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.

Ah, I missed the neutrality part. I agree with your analysis.

"and embedded reporters switch sides consistently"

Wrong, embedded reporters with Coalition forces are vetted, and protected by the Coalition forces. They do not 'consitently' switch sides if they want to be able to ever be embedded with Coalition forces again. Freelance or non-embedded reporters are willingly taking risk. So does the bad guy cameraman who films IED atatcks and suicide bombers for propaganda, recruiting and after action review/future ops planning purposes.

And the group these reporters was with WAS indeed armed, hence the RPGs and AKs found on site and seen in the unedited version of the video. If you choose to be with an armed group, you are gonna get shot at. Did they make ANY effort to identify themselves as members of the press or as neutrals? The video sure does NOT shoa any such attempt. Again, the bad guys use cameramen to record their ops very often, a cameraman with bad guys is assumed to be a bad guy.

Frankly when the poor grunts call in air support and get it approved it is because THEY ARE TAKING FIRE. Again, no other peaceful folks were in that neighborhood just hanging out on the streets. Just this one group, clearly armed, and by chance in the place the grunts were taking fire from. The Apaches were hunting bad guys that were shooting at their ground pounding brtothers. They saw a group in the right place armed with RPGs and did their jobs. God Bless them. If I run into them I'll buy their drinks for the night and feel proud to do so.

"and embedded reporters switch sides consistently"

Wrong, embedded reporters with Coalition forces are vetted, and protected by the Coalition forces.

Yeah. They also don't report gak. No one cares about the embedded reporter a mile away filming explosions in his hotel room, they aren't reporting anything we didn't already know.

They do not 'consitently' switch sides if they want to be able to ever be embedded with Coalition forces again. Freelance or non-embedded reporters are willingly taking risk.

Thats correct. Freelance status (Which I don't think the reuters reporters even had, since they were reporters for reuters) doesn't make them evil, and it doesn't remove their neutrality.

And the group these reporters was with WAS indeed armed, hence the RPGs and AKs found on site and seen in the unedited version of the video.

But never visibly,which is where the judgement of the apache crews is called into question. They positively ID weapons with a previous group, and then fire on a separate group, in the process killing several civilians and severely wounding (and likely killing) two children.

If you choose to be with an armed group, you are gonna get shot at.

Which is what makes this incident regrettable on all sides. Those men were not part of the enemy force, it was an issue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They knew the risks, but that doesn't make it any less tragic.

Frankly when the poor grunts call in air support and get it approved it is because THEY ARE TAKING FIRE. Again, no other peaceful folks were in that neighborhood just hanging out on the streets.

Well, y'know, except the kids in the van. But lets paint combat in the middle of a city as a nice stark picture with clear battle lines and lovely little trenches.

Just this one group, clearly armed, and by chance in the place the grunts were taking fire from.

Did the video ever show the group firing on coalition forces? I was under the impression that they were simply in the vicinity of other armed forces and were taken to be acting in support due to their proximity.

The Apaches were hunting bad guys that were shooting at their ground pounding brtothers. They saw a group in the right place armed with RPGs and did their jobs.

No. They shot the people that weren't carrying RPGs. Thats the entire point of this who debacle.

God Bless them. If I run into them I'll buy their drinks for the night and feel proud to do so.

Yes, I'm sure they'll feel great about your buying them drinks and congratulating them on killing impartial reporters and children. You're a class act.

I gues the dudes just happened to die and fall right next to RPGs that some one else dropped in the street right?

Embedded journalists are embedded with a specific unit and go out on patrols with that unit. They don't get to hang out purely in the greenzone and claim embedded status. Evan Wright of Generation Kill fame is a good example of an embedded reporter.

I gues the dudes just happened to die and fall right next to RPGs that some one else dropped in the street right?

Or you just don't understand the concept of "In the area" in regards to search and seizure of weapons.

Embedded journalists are embedded with a specific unit and go out on patrols with that unit. They don't get to hang out purely in the greenzone and claim embedded status. Evan Wright of Generation Kill fame is a good example of an embedded reporter.

And as soon as those guys manage to land interviews with the mahdi army while entrenched within friendly units that they often times aren't even allowed to report on you tell me. Until then they aren't doing anything that couldn't get done by looking at declassified military reports.

I do not think we can blame the pilots. In a combat zone they had more than enough reason to engage the people as enemies. That said actions like this and dead children (who should never have been driven anywhere near someplace where a 30mm cannon just fired - I mean come on what idiot says "I just heard death incarnate roar down on a city street and the deliverer of that is still cicling the area let me take my children there!") just emphasize my feelings that we should not be there anymore. Right, wrong, bad guys, good guys doesn't matter we killed children people will hate us, the only way to stop that is to leave becuase you cannot blame the soldiers for what they did.

