WikiLeaks posts 'killing' video (Iraq)

[Treize]

WikiLeaks has posted a video on its website which it claims shows the killing of civilians by the US military in Baghdad in 2007.
The website's organisers say they were given the footage, which they say comes from cameras on US Apache helicopters.
They say they decrypted it, but would not reveal who gave it to them.
The WikiLeaks site campaigns for freedom of information and posts leaked documents online. There has been no Pentagon response to the video so far.

High-quality video

The video, released on Monday, is of high quality and appears to be authentic, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says.
It is accompanied by a recording of the pilots' radio transmissions and those of US troops on the ground.
The video shows a street in Baghdad and a group of about eight people, whom the helicopter pilots deem to be insurgents.
It then shows the individuals on the street being shot dead with the Apache's cannon.
Then, a van drives onto the scene, and its occupants appear to start picking up the wounded.
It, too, is fired upon. Altogether, around 12 people die. Two children appear to be injured.

'Hostile force'

Two journalists working for Reuters were among those killed in the incident in July 2007.
WikiLeaks has published a statement from Reuters news editor-in-chief David Schlesinger saying that the video was "graphic evidence of the dangers involved in war journalism and the tragedies that can result".
At the time, the US military said the helicopters were engaged in combat operations against a hostile force.
WikiLeaks said the video demonstrated that civilians had died in the incident, and that the US military's rules of engagement were flawed.

The website's organisers complained recently of coming under surveillance by the US government, and of harassment by other governments, ostensibly for their role in posting leaked documents on sensitive subjects.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...as/8603938.stm

Published: 2010/04/05 18:35:42 GMT

© BBC MMX


Classified US military video depicting slaying of Iraqis

Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a mini More..van arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on http://collateralmurder.com

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=42b_1270489420

[motiv-8]

Hm, I can't quite put my finger on it, but for some reason I feel like this will get more attention than, say, the 50 people the Taliban killed along with the 100 they wounded in Peshawar today, especially in certain Muslim countries...

[DimeBagHo]

The group that was initially attacked were obviously insurgents. Even in Iraq regular civilians don't hang around with RPGs. The two journalists were killed in that initial attack. If they were just doing their job, that is unfortunate, but hanging out with soldiers in a combat zone has always been a risky job.

Two children were wounded later when a van came to collect one of the men wounded in the initial attack. The children are never visible in the video because they remained inside the van. If anyone deserves blame here its the adults who dragged two kids into the middle of a fire-fight, not the Apache crew who never saw them.

Firing on the first group was clearly justified. Firing on the van is debatable. The Apache crew report seeing the men in the van collecting weapons as well as the wounded guy. If that is correct then firing on the van was also justified. I couldn't tell from looking at the video whether that was correct or not.

A couple of basic points. (1) If you are in a war zone, and you are holding a gun, then the guys on the other side are allowed to shoot at you. (2) If you bring your kids to a fire-fight then you are a war criminal, and ought to be hanged.

*edit* The RPG is clearly visible in the video. There is now way it could be mistaken for a video camera. The guy holding it is center screen at 3:56 in the video.

[Erik]

The group that was initially attacked were obviously insurgents. Even in Iraq regular civilians don't hang around with RPGs.

There were no RPG's.

Look at the video: what they reported as an "RPG" was a photo camera with a big lens, something like this:


I'm not sure, but I assume the armed individuals were security guards protecting the journalists from insurgents and criminals. - I believe that's perfectly legal.

A couple of basic points. (1) If you are in a war zone, and you are holding a gun, then the guys on the other side are allowed to shoot at you.

In 2007 the war was officially over, right?
What gave America the right to open fire at anyone carrying rifles?

(2) If you bring your kids to a fire-fight then you are a war criminal, and ought to be hanged.

I'm pretty sure they didn't plan this, and just came to aid the wounded.
Maybe they should have just abandoned the kids in a dangerous part of Baghdad first?

*edit* The RPG is clearly visible in the video. There is now way it could be mistaken for a video camera. The guy holding it is center screen at 3:56 in the video.

Look closer.
At one point he drops the lens down to look at the LCD.
It's clearly way too short to be an RPG.

[DimeBagHo]

There were no RPG's.

*Look* at the video. The RPG is clear as day. It's in view from about 3:46 to 4:00. Right around 3:45 you can see it in profile very clearly as the guy turns.

I think you guys are getting confused because when the Apache crew mention the RPG, the gun camera is centered on a different guy (apparently one of the journalists). This isn't a TV show, so the subject of discussion isn't always going to be in center-screen.

I'm not sure, but I assume the armed individuals were security guards protecting the journalists from insurgents and criminals. - I believe that's perfectly legal.

No one has claimed that they were security guards.

In 2007 the war was officially over, right?
What gave America the right to open fire at anyone carrying rifles?

The war isn't "officially" over yet.

I'm pretty sure they didn't plan this, and just came to aid the wounded.
Maybe they should have just abandoned the kids in a dangerous part of Baghdad first?

Maybe they should have given consideration to the safety of the kids first.

[Sal123]

This is a disgrace. This false occupation should have ended so long ago. Those pilots were absolutely sickening.

[Erik]

*Look* at the video. The RPG is clear as day. It's in view from about 3:46 to 4:00. Right around 3:58 you can see it in profile very clearly as the guy turns.

I think you guys are getting confused because when the Apache crew mention the RPG, the gun camera is centered on a different guy (apparently one of the journalists). This isn't a TV show, so the subject of discussion isn't always going to be in center-screen.

