The Wikileaks Chopper videos: The reality of war on the ground

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ShumaGorath**

http://www.newsweek.com/id/235995

Robert Capa, whose combat photography brought alive the wars of the mid–20th century, used to say famously, fatalistically, fatally, "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough." He was killed in 1954 on the guerrilla battlegrounds of Indochina.

I've spent much of the last three decades covering wars, and I've known a lot of journalists who lived by that rule and died because of it. So it was impossible not to think of them as I watched the just-released July 2007 video of two Reuters newsmen being cut to pieces in the stifling dust of Baghdad's streets by 30mm cannon fire from an American Apache helicopter high overhead.

The footage, shot from the chopper's gun camera, shows 22-year-old photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and 40-year-old news assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh being killed along with 10 other unidentified men. Reuters has been trying since the incident to get a copy of the footage from the Pentagon. Finally, without authorization, somebody handed the video over to an organization called WikiLeaks, a sort of clearing-house for whistleblowers, which posted it Monday on a site called www.collateralmurder.com.

Anyone who looks at it must be horrified, but any of us who have covered combat cannot be surprised. That is why Reuters editor in chief David Schlesinger was so measured in his comment on the footage: "There is no better evidence of the dangers each and every journalist in a war zone faces at any time," he said. These newsmen knew what they were getting into; it's the public watching the video now that has been caught unawares.

The 39 minutes and 14 seconds of video are making headlines now, three years later, because Americans are so unaccustomed to seeing the quotidian horrors of war. Washington Post reporter David Finkel wrote about the incident in great detail last year in his book The Good Soldiers and refers to the gun-camera video almost frame by frame. But seeing it is something else.

Most combat footage released by the Pentagon shows buildings blowing up, not people blown to pieces. American newspapers, magazines, and Web sites are reluctant to publish pictures taken on the ground by news photographers who put themselves in harm's way, especially if they show what the bloody harvest in the killing fields really looks like. They're deemed in bad taste. And believe me, to see such things leaves a very bad taste indeed, making you hate war and despise those politicians who talk about "cakewalks" and "collateral damage."

That same day, July 12, 2007, President George W. Bush was telling a press conference in Washington, "Our top priority is to help the Iraqis protect their population," which to some extent was true. But if you saw the slaughter on the streets of Baghdad, those words would seem very damned ugly and ironic, which may be one reason the video was kept classified so long.

Questions have also been raised about the legality of the Apache attack. But to condemn the crew for "collateral murder," as the video's title does, is misleading. This is what combat is like: a slaughterhouse in which a lot of mistakes are made and a lot of people die needlessly. What the full-length video offers, in fact, is a rare first-hand look at this lethal fog of war.

The Reuters men knew the risks they were taking. They were where they were that morning because they had heard it was a hot zone. The incident took place at the height of the "surge," during the American fight to retake control of Baghdad, and if President Bush sounded defensive that day it was because U.S. casualties were at an all-time high that summer. The U.S. Army's 2-16 Infantry Battalion swarmed into the El-Amin district in force after being attacked there several times: on the ground were 240 American soldiers, 65 Humvees, and several Bradley Fighting Vehicles; overhead were two Apaches.

As the video begins, one of the choppers spots a van on the move and, focusing in, the crewmen in one of the Apaches see about 20 people in the street. A couple of the pedestrians look like they are carrying weapons—these are the two guys from Reuters, with cameras slung over their shoulders. The Apache crew do not know there are newsmen in the area, and they are sure what they see must be guns. You can hear the voice of one crewman getting worked up as he gets ready for action, putting his sights squarely on Noor-Eldeen. "F--king prick," he says. But he doesn't shoot.

Now, two minutes into the video, the camera swings back to other men there in the street. One clearly has an AK-47 assault rifle, another is carrying what looks like—and in my judgment almost certainly is—a Soviet-style rocket-propelled grenade launcher, or RPG. These men have never subsequently been identified, but under the circumstances it is a fair guess they were insurgents. That does not mean the Reuters men were in league with them. Reporters and photographers often move back and forth across the lines in urban combat, and in doing that a lot of us are killed. But it's the only way to get any real independent perspective about what's going on.