Rest assured the pilot and gunner lost sleep over it but they did the job they were paid to do then.

It's regrettable that the van got fired upon but what did they (the enemy) expect? Had those pilots waited to see what/who was in the van it indeed might have been loaded with guys with RPG's and helo's, even Apaches, do not like RPG's.

It's really a sad attempt at anti-war and anti-conservative propaganda.

To the dude wanting to live in a Nazi Germany vs the US. You got issues man. Most of the British hate us but I think (hope) even they'd prefer to live on our soil vs a Nazi government either of their own or somewhere else.

Skin-heads might feel at home in a Nazi Germany-esque country but then again those guys should be shot.

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.

QFT.

If the story had gone the other way, we'd be watching a 30 minute video of an Apache going down to a RPG.

Better a dead journo than a dead soldier any day of the week.

First off, the kids were evacuated to the army field hospital on FOB Loyalty, and were not killed. They were later (once stabalized) transfered to an Iraqui hospital. Yes, the EVIL US Soldiers wasted assets (transportation, security and doctors time and equipment) to care for the poor kids that some dumb butt took into an active engagement area.

Second, the streets are clear of ANYONE but this group, a clear indication the locals know the group is up to no good.

Third, weapons were found right along with the bodies, not just 'in the area'. The body closest to one of the recovered cameras actualy had an RPG round with it.

Read the Army investigation report done in Jul 2007 after the incident. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/04/6-2nd-brigade-combat-team-15-6-investigation.pdf

Oh wait, let me guess .... The 15-6 investigations are part of some conspiritorial cover up right initiated within days of the shooting just anticipating a Wikileak event almost three years in the future? Yep, the evil US Soldiers out their risking their lives daily are all out to mislead you where as the wonderful folks at Wikileaks obviously are pure as the driven snow and have no agenda.

Jake

JohnHwangDD 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.

QFT.

If the story had gone the other way, we'd be watching a 30 minute video of an Apache going down to a RPG.

Better a dead journo than a dead soldier any day of the week.

This folks, is the magic of not reading the article that explicitly states that the people shot by the helicopter were unarmed, but that weapons were found in the area (meaning not in the van, since they would have said that, or on the personnel since they would have said that, but instead in nearby buildings and on other unnamed and off camera people).

Better a dead journo than a dead soldier any day of the week.

And what do you base that on? seriously, I want to know the moralistic argument that places the lives of soldiers concretely above those of journalists. Seriously. Answer this question.

ShumaGorath wrote:

JohnHwangDD 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.

QFT.

If the story had gone the other way, we'd be watching a 30 minute video of an Apache going down to a RPG.

This folks, is the magic of not reading the article that explicitly states that the people shot by the helicopter were unarmed, but that weapons were found in the area (meaning not in the van, since they would have said that, or on the personnel since they would have said that, but instead in nearby buildings and on other unnamed and off camera people).

This, folks, is the magic of jumping to conclusions about conclusions. The people shot by the helo were with people who were armed with RPGs, while carrying and handling things of similar size and shape, to RPGs. Perhaps *you* should re-read the article.

Next, you'll be saying it's wrong for a cop to shoot a punk armed with a black-sprayed squirtgun when said gun is pointed directly at an officer...

Better a dead journo than a dead soldier any day of the week.

And what do you base that on? seriously, I want to know the moralistic argument that places the lives of soldiers concretely above those of journalists. Seriously. Answer this question.

The journo is working only for himself. The soldier is working for his country. Service beats selfish any day of the week.

Your article is flat wrong, you can watch the full video and clearly see there is only one group, and that it is armed and the guys with cameras are in it.

I can explicitly state there are 8 days a week and 14 months a year. That would not make my explicit statement true.

The weapons were found right with the bodies, that is not really open for dispute. So were the cameras, that is not open for dispute either.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The journo is working only for himself. The soldier is working for his country. Service beats selfish any day of the week.

There is no particular reason that a soldier cannot be working for selfish reasons, just as there is no particular reason that a journalist cannot be working for servile ones.

Your article is flat wrong, you can watch the full video and clearly see there is only one group, and that it is armed and the guys with cameras are in it.

That same video also clearly shows men without weapons being gunned down.

