's about attitude.... and no, they're no more in danger sitting in their armoured apache a mile away than I am sitting in my lounge... too much 'Ha, ha, look what we just did' for my liking.... extreme is what they did, not what I wrote...
Click to expand...


Again, are your opinions from experience or lack thereof?
 
gingerweasel said:
I have no doubt that in the heat of battle mistakes can be made by decent soldiers. I can't imagine the pressure they operate under and wouldn't try to. On the whole our boys do us very proud and I support them 100%.

.
Click to expand...

Mmm NOT Heat of a battle they were just recking, and unfortunately came across these poor victims, no pressure just shoot the ***s, ask later
 
trencheel303 said:
I don't get it, when this same video was posted a few months ago your opinions were the polar opposite of this post. May I ask what has changed?
To be quite frank, I think that is a given for wanting to join the army anyway. I am pretty sure people don't go in the army with the intention of being killed, and while a lot will probably say they're doing it for Queen and Country, I find it very hard to believe.

Two people I know; one is in the army, and one is heading that way. Both have violent personalities, and one actually told me that the reason he's headed into the army is because he wants to kill people.
Click to expand...

I havent seen the other post linky Please
 
fracster said:
Again, are your opinions from experience or lack thereof?
Click to expand...

Do you think I'm bloody stupid or something? You obviously think it was fine and are entitled to your own opinion... do you need to experience something to know the difference between right and wrong?
 
Do you think I'm bloody stupid or something?
Click to expand...
Yes, but only on this thread :)

do you need to experience something to know the difference between right and wrong?
Today 23:35
Click to expand...
Perhps being there, even in a helicoptor a mile away, will probably have a different feel than sitting in your lounge.

Yes I agree IMHO they made mistakes, some were downright wrong, and I agree they seemed a bit Gun-Ho. But I don't know how I would have reacted as, and I believe like you, not been in that type of situation. To get a true feel of this I would like to hear from those who have experienced war and hear their views rather than judging as someone safeley tucked up at home without any threat of dying in action.
 
NigelPaul said:
Yes, but only on this thread :)

Perhps being there, even in a helicoptor a mile away, will probably have a different feel than sitting in your lounge.

Yes I agree IMHO they made mistakes, some were downright wrong, and I agree they seemed a bit Gun-Ho. But I don't know how I would have reacted as, and I believe like you, not been in that type of situation. To get a true feel of this I would like to hear from those who have experienced war and hear their views rather than judging as someone safeley tucked up at home without any threat of dying in action.
Click to expand...

So it's fine then... maybe it'll be someone you know with a camera some day, see if you still feel the same then...

It was hardly a life threatening situation, and definitely not 'heat of battle,' was it? As Rob said, they ALL KNEW what that vehicle was before they had their second round of fun...
 
All I'm saying it's easy to judge from home, but it may well be different being there.
I don't know, and you don't either cos we've never been put in a situation like that.

Look at it another way, ,,,perhaps your son was in that helicopter and all he saw was some sought of scope pointed at his helicoptor...in a war zone!:shrug:
 
Look at my posts........I agreed with Rob.
 
NigelPaul said:
All I'm saying it's easy to judge from home, but it may well be different being there.
I don't know, and you don't either cos we've never been put in a situation like that.

Look at it another way, ,,,perhaps your son was in that helicopter and all he saw was some sought of scope pointed at his helicoptor...in a war zone!:shrug:
Click to expand...

That helicopter was a long way away :shrug: and I saw nothing pointing at the helicopter? .... They thought they were armed with AK47's
 
Splog said:
That helicopter was a long way away :shrug: and I saw nothing pointing at the helicopter? .... They thought they were armed with AK47's
Click to expand...

Watch the video again. A lens was looking at the helicoptor. In a war zone I believe it could have looked like something more threating. It.s easy reviewing a video after the event in the comfort of your home, but all I';m saying it is probably different when you are there. The other actions these guys took, were were wrong IMHO, but it would be great to hear from those with experience in these situations rather than those, like me, not had the expereience and sitting in front of a computer monitor.