The Apache reports "five to six individuals with AK-47s" and asks for "permission to engage." As the chopper circles , it loses sight of the two men who truly were armed when they disappear behind a building, but it sees Noor-Eldeen crouching behind the corner of the same building aiming his long lens down the street. The Apache crew think the camera is an RPG, which can bring down a helicopter. Their voices are excited now. "I'm gonna fire!" says one, but there's no clear shot. The chopper continues to circle. You can hear the adrenaline in the American voices on the radio. "Light 'em all up," says one, when they get what looks like a clear shot. "Come on, fire!" says another. The man visible earlier with the AK and the one with the actual RPG are nowhere to be seen.

The Apache fires on the photographers and the people they are talking to. Noor-Eldeen scrambles over a pile of garbage and is blown to bits by the 30mm cannon. Chmagh runs down the street, the Apache overshoots and misses, and the shooter laughs nervously, retargeting, bringing Chmagh down. As the camera surveys the carnage, the American voices congratulate each other. "Good shootin'." But Chmagh's not dead yet. He's struggling to move forward on the sidewalk. He's in the Apache's sights. "Come on, buddy," says one member of the crew, like a gunslinger challenging his opponent to draw. "All you got to do is pick up a weapon," says the other member of the crew. But there is no weapon.

A van arrives and men emerge from it to try to take Chmagh away. The Apache crew is anxious to start shooting again, requests permission to engage again, gets it and opens up on the van, aiming to kill Chmagh for good this time, and anyone who's with him. For a moment, as the dust clears, there is calm.

The U.S. ground forces arrive a few minutes later. One of them who had lost his buddy earlier in the week would tell The Washington Post's Finkel that as he looked at the bodies of the men strewn around the site, he felt "just so happy … it felt like, you know, we got 'em." But the troops quickly discovered two wounded children in the van. One, a little girl, had been shot in the belly. The other, a little boy, was at first hidden under the body of his father.

The shooters in the Apache were shocked at the news, but they quickly rationalized what happened. "Well it's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle," says one voice. "That's right," says another. Still, you can hear the anguish in the voices of the soldiers on the ground as they run with the limp little bodies in their arms and put them in a Bradley, thinking they will be evacuated to an American facility. Then the order comes down not to do that—to wait and hand them over to Iraqi forces if and when they arrive at the scene, so they can be taken to an Iraqi hospital. We do not know from any official sources what happened to the children after that.

The video continues as the choppers spot more men on the street, and they clearly have weapons. The men go into what looks like an abandoned building, and the Apaches launch three Hellfire missiles into it. Other, unarmed men standing outside the building simply disappear in the massive explosions. "Sweet," says one of the voices on the radio.

I've gone into such detail here because details are what count if you want to understand war, and those are what journalists risk their lives to get. From Tripoli to Belgrade and Baghdad, I've been on the receiving end of American bombs in military operations most of the world soon forgot. I've lost friends and acquaintances in Central America, Africa, the Balkans, and the Middle East, from cameraman Ian Mates in El Salvador in 1981 to The Sunday Mirror's Rupert Hamer in Afghanistan this year. Others, like the London Sunday Times's Marie Colvin in Sri Lanka or ABC's Bob Woodruff and CBS's Kimberly Dozier in Iraq, have suffered terrible wounds. Why? We are after the details that you can only get by being there where the war is happening: details about uncertainty and fear, adrenaline and carnage, dead soldiers, dead civilians, and dying babies—the kind of details you only see when you are, in Capa's words, "close enough." Those are what protect us from what the French call "the logic of war," the delusions of grandeur that precede a conflict, when costs are not calculated and benefits are fabricated—the logic that got us into Iraq in the first place.

But no, we should not blame the soldiers who killed the men from Reuters, nor the men themselves for being where they were. Sadly, bravely, insanely, they were all just doing their jobs.