Oh wait, let me guess .... The 15-6 investigations are part of some conspiritorial cover up right initiated within days of the shooting just anticipating a Wikileak event almost three years in the future? Yep, the evil US Soldiers out their risking their lives daily are all out to mislead you where as the wonderful folks at Wikileaks obviously are pure as the driven snow and have no agenda.

You know what's weird though? I've seen the video too, and I don't remember seeing a tightly packed circle of armed insurgents. What I remember seeing is a tightly packed circle of unarmed people.



Yeah, there it is.

Yes. I would believe that the same military that lied about Pat Tillmans death, WMDs, Abu Ghraib, and internment and torture would doctor reports to reduce the visible signs of civilian death in areas of engagement. It's good strategy, making mistakes helps the insurgents and hurts out cause and they are often times better left hidden to prevent further death or escalation of violence.

CptJake wrote:
The weapons were found right with the bodies, that is not really open for dispute.

Actually it is, as nothing like what you've just indicated was ever explicitly stated by any source in a position to possess such knowledge. That doesn't mean that there weren't weapons amongst (ie. formerly in the direct possession of) the bodies, but it does mean that the presented information does not allow for a judgment to be made with certainty.

"nothing like what you've just indicated was ever explicitly stated by any source in a position to possess such knowledge"

Except the 15-6 investigator... Again, read the real report, not what Wikileaks wants you watch.

Frazzled:
Unfortunately, by mentioning Vikings, you have stepped onto my turf.
You argue based on the popular concept of Vikings, which could not be farther from the truth.
Yes, the Vikings killed innocent people and took their stuff. The only difference between the Vikings and the great empires of history is that they did not exert control over those areas (British Isles excluded). The Romans, the British, the French, everyone raids, they just don't strike the same fear into the hearts of their enemies as the Vikings did. Why? The Vikings were large, scary, and pagan.
The longboat is a symbol of Scandinavian culture, and equating it with Viking raids is absolutely ridiculous. They were the most advanced ships of their time and their uses were not limited to raiding or warfare. Iceland, Greenland and North America were all discovered in ships that look like that one.
I am not arguing with you that equating Nazis with Americans is not a valid point, but your response that because he is Danish, and one thousand years ago Danes raided villages throughout Europe, and therefore he agrees with killing innocent civilians is about as inaccurate as saying that you're an American, and two hundred years ago Americans owned slaves, therefore you approve of slavery.

As a final note, Europeans are not all speaking German, as Americans are so fond of saying, because Hitler insisted on the invasion of Russia. Period. Without that mistake, he would have conquered England and controlled all of Europe. In such circumstances, an American invasion of Europe is quite unlikely.
Also, the Soviet Union deserves just as much credit for the defeat of Nazi Germany as the United States. The U.S. liberated Western Europe, but the Red Army broke the German army's back and took most of Germany.

While we're at it let us go ahead and burst a couple more mythic bubbles that may force you out of your The US Is Evil comfort zone.

Abu Ghraib: The ARMY initiated the investigations and the punishemnts way before the photos were leaked. Some of the photos were actually leaked by a defense lawyer upset the Army would not cut his client a deal.

WMDs: So all the times our troops sat in MOPP4 in 140 degree heat was to back up a lie? Get real, we had every reason to think Sadaam had WMDs, his own generals thought he did, as did the French, the Russians, the Brits...

Not sure what lies about internment and torture you are refering to. I can point to several cases where the Army or another service has prosecuted troops who broke the rules. Do you think the SOB who cut off Mr. Pearls's head was punished? Nope, he was praised. That is the difference between good guys and bad guys, we discourage, outlaw and punish bad behavior, they use it as a tool and think it acceptable.

I've seen video of some of these wonderful Iraqi 'civlians' (they were in civilian clothes) execute a wounded chopper pilot right next to his downed chopper. Would the guy who filmed that be one of your protected journalists? It was used as a recruiting and propaganda tool by the 'civilians'.

If you really feel symapthy for the bad guys I encourage you travel to Fort Polk or Fort Irwin and talk to some of the Iraqi and Afghanistan immigrants that act as role players to train our troops. Talk to some of the VERY brave ones that after having come to the US volunteer to go back and act as interpretors for our troops (I met a bunch a while ago). Hear their stories.

CptJake wrote:
If you really feel symapthy for the bad guys

And I used to think comparisons between the war in Iraq and the Crusades were ridiculous...

Anshal wrote:

Frazzled wrote: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.

Oh man... my new sig.

