Wikileaks Page 2

  • Page

    of 71 First / Last

  • KTM 5 Apr 2010 22:20:34 1,674 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Ok, can I have a brief overview? Can't watch it now.
  • Merlinho 5 Apr 2010 22:22:17 5,909 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Try this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack
  • jellyhead 5 Apr 2010 22:22:20 24,350 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    An Apache gunship attacks some journalists and when a car/van with kids turns up to help them they get shot as well. That's what i read, i've not seen the video and i'm not going to if i can help it :(

    This signature intentionally left blank.

  • RedSparrows 5 Apr 2010 22:27:15 22,332 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    KTM, why do you attack the US military as having terrible standards, and then leap to the defence of in-situ decisions being (generally, and understandably) extremely difficult? Just seems a bit odd.
  • PES_Fanboy 5 Apr 2010 22:27:38 15,005 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It's a tough watch, and it (for me) outlines why the helo is completely impractical for this sort of conflict. Not to mention the trigger-happiness of the crew.

    CMON, LET US SHOOT
  • RedSparrows 5 Apr 2010 22:28:47 22,332 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The Helo is completely practical, surely? It's the people that fly it that make the decisions that are either right or wrong. I'd imagine a helicopter is far better for general day to day warfare than a fixed wing or whatever.
  • PES_Fanboy 5 Apr 2010 22:31:11 15,005 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It's more the fact that they can't exactly engage the 'enemy' to know if they are a threat or not, nor have much in the way of precision.

    Anyone playing Death from Above tonight then? Thought not.
  • KTM 5 Apr 2010 22:33:04 1,674 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    KTM, why do you attack the US military as having terrible standards, and then leap to the defence of in-situ decisions being (generally, and understandably) extremely difficult? Just seems a bit odd.

    I thought that that would come across as a bit odd. They are poor soldiers compared to our own forces.

    I guess I have a bit of a bug bear for those comments (not on EG but in general) on something that many people don't understand and so will take any excuse to launch in to a tirade. My bad. I gob off about things I don't know about all the time but I'm willing to be educated if someone has a direct experience of the subject.

    I'll read that article now and then I'll chip in again.
  • sirtacos 5 Apr 2010 22:36:15 7,276 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    KTM wrote:
    biased bit of media.

    Hardly.

    Anyway I can understand why it happened, as far as a milk-fed pup like me can understand anything of that nature.

    While it's nice to call those soldiers cunts - and trust me, after watching that footage you'd be hard-pressed to call them anything else - I think most people aren't focusing their attacks on them personally. This isn't the anti-vietnam movement; we're not calling every Coalition soldier a baby killer.

    The point we're making is the same as yours. Yes, these are fucked up and stressful situations for the troops to be in. Mistakes are unavoidable and collateral blah is blah. However, the amount - and magnitude - of similar incidents is staggering to the point of being systemic, and any person with sense should recognise that there is something wrong with the organization that birthed them.

    As you've implied, American soldiers are, from a mental and behavioural point of view, woefully ill-equipped for these types of engagements. /Sweeping generalizations ahoy
    Their Army, wittingly or no, creates these trigger-happy cunts. Cunts who operate under conditions that allow and even encourage human abuses.
    Nevertheless, while they are the products of a system, they still bear some personal responsibility. These guys certainly do, anyway.

    And while I can certainly accept that, given the right conditions, I and many other people would act in a similarly terrible, rash and cuntish manner, the "you don't know what it's like, man" excuse only goes so far.

    Even the Pentagon grudgingly recognizes this, as evidenced by their extensive PR campaigns aimed at convincing the public that their fighters are being sensitized (to what extent this is true or effective I don't know). Of course, they still have to cover their own arses, which doesn't do much to help their image when stuff like this ends up leaking anyway.

    ...The point is, they can do better. Excuses don't cut it anymore.
  • RedSparrows 5 Apr 2010 22:37:00 22,332 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    PES_Fanboy wrote:
    It's more the fact that they can't exactly engage the 'enemy' to know if they are a threat or not, nor have much in the way of precision.

    Anyone playing Death from Above tonight then? Thought not.

    Well, not to be a pedantic ass, but they are pretty precise from what I understand, and provide cover for troops/quick transportation etc. The problem comes from people using the tools - it's happened, I'm sure, where a similar thing occured from gunfire on the ground, from troops who were nearby etc.

    KTM, nah I understood what you were getting it, and there is an element of 'armchair general' in cases like this, but from the sounds of this (not going to watch it), it's pushing the limit a wee tad!
  • KTM 5 Apr 2010 22:41:16 1,674 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Ok so I read the article and what I said is not applicable in this situation. I feel good for having a bit of a discussion though. EG rants are my favourite when I read other peoples.