Dickey is the author most recently of Securing the City: Inside America’s Best Counterterror Force—The NYPD and of numerous essays about combat including Firebombings: From My Father’s Wars to Mine .

© 2010

This is an attempt at a real discussion of this topic (I didn't even get to see the last try before it got locked). I think the article breaks down the events incredibly well and provides quite a bit of insight into an issue that is at best incredibly incendiary and partisan. I personally view the cut version of the video to be a cowardly and partisan hardcore leftist attempt at misinforming the public. That is not the video we are discussing. We are discussing the full length one.

**Emperors Faithful**

Thank you, Shuma. That was a very informing read.

I am concerned as to why the children were made to wait until Iraqi forces arrived, instead of being immediately moved to a facilty for aid. Did they want to avoid having to allow some Iraqi's into American facilities and denying others? Or was it becuase if the children were dealt with (treated/died) elsewhere it wouldn't look so bad on US forces?

**mattyrm**

Watched the video in full. I think its easy to criticize the pilots when looking at it if you are just a normal civilian and it does certainly illicit an emotional response. But lets be clear here. It was a large gathering of fighting age males carrying long objects. No women or kids visible. The number one combat indicator is a large group of fighting age males. The kids with arrows pointing them out is ridiculous, and provoke the natural human reaction to anything involving kids, but there is absolutely no way the pilot could have seen them at the time. If you want the big bucks, you take the risks. Same for soldiers, same for journos, thats war gak happens, we all know the risks. I owe my life several times over to the pilots of some of the support aircraft and helicopters over in the sandbox, as my company were conducting advance to contact patrols near the hydro-electric dam in Helmand and I came under fire at least 60 times on my final tour, sometimes from multiple positions, and the US pilots willingness to drop their S10 Ap1 weaponry compared to their French and Dutch collegues was immediately noted and very much appreciated. They save our lives. Hesitation can and will kill your infantry and the video showed me men aged 18-45 in a mob gathering at a junction that was soon to be used by an advancing patrol. They were right to fire in my eyes, certainly in the first instance, less so in the second, but i certainly wouldnt lose any sleep over it if i was the gunner. In fact, if by chance he comes on dakkadakka id like to thank him for serving. :-)

**J.Black**

It is certainly well written and, having watched the full video myself a week or so ago, I totally agree with the sentiment.

The only thing that sticks in my craw is the part where the crew report '5-6 individuals with AK47's' when they are requesting permission to fire. This isn't true and i wonder why they overstated the number of weapons in the group.

**cadian512**

ive heard this story a lot in the last few days and you are the first person who actualy sees it for what it is. combat.

**Vargtass**

As a former soldier in some "hot spots" around the world I can say that there have been three separate occasions when I have almost shot someone carrying their camera like that. It's

stupid of the journalists to go around like that, especially when they walk with armed individuals. Also I'd like to add to the debate that cynical comments have always been part of war, it's a way to cope with the emotions that comes with it. This video is used as propaganda , nothing more.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Watched the video in full. I think its easy to criticize the pilots when looking at it if you are just a normal civilian and it does certainly illicit an emotional response. But lets be clear here. It was a large gathering of fighting age males carrying long objects. No women or kids visible. The number one combat indicator is a large group of fighting age males. The kids with arrows pointing them out is ridiculous, and provoke the natural human reaction to anything involving kids, but there is absolutely no way the pilot could have seen them at the time. If you want the big bucks, you take the risks. Same for soldiers, same for journos, thats war gak happens, we all know the risks. I owe my life several times over to the pilots of some of the support aircraft and helicopters over in the sandbox, as my company were conducting advance to contact patrols near the hydro-electric dam in Helmand and I came under fire at least 60 times on my final tour, sometimes from multiple positions, and the US pilots willingness to drop their S10 Ap1 weaponry compared to their French and Dutch collegues was immediately noted and very much appreciated. They save our lives. Hesitation can and will kill your infantry and the video showed me men aged 18-45 in a mob gathering at a junction that was soon to be used by an advancing patrol. They were right to fire in my eyes, certainly in the first instance, less so in the second, but i certainly wouldnt lose any sleep over it if i was the gunner. In fact, if by chance he comes on dakkadakka id like to thank him for serving. :-)

QFT, didn't see your post there

**mattyrm**

Apologies for the lack of grammar i was on my phone at the time.