That's all!!!!!!!!
 
fracster said:
Again, are your opinions from experience or lack thereof?
Click to expand...

So I presume by this comment Fracster that you have had experience of flying in helicopters in the war and have had to engage on occasion?


NigelPaul said:
it would be great to hear from those with experience in these situations rather than those, like me, not had the expereience and sitting in front of a computer monitor.
Click to expand...

I don't see the difference, wrong is wrong. I doubt we have many who have been on guns in helicopters on these forums (obv. I may be wrong) but being in the army does not make your view instantly right, or that of others instantly wrong. Looking at the attitude of the people on that tape, the had blood lust. They wanted to shoot something. On a screen like that and a generation raised on video games it is easy to remove the human element from it. You are shooting something on a computer. It would be interesting to see what a phycologist thought about the attitude and reactions of those flying. Parts of that recording made me think of the hoards of US kids on Call of Duty et al. To not take unarmed children to aid, and to then make the comments they did is the final insult. I can see others point about the shooting, but unarmed children, that is disgusting and no way for a human being to act.

In my opinion they had no reason to engage (esp second time) as their was not action other than a group of people being there. They comment on AK47s. now I am not a soldier and no nothing about guns, but is that not an ineffective weapon to take down a helicopter from the distance they were at?
 
ding76uk said:
So I presume by this comment Fracster that you have had experience of flying in helicopters in the war and have had to engage on occasion?
Click to expand...

Don't think he suggested that. Perhaps he is coming from the same angle as me? :shrug:
 
(esp second time)
Click to expand...
I agree!
But you must have doubts the first time or otherwise you wouldn't need to add (esp second time)

I have never dis-agreed with the majority of opinons on here, it would be nice however to get some opinions with first hand experience in these situations rather than a back-seat-driver POV
 
Always a touchy subject war.

You can hear an Apache 1km away when its at that angle above your head without obstruction so if it were insurgents or Taliban with RPG's and AK's wouldn't it be plausible that they'd either fire or at least take cover?
Bringing down a single soldier with an IED or single sniper bullet carries a lot of kudos to these guys so to not fire upon a couple of slow moving eagles to an Insurgent or Taliban when given the opportunity would be akin to throwing down two aces in poker before the flop. It isn't natural.
Something else that was never picked up is the weight of RPG's. Often swung over one shoulder for a Taliban photo shoot to look the part but carrying one more than the length of a football pitch you'd naturally want to sling the strap across your chest to spread the weight, and nothing like what lenses these guys have mounted day to day.

You don't need to be an ex hedge hopper to give an army perspective. The video's of these young guns are openly telling us what inexperience counts for.

RIP.
 
trencheel303 said:
I don't get it, when this same video was posted a few months ago your opinions were the polar opposite of this post. May I ask what has changed?.
Click to expand...

A lot of things I'm not going into here.

Also I don't recall seeing this video before - I only saw the stills as the link was not working for me that time.
I'm pretty sure I'd remember the Canon lens held by the guy crouching next to the corner - that was new to me...

My stance in the first thread is actually the same as this - my arguments started with other posts from ill-informed people attacking the policy under which we operate, not this individual action (I just read them all again and that how it reads to me).

I'd always take the side of the pilots in the first instance, even though it is apparent that the people on the ground may not be armed (with hindsight).
There is a convoy nearby (the call-sign that eventually turns up to clear-up the mess) and it looks like a classic ambush scenario. There is one guy there carrying what looks to be an RPG launcher (behind the photographer), even with hindsight it does look like some of those guys are armed.
If I had to make the call I'd still give authorisation to shoot based on what you can actually see in the video.

The second 'shoot' on the ambulance is not so clear-cut and bears further scrutiny. As i mentioned before.
 
S4S said:
Always a touchy subject war.