    We'd never get away with behaving like that any way.

    Also the bit in The Hurt Locker where the gunman is on the ground and the officer says 'He's not going to make it' so they shoot him? That shit doesn't happen either.

    Also You have no idea the effect apaches have on a firefight. Apache arrives, terry fucks off. Boys go home. They're game winners that are purely designed for ending people. They don't actually have to fire to be a deterent.
  • senso-ji 5 Apr 2010 22:47:33 5,855 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The size of the holes left by the rounds are fucking terrifying. I'd imagine those guns on the Apaches are designed to take out tanks, not unarmed civilians.

    Also, it was scary at the point in the video where one of the airmen complains that his weapon's jammed; there seems to be a system stopping too many rounds being fired in a short amount of time and he doesn't know about it. Seems to be the definition of trigger happy.
  • phAge 5 Apr 2010 23:02:26 24,349 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    sirtacos wrote:
    KTM wrote:
    biased bit of media.

    Hardly.

    Anyway I can understand why it happened, as far as a milk-fed pup like me can understand anything of that nature.

    While it's nice to call those soldiers cunts - and trust me, after watching that footage you'd be hard-pressed to call them anything else - I think most people aren't focusing their attacks on them personally. This isn't the anti-vietnam movement; we're not calling every Coalition soldier a baby killer.

    The point we're making is the same as yours. Yes, these are fucked up and stressful situations for the troops to be in. Mistakes are unavoidable and collateral blah is blah. However, the amount - and magnitude - of similar incidents is staggering to the point of being systemic, and any person with sense should recognise that there is something wrong with the organization that birthed them.

    As you've implied, American soldiers are, from a mental and behavioural point of view, woefully ill-equipped for these types of engagements. /Sweeping generalizations ahoy
    Their Army, wittingly or no, creates these trigger-happy cunts. Cunts who operate under conditions that allow and even encourage human abuses.
    Nevertheless, while they are the products of a system, they still bear some personal responsibility. These guys certainly do, anyway.

    And while I can certainly accept that, given the right conditions, I and many other people would act in a similarly terrible, rash and cuntish manner, the "you don't know what it's like, man" excuse only goes so far.

    Even the Pentagon grudgingly recognizes this, as evidenced by their extensive PR campaigns aimed at convincing the public that their fighters are being sensitized (to what extent this is true or effective I don't know). Of course, they still have to cover their own arses, which doesn't do much to help their image when stuff like this ends up leaking anyway.

    ...The point is, they can do better. Excuses don't cut it anymore.
    Excellent post.

    Imagine that those guys on the ground WERE in fact terrorists, that they DID in fact have AK47's and RPGs. In that case taking them and their compatriots out would have been perfectly OK - and both Iraqi and Afghan insurgents DO use children as cover, lookouts and living weapons. At taht point they become combatants, just like fully grown men and women.

    HOWEVER, these things happen far, far too often and are a clear indicator that there is something deeply, deeply wrong with the system. On the other hand, those chopper pilots have probably seen a fair few of their friends get blown to tiny chunks by IEDs and RPGs - so can you really blame them for wanting to kill anyone that looks like they might be the enemy?

    I'm not sure, and I don't know what the solution is. But that vid made me sick to my stomach. :(
  • Pirotic Moderator 5 Apr 2010 23:45:13 20,646 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    watched the video, depressing stuff. The pilots are clearly trigger happy wankers who look foward to shooting anything which resembles a terroist. Not the sort of people you want manning a patrol copter. Can't fathom what possible reason they had for shooting the van which was just loading the wounded journalist, what's the worst outcome for that, a guy who might have been carrying a gun might end up living.. vs the reality of it just being a group of people (and kids) seeing a guy dying on the street and wanted to rush him to a hospital.

    "look at those bastards"

    .. really hope the gunner/pilot get a kicked out of the army and forced to get pwned by 12 year olds on call of duty.
  • wafflemaker 5 Apr 2010 23:48:01 238 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    The only thing they didn't say on the video was "Fuck you Reuters!" That was for Washington to say later.
  • KTM 5 Apr 2010 23:59:19 1,674 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    So I watched the video.

    Obviously that incident shouldn't have happened. There's no deny that it was an error.

    However...

    - That video gives no indication to the events preceeding the shooting. There could have been a large, prolonged firefight or some other incident that justified that level of force. (I don't have a clue what could justify that kind of attack but the footage doesn't inform me either.)