CptJake wrote:First off, the kids were evacuated to the army field hospital on FOB Loyalty, and were not killed. They were later (once stabalized) transfered to an Iraqui hospital. Yes, the EVIL US Soldiers wasted assets (transportation, security and doctors time and equipment) to care for the poor kids that some dumb butt took into an active engagement area.

Where does it say that?
All the report says is that they kids were made to wait for Iraqi forces to pick them up and move them to one of thier facilities. It also says no official source has confirmed what actually happened to them afterwards.

While we're at it let us go ahead and burst a couple more mythic bubbles that may force you out of your The US Is Evil comfort zone.

I don't think that you've actually read anything that I've posted. No where have I stated that the US is evil. In fact in my first post. Which was the FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD I stated that the doctored video was a cowardly piece of leftist propaganda.

Abu Ghraib: The ARMY initiated the investigations and the punishemnts way before the photos were leaked. Some of the photos were actually leaked by a defense lawyer upset the Army would not cut his client a deal.

Oddly enough the commander of Abu Ghraib is on record stating that an estimated 90% of the facilities captive population was innocent at the time of the investigations and ongoing issues with abuse.

WMDs: So all the times our troops sat in MOPP4 in 140 degree heat was to back up a lie? Get real, we had every reason to think Sadaam had WMDs, his own generals thought he did, as did the French, the Russians, the Brits...

...

Wow.

After the first UN resolution, the US and the UK pushed for a second resolution authorizing an invasion. The French and German governments, amongst others, took the position that the UN inspection process should be allowed to be completed. France's then-Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin received loud applause for his speech against the Iraq War at the United Nations on February 14, 2003. Neither of these countries have sent troops to Iraq.

Hell, the russians even protested formally against the war in the U.N.

Not sure what lies about internment and torture you are refering to. I can point to several cases where the Army or another service has prosecuted troops who broke the rules. Do you think the SOB who cut off Mr. Pearls's head was punished? Nope, he was praised. That is the difference between good guys and bad guys, we discourage, outlaw and punish bad behavior, they use it as a tool and think it acceptable.

Is that why we hand off suspects to be tortured in egypt? Get real. We don't do political murder of innocents on camera, but our hands are far from clean. Are we as bad as the insurgents? Hell no. But we're not saints.

I've seen video of some of these wonderful Iraqi 'civlians' (they were in civilian clothes) execute a wounded chopper pilot right next to his downed chopper. Would the guy who filmed that be one of your protected journalists? It was used as a recruiting and propaganda tool by the 'civilians'.

Yes. I've seen youtube videos of the cavity creeps. No one gives a damn. This isn't a war against skeletor.

If you really feel symapthy for the bad guys I encourage you travel to Fort Polk or Fort Irwin and talk to some of the Iraqi and Afghanistan immigrants that act as role players to train our troops.

I feel empathy for the journalists and the chopper pilots that have to live with the knowledge that they killed innocent people. How about you learn to read.

Talk to some of the VERY brave ones that after having come to the US volunteer to go back and act as interpretors for our troops (I met a bunch a while ago). Hear their stories.

Alright. I'll go do that after the town you live in is declared a warzone and some of your family is shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Until then you're basically just masking your clear lack of perspective with strawman arguments about brave men and evil villains.

Mad Rabbit wrote:As a final note, Europeans are not all speaking German, as Americans are so fond of saying, because Hitler insisted on the invasion of Russia. Period. Without that mistake, he would have conquered England and controlled all of Europe. In such circumstances, an American invasion of Europe is quite unlikely.

Hmm, I think I'm going to disagree with you there. If Germany had actually continued trying to take Britain Stalin would have stabbed him the back; there was no way he was going to let the third reich camp right outside his country. Communists and fascists both made a living hating the other one, and two egotistical dictators wanting to create a continent-spanning empire out of their people don't get along together too well. When the USSR gets into full-scale wartime production, there's no way Germany can match it, and with everything bogged down in the British occupation Hitler would find it hard to get anything back to the eastern front. The amphibious assault required to take the British Isles would take a lot of focus from the German army. Plus, I think the occupation of Britain (one of the few places in Europe Americans really cared about) along with Pearl Harbor would have made Americans ready to attack; not without Russia's help, of course, but Russia would be more eager to start the invasion themselves if they thought there was a decent chance of getting American reinforcements from the west.

Actually, I wonder if Hitler shouldn't have just taken the opposite route; mostly ignore western Europe, and immediately push into Russia. Once the USSR had its production in full swing Hitler was screwed, but taking them out early could have worked. And how many men would France and Britain be willing to lose trying to invade Germany again, after feeling the effects of the first World War, and all to once again save a bunch of slavs (who are this time promising an eventual conflict with their society anyway)?