They first mentioned the "RPG" at 4:06 when your guy (it's really not clear what he was carrying) wasn't even visible anymore because he's behind the building.

Face it: they mistook a photo camera for an RPG.

No one has claimed that they were security guards.

Hence the words "I assume" - You do know English, do you?

Nobody knows who they were, but given that those journalists were so relaxed around them it's highly unlikely they were insurgents.

The war isn't "officially" over yet.

Maybe they should have given consideration to the safety of the kids first.

Maybe they didn't expect the US to fire at civilians coming to the aid of wounded journalists.

Here's a shot of the guy with the RPG. It's easier to see in the video where you can see it move and see how he is carrying it, but still plenty clear in this frame.

Looks more like a rifle to me.

[Yosemite]

*Look* at the video. The RPG is clear as day. It's in view from about 3:46 to 4:00. Right around 3:45 you can see it in profile very clearly as the guy turns.

I think you guys are getting confused because when the Apache crew mention the RPG, the gun camera is centered on a different guy (apparently one of the journalists). This isn't a TV show, so the subject of discussion isn't always going to be in center-screen.


No one has claimed that they were security guards.

The war isn't "officially" over yet.

Maybe they should have given consideration to the safety of the kids first.

quick, it's a journalist with arpg kill him before he shoot us

[Kjertesvein]

I must note, freedom of expression is a good thing. I guess CIA is all over these guys, infiltrating, acusing Wikileaks of petty crime. Only Belgium and Sweden will hold their backs. Even Iceland stabbed Wikileaks in the back, after getting their help. shame . Bastards

In 2007 the war was officially over, right?
What gave America the right to open fire at anyone carrying rifles?

I remember my buddy from Iraq said, every family have an AK47 stored in the house.

[Yosemite]

The group that was initially attacked were obviously insurgents. Even in Iraq regular civilians don't hang around with RPGs. The two journalists were killed in that initial attack. If they were just doing their job, that is unfortunate, but hanging out with soldiers in a combat zone has always been a risky job.

Two children were wounded later when a van came to collect one of the men wounded in the initial attack. The children are never visible in the video because they remained inside the van. If anyone deserves blame here its the adults who dragged two kids into the middle of a fire-fight, not the Apache crew who never saw them.

Firing on the first group was clearly justified. Firing on the van is debatable. The Apache crew report seeing the men in the van collecting weapons as well as the wounded guy. If that is correct then firing on the van was also justified. I couldn't tell from looking at the video whether that was correct or not.

A couple of basic points. (1) If you are in a war zone, and you are holding a gun, then the guys on the other side are allowed to shoot at you. (2) If you bring your kids to a fire-fight then you are a war criminal, and ought to be hanged.

*edit* The RPG is clearly visible in the video. There is now way it could be mistaken for a video camera. The guy holding it is center screen at 3:56 in the video.

you misunderstood everything or you are doing it intentionally, it is not possible to write what you have just written

because this was not a "firefight", it was a turkey shoot
and they couldn't even properly identify anything

[Erik]

If I was high on amphetamines because I had to fly choppers for 16 hours a day, I could probably mistake a photo camera for an RPG as well.

And non-embedded journalist were officially labeled as "insurgent sympathizers" and deemed valid targets anyways.

[Hattori]

If I was high on amphetamines because I had to fly choppers for 16 hours a day, I could probably mistake a photo camera for an RPG as well.

I think that's a pretty lame excuse Erik, if they were able to spot those Ak47 which looked very very faint in that video they would clearly be able to tell that was a camera and not an RPG.

[Yosemite]

it's quite interesting to see people unable to identify weapons piloting multi million dollars choppers

[Heinz Guderian]

So these pilots are in jail right?

[jankren]

Thats what happen when you make war combat to look like a video game.

Hearts and minds were totally won there.

By the way, how come they cant see the chopper?

[Hattori]

By the way, how come they cant see the chopper?

I think they saw it but it was very far, did you see the delay when they opened fire? That should tell you something. Isnt that far enough to be safe even if that camera was an RPG? That just makes the whole situation more ridiculous.

[Norge]

Isnt that far enough to be safe even if that camera was an RPG? That just makes the whole situation more ridiculous.

Wait, what? Are you saying gunships should only fire when they are in range of the enemies weapons?

Anyways, I hope these retards get some prison time.

[Hattori]

Wait, what? Are you saying gunships should only fire when they are in range of the enemies weapons?

I'm saying that would be a reason to try and make a better analysis of the situation instead of acting like a 14 year old playing call of duty, eager to mow down a crowd in which most people werent even armed like they didnt even care.

"He's getting up"

"He may have a weapon with him"

"No, I haven't seen one. I'm only going to fire if I see one"

Yeah, sickening.

-"look at that!"
-"NICE"
"C'mon all you need to do is reach for the gun!!"

Yeah pretty sickening.

Oh please, that crewman was eager to get some blood.

[jankren]

I'm saying that would be a reason to try and make a better analysis of the situation instead of acting like a 14 year old playing call of duty, eager to mow down a crowd in which most people werent even armed like they didnt even care.

Well, to be fair thats what you get for recruiting soldiers through AMERICA'S ARMY!!!

[Norge]

I'm saying that would be a reason to try and make a better analysis of the situation instead of acting like a 14 year old playing call of duty, eager to mow down a crowd in which most people werent even armed like they didnt even care.

Maybe you just should have said that to begin with.

quick, it's a journalist with arpg kill him before he shoot us

I'd figure that could easily be mistaken for a mortar. Not exactly the best example.