    - those cameras could at a glance be incorrectly identified as weapons. Under closer inspection it's clear that it's a camera but again that helicopter crewman clearly had a reason to be suspicious of armed men. (These things cost a fortune to fly about, they don't just cruise around the block looking for large gatherings of people to smash up. Something was obviously going on for them to be there and for a war photographer to feel that he needed to take his camera out. Possibly to document the firefight that may or may not have happened?)

    - There's a large group of men behind a wall. You think they've got weapons and one of them sticks his head round the corner with a tubular pointy thing swinging under his arm. He might be sighting up on your mates. ( I don't know where the ground based troops are but they seem to approach from that direction after everything is over) Our friend decides it's an RPG.

    This is the part I Find hardest to defend but I think it's important to see things from the pilot and the gunner's perspective.

    - At the end of the video when they highlight the children in the front seat they zoom right in so that you can see clearly. In the background the two blokes are trying to get that reporter in to the bus. The pilot and gunner are watching them, not the passenger seat of the bus. It's not hard to see why they didn't notice the children.

    - They also don't specify how injured the children are. They're probably in a mess but as you can see from the behavior of the blokes on the ground, getting those children sorted was a priority.
    Possibly they could have had relatively minor injuries like fractures or non-life threatening flesh wounds. From an objective point of view they probably would have been Better off in an Iraqi hospital with native speakers of their own language and people of a culture they understand. Much less stressful for them in the long and short term.


    The pilot and gunners reaction seems sickening and unpleasant but that was never meant to be heard by anyone else. I'm sure if you heard the way most squaddies talk about life, death, enemy combatants and any thing else you care to mention you'd be sickened and disgusted. It's just the way they communicate.

    I don't want to seem like I'm defending the inident as I am not. I'm trying to explain how these things come about. Of course the military look after their own otherwise no soldier would do their job properly for fear of repercussions. This isn't a cover up of a fuck up, this is protecting the blokes that work for you when they've carried out a task you asked them to do and it's gone wrong. I can see a diffence between the two even if I can't articulate it very well.


    Edit: as for the 'Look at those bastards' comment. Insert the word 'poor' there and you've got an entirely different meaning. What he says and what he means can be just as easily misconstrued after the event.
  • Deleted user 6 April 2010 00:06:47
    KTM wrote:
    The American Army is pretty crap, their Best soldiers are comparable to our worst.

    The average American soldier is far worse than an average British soldier but to claim that their best is comparable to our worst is complete bollocks. The best American soldiers are probably the best there is and are both terrifying and extremely intelligent, something that is becoming less common within the British military for various reasons.
  • KTM 6 Apr 2010 00:11:44 1,674 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I may have been a bit keen with that one.

    I hereby amend what I said to what you just wrote.

    Although I disagree that our forces are becoming less intelligent. But I can't back up my argument, I just disagree.
  • Khanivor 6 Apr 2010 00:27:16 40,554 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    That was a good post KTM; people have a tendency to never think of context.
  • DodgyPast 6 Apr 2010 00:46:55 8,451 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Post deleted
  • KTM 6 Apr 2010 00:52:45 1,674 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    It seems to me to be a fairly rational thought. I'd rather kill someone else to stop people I know from getting killed than let it all happen around me.

    You have to understand that soldiers are expected to kill when it comes to the crunch. That's what they are for. It's not duhumanising anyone, it's dealing with a situation in such a way that you can continue to function normally afterwards. This is the root of the squaddies' typical black humour.

    You can't change what has happened but you can change your own perspective of it.
  • DodgyPast 6 Apr 2010 00:56:42 8,451 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Misread, so sorry.

    The most scary thing to me was that the chatter sounded like people on a gate camp in eve where you're basically doing something similar but in a video game.

    I do see where your coming from KTM, but at the end of the day it's reached the point where the troops can be as trigger happy as they like and know they'll suffer no repercussions.

    Trivialising killing is pretty disgusting and can't really be separated from the other activities that are going on at the moment such as torture. I do wonder what kind of individual would sign up for the forces given they're likely to be asked to take some fairly morally repugnant actions.
  • KTM 6 Apr 2010 01:06:47 1,674 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago

    I do see where your coming from KTM, but at the end of the day it's reached the point where the troops can be as trigger happy as they like and know they'll suffer no repercussions.

    This is incorrect mate, you can't just do what you want at all. Everything has to be justified and if you do behave in that way then you will be punished accordingly. I think people have got completely the wrong end of the stick regarding our policy on killing foreigners in their own country.

    Pretty much there has to be a percieved threat to human life (not just theirs) and you have to decide in that moment whether you could honestly say I acted in the belief that what I was doing was right and with an appropriate level of force.