Also, the Soviet Union deserves just as much credit for the defeat of Nazi Germany as the United States. The U.S. liberated Western Europe, but the Red Army broke the German army's back and took most of Germany.

If Americans are going to go around bragging, we should probably be saying "if it wasn't for us, you'd be speaking Russian!"

CptJake wrote:"nothing like what you've just indicated was ever explicitly stated by any source in a position to possess such knowledge"

Except the 15-6 investigator... Again, read the real report, not what Wikileaks wants you watch.

Actually, I haven't read anything from Wikileaks. In general I couldn't care less about what is posted to that site.

After reviewing the original report, you are correct that the original investigator concluded that there weapons amongst the initial targets. It is, however, interesting that none of that information appears in the official memorandums which were distributed following the review of the 15-6.

Personally, I don't think the pilot/gunner were at fault here. However, I do believe that the Army did an extremely poor job of handling what is really a cut-and-dry situation. There was no reason for all this pseudo-secrecy given the amount of pressure applied by Reuters, and the nature of the events which transpired.

CptJake wrote:
WMDs: So all the times our troops sat in MOPP4 in 140 degree heat was to back up a lie?

To back up an unfounded suspicion which the higher-ups hoped would just so happen to be based on a kernel of truth.

CptJake wrote:
Get real, we had every reason to think Sadaam had WMDs,

No, we really didn't. When the 'definitive' case for the presence of WMDs is based on intelligence that predates the last effort to remove that technology from the country there should be a healthy dose of skepticism applied to the argument in question. We had one reason to believe that Saddam was a destabilizing influence on the Middle East (though, given the global reaction to the invasion of Kuwait, it wasn't a good one), and that might be considered sufficient cause to invade, but that's all.

CptJake wrote:
his own generals thought he did, as did the French, the Russians, the Brits...

The thing is that mass belief of something without a clear source of evidence does not excuse delusion. Saddam was a bogeyman that many people saw as the greatest security threat to the Western world, regardless of his actual standing within the region. A mistake does not cease to be mistake just because other actors are involved.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Actually, I wonder if Hitler shouldn't have just taken the opposite route; mostly ignore western Europe, and immediately push into Russia. Once the USSR had its production in full swing Hitler was screwed, but taking them out early could have worked. And how many men would France and Britain be willing to lose trying to invade Germany again, after feeling the effects of the first World War, and all to once again save a bunch of slavs (who are this time promising an eventual conflict with their society anyway)?

Just read a book on exactly that. Operation Barbarossa was a major gamble that could have paid off. Point is, by going east and west, Hitler spread the Wehrmacht far too thin.
Hell, Britain and France only stomached Hitler as a bulwark against communism. Had he just gone east, they may have had no problem with him. It's also worth noting that Hitler wanted an alliance with England (because they're Anglo-Saxon, a branch of German).
Either way, the invasion of France was undeniably a work of genius by its commanders and they dropped the ball on the Eastern Front. German armor tactics in the west were revolutionary.
I'd be happy to discuss this in another thread, but I think we should leave it here for this one.

Orkeosaurus wrote:If Americans are going to go around bragging, we should probably be saying "if it wasn't for us, you'd be speaking Russian!"

More or less.

CptJake wrote:
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.

Umm. Where in the feth do you get this information from?

Where is a document supporting the infantry finding weapons?
Where is documentation supporting the survivors of this episode?
I think the use of an 'RPG' does not preclude being 'Iraqi'. 'Civilian' is not really a useful term in your argument.

Grow the feth up and actually look at the reasons for your arguments before posting.

J.Black wrote:

CptJake wrote:
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.

Umm. Where in the feth do you get this information from?

Where is a document supporting the infantry finding weapons?
Where is documentation supporting the survivors of this episode?
I think the use of an 'RPG' does not preclude being 'Iraqi'. 'Civilian' is not really a useful term in your argument.

Grow the feth up and actually look at the reasons for your arguments before posting.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/04/6-2nd-brigade-combat-team-15-6-investigation.pdf

In fairness he actually did post the document that he's pulling information from, and that document does in fact state specifics about the military investigation. Lets try and read a bit more closely eachothers posts.

War is hell gak happens The army isn't some evil super villain it doesn't kill civilians for the hell of it. The pilots felt that thier actions would save the lives of fellow soldiers and i am sure they fell horrible for there mistake we don't need to call them sadistic bastards on top of that.