Wikileaks, the US Government, and the slaughter of civilians

[Hauldren Collider]

That's how it works. It's called close air support.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Bradley was summoned to the area to clean up after the hit...

Nope. Watch the video again.

[Asher]

The Bradley was summoned to the area to clean up after the hit...

Nope. Watch the video again.

Which part? I don't want to watch the whole thing again.

[Kuciwalker]

"Shoot first, ask questions later" is not a logical rule of engagement.

Of course it is. It's absurd to wait for someone to shoot at you before shooting back.

You're talking about a country that's been "in a state of war for 8 years". People are simply living their lives there. This isn't your typical WW2 battlefield.

Yes, most of the people we're fighting don't wear uniforms, so we have to actually do things like stare at them for a couple minutes before shooting at them. But it would be absurd for us to just forsake any attempts at preemptively killing them.

(Aside: France was "in a state of war" for 5 years, which is about how long we'd been in Iraq when I think this video was taken.)

It's completely unacceptable rules of engagement to kill someone and the dozen people who happen to be around them because you think they have an AK-47 when you're standing far out of range of any danger.

It's completely absurd to wait for someone to shoot at you before shooting back. Even the civilian police in the US and Canada aren't held to that standard.

[Asher]

Of course it is. It's absurd to wait for someone to shoot at you before shooting back.

Kuci, it's not a binary decision. You can wait for better intel. Send in a drone. Tell the Bradley to wait while they analyzed the situation more from a distance from the Apache.

You have a very simplistic view for how urban combat works.

Yes, most of the people we're fighting don't wear uniforms, so we have to actually do things like stare at them for a couple minutes before shooting at them. But it would be absurd for us to just forsake any attempts at preemptively killing them.

You are being creepily flippant about the lives of others.

First of all, avoid the use of "we" -- you are a citizen living in safety, not a soldier.
Second of all, the fact that you need to do the requisite recon work is the point. It's clear that was not done here.
Third of all, your last sentence is so morbid I don't even think I need to say anything more. You don't know who you're shooting, so rather than spend another 5 minutes ascertaining what's going on in more detail you shoot 'em all up and hope they were all insurgents?

It's completely absurd to wait for someone to shoot at you before shooting back. Even the civilian police in the US and Canada aren't held to that standard.

I've already dealt with that embarrassing strawman...

[Drake Tungsten]

Which part? I don't want to watch the whole thing again.

4:26 "Uh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the Brad."

This is before the helicopter opens fire. It sounds like "Bushmaster" is a convoy with a Bradley and four Humvees, which mentions taking fire from someone behind a building at 4:20.

[Wiglaf]

Yes, the convoy had reported being shot at from that area. The Apache investigated and saw the guns.

[Asher]

Which part? I don't want to watch the whole thing again.

4:26 "Uh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the Brad."

This is before the helicopter opens fire. It sounds like "Bushmaster" is a convoy with a Bradley and four Humvees, which mentions taking fire from someone behind a building at 4:20.

Yes, the convoy had reported being shot at from that area. The Apache investigated and saw the guns.

That doesn't make any sense. The people in the video are all very casual and were clearly not seconds removed from firing at the Bradley.

I guess we should not at all be surprised that the military men here are not the brightest of thinkers.

And Wiggy, they not only saw guns -- they saw that RPG that looks suspiciously like a telephoto lens...especially how it was handled in the video.

[Drake Tungsten]

That doesn't make any sense. The people in the video are all very casual and were clearly not seconds removed from firing at the Bradley.

Why is the man with the camera/RPG peeking around the corner then, while everyone else in the group stays behind cover?

[Asher]

That doesn't make any sense. The people in the video are all very casual and were clearly not seconds removed from firing at the Bradley.

Why is the man with the camera/RPG peeking around the corner then, while everyone else in the group stays behind cover?

I would ask him, but he's dead.

If everyone in the group was behind cover, why were they huddling around the camera with their backs to the world? That isn't what most people would do if you think you're in close proximity to US troops -- close enough to shoot at them...

[Drake Tungsten]

If everyone in the group was behind cover, why were they huddling around the camera with their backs to the world?

They were under cover from the American convoy they knew was down the street. They didn't know they had their backs turned to a circling helicopter.

[Asher]

They were under cover from the American convoy they knew was down the street. They didn't know they had their backs turned to a helicopter.

Even if this was so, could you blame Iraqis for not wanting to be in the line of fire of a US military vehicle?

It's well established that the US military cannot tell the difference between a telephoto lens and an RPG, after all.

[Wiglaf]

Let's face facts: Photo journalists in warzones with long rods know what they are getting themselves into.

We should really feel sorry for the people who tried to render aid by driving up in an unmarked van and throwing the guy in the backseat. Does Iraq not have 911?

[Asher]

Let's face facts: Photo journalists in warzones with long rods know what they are getting themselves into.

We should really feel sorry for the people who tried to render aid by driving up in an unmarked van and throwing the guy in the backseat. Does Iraq not have 911?

Many people don't even have phones.

This is the other thing I find deeply disturbing.

The van comes up and tries to bring a CLEARLY WOUNDED person into the van. That's ALL they're doing. It is therefore ATTACKED.

What is the rationale for that one? Anyone even want to try to defend it?

I understand under strict interpretation of the Geneva Convention, you're only forbidden from attacking medics and other vehicles marked with the red cross...but it should be abundantly clear what was going on.

[Drake Tungsten]

Even if this was so, could you blame Iraqis for not wanting to be in the line of fire of a US military vehicle?

No. I'm just pointing out that your contention that the group was acting "very casual" is belied by the video evidence. The guy peeking around that corner was worried about taking fire from something, whether he was an insurgent or a cameraman.

What is the rationale for that one?

More dead bad guys?