You can hear an Apache 1km away when its at that angle above your head without obstruction so if it were insurgents or Taliban with RPG's and AK's wouldn't it be plausible that they'd either fire or at least take cover?
Bringing down a single soldier with an IED or single sniper bullet carries a lot of kudos to these guys so to not fire upon a couple of slow moving eagles to an Insurgent or Taliban when given the opportunity would be akin to throwing down two aces in poker before the flop. It isn't natural.
Something else that was never picked up is the weight of RPG's. Often swung over one shoulder for a Taliban photo shoot to look the part but carrying one more than the length of a football pitch you'd naturally want to sling the strap across your chest to spread the weight, and nothing like what lenses these guys have mounted day to day.

You don't need to be an ex hedge hopper to give an army perspective. The video's of these young guns are openly telling us what inexperience counts for.

RIP.
Click to expand...


Hi it was about 1 km away so they may be aware of it's presence, but unaware of it's intended presence and particular interest in them.

if they are organised/experienced then acting casual was the order of the day.

we could presume all day, was it right or was it wrong.


the point is there rules of engagement where written by 4 star generals, with political input and bias.

a post from a marine

"However admirable the military's attempts are to create ROE, they basically create an illusion of moral order where there is none. The Marines operate in chaos. It doesn't matter if a Marine is following orders and ROE, or disregarding them.

"The fact is, as soon as the Marine pulls the trigger on his rifle, he's on his own. He's entered a game of moral chance. When it's over, he's as likely to go down as a hero as a baby killer. The only difference between [a Marine in the book] and any number of Marines who've shot or killed people they shouldn't have is that he got caught."



Regards Merc
 
I'm disgusted by some of the comments on here. The pilots were in no danger being well out of range of AK fire. They could have taken their time and confirmed whether or not he was holding a camera or an AK.

In my view, they just couldn't wait to shoot someone. To shoot at the people arriving to help the injured... word fail me.
 
shock and ore wait for the news at 9 music to finish, then listen to the commentary, how many innocents died in this ???


this is slightly more disgusting.

Regards Merc
 
Coaster said:
I'm disgusted by some of the comments on here. The pilots were in no danger being well out of range of AK fire. They could have taken their time and confirmed whether or not he was holding a camera or an AK.

In my view, they just couldn't wait to shoot someone. To shoot at the people arriving to help the injured... word fail me.
Click to expand...

Apaches are seldom 'in danger' from insurgent forces as you very well know if you're a veteran.

Their job is to provide top-cover for ground troops, who are in danger - either immediate or apparent.
In this instance there were friendly call-signs within a couple of K from the suspected 'ambush-site' - which is what the pilots thought this was.

Therefore an apparent threat existed.
Under US ROE this is sufficient reason to open fire.

Remember they cannot fire under their own discretion - a Tactical Commander makes that decision - you hear his voice.
He sees what we see, as well as the feeds from the other aircraft involved in the incident and any other ISTAR assets available.

I watched several times and I still think the guy behind the photographer could well be carrying an RPG-launcher.
Even though with prior knowledge the photographer's white Canon lens is easily recognisable, when we first see him he's carrying it at his side - it does look like the stance of someone carring a long-barrelled weapon at his side.
In the pilots' minds that is now a confirmed weapon - they now 'see' a weapon as they're expecting to see it...

We expect to see a photographer, so we do recognise the camera lens for what it is.
They expect to see armed insurgents, so that is what they see...


The second 'shoot', as I said is less easy to accept or sympathise with...
Having been given prior authorisation to fire, the pilots are no longer engaged in the continuous reassessment of the scene as they should be, but are operating in 'battlefield' target-aquisition mode, searching for targets to kill.
 
The real point is that this stuff is going on and there is plenty we don't see or know about because of the media censorship we are being subjected to. The guy who had to leak this in order for the world to know what kind of stuff is really happening out there is now facing charges - says a lot for freedom of speech or press.

I bet there's far worse and less-debatable stuff going on that we won't be seeing video clips or photos of.
 
That's sick, pure and simple. I appreciate it's a war zone and difficult decisions have to be made, but don't they have to actually see some weapons.

10 minutes onwards, the guys are picking up a wounded individual - surely that must be against the Geneva convention.