As i said, its easy to be cynical when your looking at it 3 years later.

I agree with Shuma in that i think it was merely a cheap piece of propoganda making an edit of it. The arrows pointing out the kids is ridiculous and would have been in no way visible to the pilots at the time.

I feel very strongly on this issue, I hate the way the press slate the American pilots. The royal Anglican regiment lost 3 guys in August to a US air strike, and i arrived in Theatre acting as CONCO and spent 6 weeks with them. None of them held any grudge against the pilots, and held a US flag alongside a British one at the funeral.
The US guys passed on their thanks for this act and said it meant alot to them. It is difficult to describe the elation you feel when you have been under fire from 8 positions while trying to casevac 3 wounded oppos and then suddenly an A-10 turns up and hoses down some compounds and finally the gunfire stops for a minute.

I have a great respect for the pilots. I genuinelly fear the repercussions of what would happen to us on the ground if those men became fearful of engaging a target.

**egor71**

This is WAR people, just move along.

Yes, the dutch are crap in any conflict.

**Anshal**

what to expect? Kill Journalists and everything that dose not have US flag on it. And people wonder why some nations dislikes the US

And yes I come from a Country that DON`T believe in random killings of civilians armed or not.

**Albatross**

Anshal wrote:what to expect? Kill Journalists and everything that dose not have US flag on it. And people wonder why some nations dislikes the US

And yes I come from a Country that DON`T believe in random killings of civilians armed or not.

It's funny because he has a Viking Longboat as an avatar. Fail.

**ShumaGorath**

Anshal wrote:what to expect? Kill Journalists and everything that dose not have US flag on it. And people wonder why some nations dislikes the US

And yes I come from a Country that DON`T believe in random killings of civilians armed or not.

Somehow I don't think you read the article itself, though I agree and also don't believe in the random killing of civilians.

**Frazzled**

Anshal wrote:what to expect? Kill Journalists and everything that dose not have US flag on it. And people wonder why some nations dislikes the US

And yes I come from a Country that DON`T believe in random killings of civilians armed or not.

Er, aren't your forbears known for randomly landing in countries, killing everyone they saw and then trying to cart off as much stuff as possible?

Or is that the country that would be speaking German if it wasn't for those guys that killed everything that didn't have a US flag on it? I forget.

**Commissar Molotov**

*scratches head*

"Armed civilians," eh? Ain't that kinda a contradiction in terms on the battlefield?

**ShumaGorath**

Lets not have a repeat of the last thread there frazzled.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar Molotov wrote:*scratches head*

"Armed civilians," eh? Ain't that kinda a contradiction in terms on the battlefield?

Not really, especially when lines of conflict are as ethereal and fast changing as those in occupation and insurgency suppression. Much of the iraqi civilian population (and especially the afghan one) carry weapons for self defense.

**Frazzled**

There was a last thread? Gone for a week and people start posting without me, thats just chaos!

Shuma's right (shudder) both nations have or had lots of heavily armed civvies. Much of the world has lots of heavily armed civvies. I blame the Clinton Whitehouse. Or was it Amy Whitehouse? I forget.

**Commissar Molotov**

ShumaGorath wrote:Lets not have a repeat of the last thread there frazzled.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar Molotov wrote:*scratches head*

"Armed civilians," eh? Ain't that kinda a contradiction in terms on the battlefield?

Not really, especially when lines of conflict are as ethereal and fast changing as those in occupation and insurgency suppression. Much of the iraqi civilian population (and especially the afghan one) carry weapons for self defense.

From what I've seen and read, they keep 'em in their homes, sure - but only the self-styled "militias" tote 'em around openly on the street.