    It's not like you can just run around raping and pilliging.
  • NBZ 6 Apr 2010 01:17:36 2,371 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Post deleted
  • NBZ 6 Apr 2010 01:22:21 2,371 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    If we were not there in the first place, there would be no need to kill "others" in order to save "our" lives...

    In the bigger picture that cannot be ignored.

    and even if you do defend the actions using various means, that is only to the point where they were seen as a threat and totally unlinked to the rescue that was shot at too. (and if the helicopter HAD seen the people in the van, I suspect they would have shot it up even more...)

    Assymetric warfare is ugly and while the soldiers cannot be totally blamed for everything, they should not have been there in the first place.

    DodgyPast wrote:
    How do you think the Iraqis react to their mates being blown up?

    At least when your mates are troops they signed up for it... horrific yes but an understandable risk they had control over, vs. for the Iraqis the fact that so often it is innocents struggling to survive in a country that has been blown to fuck and back by a bunch of foreigners for things they had no control over.

    Anyone losing their life is horrific, but military personnel pulling the 'you can't understand unless you were out there' card is a bit of a strawman.

    This.

    Soldiers signed up for their jobs. the civillians didn't.

    KTM wrote:
    I'm sure they react the same way that we do to a close friend dying but if you could stop your own mates getting hurt what would you do?

    Easiest way is to simply not be there. I don't think this is a valid angle for sympathising with dispicable actions.
  • KTM 6 Apr 2010 01:27:40 1,674 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    That bloke with the camera signed up to take pictures of war so he put himself there. Those blokes with him made the choice to piss about when they knew American forces were in the area. The guys driving the van made the choice to go and pick the injured gut up so they also made a choice. It's easy to say that anyone chose to be there. In that video the only people that didn't have a choice were the children.

    Using the line that soldiers chose to fight and civilians don't is as much as a cop out as me saying that you just can't understand if you haven't been involved.

    It's always a complicated, multifaceted and highly context sensitive decision.

    And to be honest I don't think their actions were that dispicable.

    They killed innocent people which shouldn't have happened but they did their jobs correctly, professionally and like I said before were probably operating under circumstances that video fails to convey.
  • Tomo 6 Apr 2010 01:31:29 13,895 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Just watched the video... :o

    One of the nastiest things I've ever seen without a doubt, just :o

    Got horrendous cotton mouth now. Time for bed and bad dreams. Sigh.
  • mal 6 Apr 2010 01:35:56 22,473 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Hold on a mo - you can't equate choosing to go and take someone to a hospital with choosing to point a gun at said people and shooting them.

    You're right however that something not seen on that tape led them to be there looking for people to shoot. There is context missing. But the context of the van seems to be clear enough - though when I'm saying that I'm trusting that the gap in between the first incident and the van turning up didn't contain anything.

    I personally do hope we get to hear what the 'punishment' for those soldiers was. Sadly I suspect this story will be another case of 'tomorrow's fish papers' and we'll never hear the full details even from the American side.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • DodgyPast 6 Apr 2010 01:38:03 8,451 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Maybe we're watching a different video then because it pretty much looks like they got away with murder to me. They clearly lied over the radio as to the number of people who even appeared to armed, let alone by the end when they're shooting missiles into a building with unarmed people clearly within the blast radius and still no sign of any resistance.

    Are there any rules that mean they shouldn't be shouting 'clear' when there are civilians within the blast radius? I thought there were rules of engagement that should be in place to avoid this kind of thing?As far as I can see at no point did anyone aim any kind of weapon at them and they made no attempt to control situation, purely just aimed to kill people who weren't posing any threat. There are such things as warning shots for example.

    In reality some Americans shot up some civilians laughed about it and then shot up the people who came to help, and they will be facing no repercussions for this activity.

    I particularly 'like' this quote: [code]"Ah, yeah, look at those dead bastards. Nice," [/code] and [code]"Well, it's their fault bringing their kids into the battle,"[/code] is also pretty tasteful.

    How many other video tapes of atrocities are buried where no one can see them and no action taken?
  • NBZ 6 Apr 2010 01:38:13 2,371 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    @KTM - how do you justify shooting at the van?

    Before, yes they may have been insurgents etc etc... but once the van arrived and there was no discussion of weapons at all... how do you justify that?

    If they were seasoned soldiers, you would espect them to know that people would try to help the injured etc. - it would be inhumane to leave the people to die.

    Using the line that soldiers chose to fight and civilians don't is as much as a cop out as me saying that you just can't understand if you haven't been involved.

    Call it what you like. But people living in an an area are not to blame for others turning it into a warzone.

    What is wrong is simply wrong.

    As I mentioned, this makes me less angry at those trigger happy cunts, more at the bigger ones who sent them there.
  • Page

    of 71 First / Last

Log in or register to reply