It's, as has been said, like an episode of Generation Kill...
 
posiview said:
That's sick, pure and simple. I appreciate it's a war zone and difficult decisions have to be made, but don't they have to actually see some weapons.

10 minutes onwards, the guys are picking up a wounded individual - surely that must be against the Geneva convention....
Click to expand...

1. they think they have.

2. it doesn't apply to insurgents (who are classed as criminals by the law in Iraq), only to standing armies and irregular soldiers employed by recognised nation-states.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by posiview
That's sick, pure and simple. I appreciate it's a war zone and difficult decisions have to be made, but don't they have to actually see some weapons.

10 minutes onwards, the guys are picking up a wounded individual - surely that must be against the Geneva convention....
1. they think they have.

2. it doesn't apply to insurgents (who are classed as criminals by the law in Iraq), only to standing armies and irregular soldiers employed by recognised nation-states.

It is totally sick !!...and no wonder the American`s are disliked.

It shows that thinking was not their best personal skills...we can all think anything we like...but that doesn`t make it right or so !!

And there`s no way any human being could think that the Ambulance man...and his children were insurgents !!

NO wonder this world`s got megga problems when the US justify these kinds of incidents...and hide the truth...or try to !!

People who attempt to justify Murder can`t be the full ticket....end of !!:thumbsdown::bang:
 
Arkady said:
1. they think they have.

2. it doesn't apply to insurgents (who are classed as criminals by the law in Iraq), only to standing armies and irregular soldiers employed by recognised nation-states.
Click to expand...

1. questionable, from 10 minutes onwards.
2. I'm not going to read the whole convention, but if it says you can shoot people who are rescuing the wounded, then it's a questionable convention (or part thereof)
 
posiview said:
1. questionable, from 10 minutes onwards.
2. I'm not going to read the whole convention, but if it says you can shoot people who are rescuing the wounded, then it's a questionable convention (or part thereof)
Click to expand...

It's happened a number of times - the key phrase the pilot used (though I didn't see it happening) was "they're picking up the wounded and their weapons..."

Wounded is ok, weapons aren't - the moment you do that you become an insurgent yourself and will be fired upon.

The Canadians called in air-strikes on the families of dead insurgents killed at FOB Robinson in Afghanistan back in 2006 as they arrived to police-up the dead and their weapons. Women and kids, positively identified by the FAC were blown up because they were collecting the rifles and RPG launchers amongst the dead.

It's not pleasant, but it's how things are.
 
Some things are immediately stomach turning and in that process a whole world of emotions can blind:-

Some of these things have been said already but, consider these:-

1. Apaches standing off 2k/3k (varying as best for obvious reasons)

2. Eyes on, 4 (6 at a push) and all moving fairly fast.

3. Possiblilty of ambush on the ground and from underneath the Apaches at the the Apaches through surface to air.

4. Troops in the vicinity in useless vehicles (especially for right angled roads and alleyways). Bradleys do not turn in nice curving motions.

5. The clock is ticking and the green light is not in your control.

6. No uniforms.
 
War means that you believe in what you’re fighting for, it also means that your enemy is too. But, no matter what side you’re on, you’re both people with lives and families and you need to respect that and know it of your enemy.

As a soldier (I’m not) you must do what you have to do, but life is life and there was little respect for that from those in the helicopter. Their comments disgust me.

Lets hope the attitudes and mentality of those in the helicopter are a minority.

When will we all realise we share the same planet and should work together to make it better?

I won’t be visiting this thread again; it’s too depressing.
 
As Fracster goes looking for his helicopter and Arkady tries not to fall over his retreating statements, it is very obvious that this clip of gung-ho Yanks should turn everyone's stomachs.

Bush and Bliar have a hell of a lot to answer for!
 
Mikesphotaes said:
As Fracster goes looking for his helicopter and Arkady tries not to fall over his retreating statements, it is very obvious that this clip of gung-ho Yanks should turn everyone's stomachs.

Bush and Bliar have a hell of a lot to answer for!
Click to expand...

And what's that supposed to mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top