...Except for rural Afghanistan, where they do indeed carry them around openly.

**ShumaGorath**

Commissar Molotov wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Lets not have a repeat of the last thread there frazzled.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar Molotov wrote:*scratches head*

"Armed civilians," eh? Ain't that kinda a contradiction in terms on the battlefield?

Not really, especially when lines of conflict are as ethereal and fast changing as those in occupation and insurgency suppression. Much of the iraqi civilian population (and especially the afghan one) carry weapons for self defense.

From what I've seen and read, they keep 'em in their homes, sure - but only the self-styled "militias" tote 'em around openly on the street.

...Except for rural Afghanistan, where they do indeed carry them around openly.

I was just stating that the idea of an armed civilian being false is false. Especially when tribal militias and local leaders are some of our best allies on the ground in some areas.

**dietrich**

There's always events like this in any war. Why did the British fly huge flags behind their vehicles in the first Gulf War? It wasn't a parade. It's because the risk of getting shot by the Iraqis because we're waving a huge flag was a lot less than getting shot by friendly fire if you weren't.

I'm pretty sure the Apache crew is sick to their stomachs. They engaged who they thought were hostiles, and instead killed journalists and kids. War isn't a video game where all the bad guys are obvious, but if you accidently kill a bystander, you just lose a few points.

Note that they don't keep firing after the initial burst until the van arrives. They are actually show a lot of restraint.

**Albatross**

They seem fully aware of the Rules of Engagement in the video. They see what they they think are weapons and ask for permission to engage, from there on in it's all business. People being killed is not nice, but it is what it is. When the wounded guy is crawling around, they are fully aware that they can't shoot him again until he picks up a weapon. When the van turns up, it's an unmarked cilvilian vehicle, not an ambulance - is it unreasonable to assume that the vehicle is gonna be full of armed insurgents, possibly with RPGs to try and counter-act the Helicopter which just shot up their comrades? That would be my thinking if I was up there with my finger on the trigger, and I certainly would fancy hanging around to see if I was right. I said this in the last thread, and I'll say it again here - I would have done exactly the same as those US servicemen in that situation.
They made a judgement call in the first instance (which turned out to be incorrect), one which led to everything that followed. It's a mistake any of us could have made in those circumstances.

**CptJake**

Okay, so an infantry unit in contact (taking fire) calls in for air support.

Apaches see a group of dudes, some clearly with weapons from the area they were asked to check out and hit by the grunts. Note: Streets empty except this group of dudes.

Apaches wack the dudes and then wack the civilian support vehicle that comes up.

Infantry guys come to clear the area and find multiple RPGs and AKs. They do indeed medivac wounded bad guys and the wounded kids. RPGs are NOT used by 'civilians' even in Iraq.

Even if the Apache crews identified a camera in the group of armed dudes what difference would it have made? The bad guys often film their exploits (see YouTube for many of their films). The crews would have been completely justified in capping any cameraman not clearly identifying himself as The Press.

If you are a reporter, with a group of bad guys that is shooting at good guys, you gave up your neutrality and safety.

**dietrich**

CptJake wrote:If you are a reporter, with a group of bad guys that is shooting at good guys, you gave up your neutrality and safety.

I think a better way to say it, "If you are with one group of guys that is shooting at another group of guys, whether you have a weapon or not, you have to expect return fire."

**Anshal**

Frazzled wrote:
Anshal wrote:what to expect? Kill Journalists and everything that dose not have US flag on it. And people wonder why some nations dislikes the US

And yes I come from a Country that DON`T believe in random killings of civilians armed or not.

Er, aren't your forbears known for randomly landing in countries, killing everyone they saw and then trying to cart off as much stuff as possible?

Or is that the country that would be speaking German if it wasn't for those guys that killed everything that didn't have a US flag on it? I forget.

Err well should you not lookat your own ancestors... you know wiping out Indians and Slavery and such? And about speaking German, yes I would like that yank!

**Kanluwen**

dietrich wrote:
CptJake wrote:If you are a reporter, with a group of bad guys that is shooting at good guys, you gave up your neutrality and safety.

I think a better way to say it, "If you are with one group of guys that is shooting at another group of guys, whether you have a weapon or not, you have to expect return fire."

Even better way to say it?

"If you're going to embed yourself in a warzone with armed civilians--warn the side with air support you're doing it, and have yourselves and the civilians clearly uniformed/marked or stay embedded with the side with air support".

**Frazzled**

Anshal wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Anshal wrote:what to expect? Kill Journalists and everything that dose not have US flag on it. And people wonder why some nations dislikes the US

And yes I come from a Country that DON`T believe in random killings of civilians armed or not.

Er, aren't your forbears known for randomly landing in countries, killing everyone they saw and then trying to cart off as much stuff as possible?

Or is that the country that would be speaking German if it wasn't for those guys that killed everything that didn't have a US flag on it? I forget.

Err well should you not lookat your own ancestors... you know wiping out Indians and Slavery and such? And about speaking German, yes I would like that yank!

I am not the one claiming to be the paragon of virtue.
Wait, you would like to still be ruled by the Nazis? Son, you have issues I can't help you with.

**ShumaGorath**

Even if the Apache crews identified a camera in the group of armed dudes what difference would it have made? The bad guys often film their exploits (see YouTube for many of their films). The crews would have been completely justified in capping any cameraman not clearly identifying himself as The Press.

If you are a reporter, with a group of bad guys that is shooting at good guys, you gave up your neutrality and safety.

The group they fired on however was not an armed group, and embedded reporters switch sides consistently. It's part of their job. That does not make them the enemy. Proximity doesn't denote what side of the conflict you are on.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Anshal wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Anshal wrote:what to expect? Kill Journalists and everything that dose not have US flag on it. And people wonder why some nations dislikes the US

And yes I come from a Country that DON`T believe in random killings of civilians armed or not.

Er, aren't your forbears known for randomly landing in countries, killing everyone they saw and then trying to cart off as much stuff as possible?

Or is that the country that would be speaking German if it wasn't for those guys that killed everything that didn't have a US flag on it? I forget.

Err well should you not lookat your own ancestors... you know wiping out Indians and Slavery and such? And about speaking German, yes I would like that yank!

I am not the one claiming to be the paragon of virtue.
Wait, you would like to still be ruled by the Nazis? Son, you have issues I can't help you with.

Why is a mod derailing my thread?

**Anshal**

Frazzled wrote:
Anshal wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Anshal wrote:what to expect? Kill Journalists and everything that dose not have US flag on it. And people wonder why some nations dislikes the US

And yes I come from a Country that DON`T believe in random killings of civilians armed or not.

Er, aren't your forbears known for randomly landing in countries, killing everyone they saw and then trying to cart off as much stuff as possible?

Or is that the country that would be speaking German if it wasn't for those guys that killed everything that didn't have a US flag on it? I forget.

Err well should you not lookat your own ancestors... you know wiping out Indians and Slavery and such? And about speaking German, yes I would like that yank!

I am not the one claiming to be the paragon of virtue.
Wait, you would like to still be ruled by the Nazis? Son, you have issues I can't help you with.

yes rather that than suffering Americans like you. and since you people elected Bush ann then OBama you have lost all rigth to make remarks about other Nations.

**ShumaGorath**

yes rather that than suffering Americans like you. and since you people elected Bush ann then OBama you have lost all rigth to make remarks about other Nations.

Lack of capitalization. Preferring Nazi occupation over co existing with a nation half a world away engaged in concurrent occupations and nation building within a portion of the world that has experienced dictatorial leadership and intercene ethnic and religious strife for hundreds of years. Seeming total lack of insight or understanding of the realities of war, national politics, history, or geography.

Frazzled made a friend.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Even if the Apache crews identified a camera in the group of armed dudes what difference would it have made? The bad guys often film their exploits (see YouTube for many of their films). The crews would have been completely justified in capping any cameraman not clearly identifying himself as The Press.

If you are a reporter, with a group of bad guys that is shooting at good guys, you gave up your neutrality and safety.

The group they fired on however was not an armed group, and embedded reporters switch sides consistently. It's part of their job. That does not make them the enemy. Proximity doesn't denote what side of the conflict you are on.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Anshal wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Anshal wrote:what to expect? Kill Journalists and everything that dose not have US flag on it. And people wonder why some nations dislikes the US

And yes I come from a Country that DON`T believe in random killings of civilians armed or not.

Er, aren't your forbears known for randomly landing in countries, killing everyone they saw and then trying to cart off as much stuff as possible?

Or is that the country that would be speaking German if it wasn't for those guys that killed everything that didn't have a US flag on it? I forget.

Err well should you not lookat your own ancestors... you know wiping out Indians and Slavery and such? And about speaking German, yes I would like that yank!

I am not the one claiming to be the paragon of virtue.
Wait, you would like to still be ruled by the Nazis? Son, you have issues I can't help you with.

Why is a mod derailing my thread?

Sorry Shuma but I can't resist. Godwin has been invoked!

**Ahtman**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Even if the Apache crews identified a camera in the group of armed dudes what difference would it have made? The bad guys often film their exploits (see YouTube for many of their films). The crews would have been completely justified in capping any cameraman not clearly identifying himself as The Press.

If you are a reporter, with a group of bad guys that is shooting at good guys, you gave up your neutrality and safety.

The group they fired on however was not an armed group, and embedded reporters switch sides consistently. It's part of their job. That does not make them the enemy. Proximity doesn't denote what side of the conflict you are on.

You are sort of adding some words there. He didn't state they were the enemy, just that you put yourself in a dangerous situation, which war photographers and journalists understand.

**ShumaGorath**

Ahtman wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Even if the Apache crews identified a camera in the group of armed dudes what difference would it have made? The bad guys often film their exploits (see YouTube for many of their films). The crews would have been completely justified in capping any cameraman not clearly identifying himself as The Press.

If you are a reporter, with a group of bad guys that is shooting at good guys, you gave up your neutrality and safety.

The group they fired on however was not an armed group, and embedded reporters switch sides consistently. It's part of their job. That does not make them the enemy. Proximity doesn't denote what side of the conflict you are on.

You are sort of adding some words there. He didn't state they were the enemy, just that you put yourself in a dangerous situation, which war photographers and journalists understand.

No, but he both directly stated that the reporters were with the bad guys when they were fired upon, and that the event removed their safety (which is true) and also their neutrality (which is patently false).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Even if the Apache crews identified a camera in the group of armed dudes what difference would it have made? The bad guys often film their exploits (see YouTube for many of their films). The crews would have been completely justified in capping any cameraman not clearly identifying himself as The Press.

If you are a reporter, with a group of bad guys that is shooting at good guys, you gave up your neutrality and safety.

The group they fired on however was not an armed group, and embedded reporters switch sides consistently. It's part of their job. That does not make them the enemy. Proximity doesn't denote what side of the conflict you are on.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Anshal wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Anshal wrote:what to expect? Kill Journalists and everything that dose not have US flag on it. And people wonder why some nations dislikes the US

And yes I come from a Country that DON`T believe in random killings of civilians armed or not.

Er, aren't your forbears known for randomly landing in countries, killing everyone they saw and then trying to cart off as much stuff as possible?

Or is that the country that would be speaking German if it wasn't for those guys that killed everything that didn't have a US flag on it? I forget.

Err well should you not lookat your own ancestors... you know wiping out Indians and Slavery and such? And about speaking German, yes I would like that yank!

I am not the one claiming to be the paragon of virtue.
Wait, you would like to still be ruled by the Nazis? Son, you have issues I can't help you with.

Why is a mod derailing my thread?

Sorry Shuma but I can't resist. Godwin has been invoked!

Well just hit that good old post delete button a few times and lets get back to avoiding the minefields!