Collateralmurder.com

[mmmtodd]

question for the military guys....was that even a helicopter? Or was it something like the AC-130 (forgive me if I'm wrong, I don't know my planes very well)?

 

all the news articles I keep reading say it's a helicopter, but I find it curious that a helicopter would be doing circles around the location like that. Why not just hover? The airship keeps losing sight as it goes behind some buildings and they have to wait until they come about to fire. The slow circular motion so high up (no one noticed the aircraft until it fired) makes me think it's a plane.

 

Just curious.

 

 

They circle to check all avenues, alleys, etc. I dont know how many times I had pounded into my head "keep moving." Hovering in one spot is a great way to take an RPG up your backside. Sure, they lose sight and cannot shoot at times, but it works the same way for the hostiles.

 

And as far as your second post, yes, the cameras were mistaken for guns, but its quite clear that people around them had not only AK-47s, but there was an RPG that was even aimed at the helos from behind a building at one point. Not exactly smart on the reporters part. People with weapons in warzones oddly enough tend to draw fire, and if youre next to them, well, youre going to as well.

[carlfense]

btw, I think the controversy is no one in the group had any guns or RPG's. They were news guys with cameras that apparently were mistaken for guns.

 

at least that's what I understand from it all.

I believe the video stated that they did have weapons but they weren't pointing them at anyone. Not sure if that's correct.

[Dundermifflinite]

question for the military guys....was that even a helicopter? Or was it something like the AC-130 (forgive me if I'm wrong, I don't know my planes very well)?

 

all the news articles I keep reading say it's a helicopter, but I find it curious that a helicopter would be doing circles around the location like that. Why not just hover? The airship keeps losing sight as it goes behind some buildings and they have to wait until they come about to fire. The slow circular motion so high up (no one noticed the aircraft until it fired) makes me think it's a plane.

 

Just curious.

 

I only know this from playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, but yes, that is an Apache Chopper Gunship.

[bennychico11]

 

I only know this from playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, but yes, that is an Apache Chopper Gunship.

 

 

lol, that's actually what got me thinking. I haven't played the MW2 but in the first one, in the Death From Above mission you're in an AC-130H. The above video seemed a lot like it. I was just wondering why they were doing circles. I understand you want to keep moving at all times but it seemed like they were doing the same rotation again and again. Even when he wanted to fire he just had to wait until they rotated back around...why not just go back the other way to get in front of the building?

I don't know, again I'm basing this off of absolutely no military training...just CoD lol. And obviously this has nothing to do with the discussed topic.

[bennychico11]

I believe the video stated that they did have weapons but they weren't pointing them at anyone. Not sure if that's correct.

 

you're right. It did. I think maybe I just read that somewhere else.

 

I'm curious how close any ground troops were to these individuals and if there was fear they were headed towards them.

[knapplc]

I believe the video stated that they did have weapons but they weren't pointing them at anyone. Not sure if that's correct.

 

you're right. It did. I think maybe I just read that somewhere else.

 

I'm curious how close any ground troops were to these individuals and if there was fear they were headed towards them.

 

According to what was said earlier in the thread, that's not actually relevant. The way they operate, if there are people in a region declared hostile, and they even seem to be carrying weapons, they're considered targets.

[Enhance]

I believe the video stated that they did have weapons but they weren't pointing them at anyone. Not sure if that's correct.

 

you're right. It did. I think maybe I just read that somewhere else.

 

I'm curious how close any ground troops were to these individuals and if there was fear they were headed towards them.

 

According to what was said earlier in the thread, that's not actually relevant. The way they operate, if there are people in a region declared hostile, and they even seem to be carrying weapons, they're considered targets.

That's exactly right, according to a buddy of mine who spent 5 months over there.

 

Just to re-iterate for everybody, if there are people in a non-friendly zone that show up with weapons, they are clear to be fired upon if the military happens to be patrolling that area. Technically, they have to request permission from their supervisors to fire upon them, but if the U.S. army is trying to keep an area free of insurgents, they're not going to let 10 guys (some with AK 47's, some with cameras) meander about in a group hap-hazardly.

[huzkerbob]

[huskertim]

Just a couple of thoughts. These journalists took a big gamble when they agreed to this assignment, to that end, I applaud thier bravery. That said, when you lose a bet, the bookie wants his cash. Sorry guys, you crapped out. We aren't going to shut down Vegas because some guy lost his life savings, you knew the risk. Secondly, Al Quida does actually own a camera or two. So, to assume a guy with a camera is not part of the insurgentcy, is a bit of a leap of faith is it not? Lastly,as a former Gulf War Vet. I would definately favor a policy that sends lead down range when in doubt, after all, I like the idea of living to see my own wife and kids. It isn't like we didn't warn them this would happen.

[Husker_x]

Not a great revelation to anyone, but war by definition is on the short list for worst things in the world. There is no way to eliminate civilian casualties and in some instances it's foolish to try to. It isn't like the old days where two nations send out their champions for single combat. It's total war, and when people get stuck in the middle it's a tragedy but unavoidable. IMO the safety of American soldiers is the priority in a war zone; everything else is secondary.

[Enhance]

Not a great revelation to anyone, but war by definition is on the short list for worst things in the world. There is no way to eliminate civilian casualties and in some instances it's foolish to try to. It isn't like the old days where two nations send out their champions for single combat. It's total war, and when people get stuck in the middle it's a tragedy but unavoidable. IMO the safety of American soldiers is the priority in a war zone; everything else is secondary.

That is essentially what is boils down to. Safety of American lives and friendly lives, safety of Iraqi/Afghani innocent/police lives, and then things just work their way down the list.

 

Besides, it's always best to look at these things with an optimistic point of view. Despite how sad it is that these two journalists were killed, the death of those guys around them could have prevented the deaths of hundreds. Perhaps those insurgents that were killed were planning an attack the next day, or the next week. Sometimes, the death of a few can spur the safety of many.

[walksalone]

What in the hell has happened to people conception of war?

 

I know since Desert Storm, news outlets have done their best to get as many people into a combat zone, as humanly possible. There are several things inherently wrong with that.

 

Mainly, it compromises OPSEC. (Operational Security) If there some news crew embeded with the 1st Infantry Div or the 2nd Mar Div, has it ever occured that the "enemy" may try and tune in? If you have a unit moving into place to conduct an operation, isn't it a little counter productive to have a news crew with them?

 

Ok, now it seems "vogue" for some folks in this topic to take the "moral high ground" on this subject. But there is a question that begs to be answered. Have the aforementioned individuals ever served in the military, let alone, been in a combat zone?? I'm willing to bet that the answer is no. That makes it even easier for ethical armchair quaterbacks to tell you how horrible all this is.

[Enhance]

What in the hell has happened to people conception of war?

Thanks to the internet and how fast communication takes place these days, everybody's perception of war has changed. Ask any guy my age back in 1942 what he knew about the war going on, and I am overly positive he would know nowhere near as much about the war going on then as I do about the one going on now.

 

I know since Desert Storm, news outlets have done their best to get as many people into a combat zone, as humanly possible. There are several things inherently wrong with that.

 

Mainly, it compromises OPSEC. (Operational Security) If there some news crew embeded with the 1st Infantry Div or the 2nd Mar Div, has it ever occured that the "enemy" may try and tune in? If you have a unit moving into place to conduct an operation, isn't it a little counter productive to have a news crew with them?

 

This isn't directed as insult, but it doesn't seem you know a lot about war-time journalism. Journalists who embed themselves within a unit often become part of that unit. They are taught very rough combat skills and are even given a weapon in some situations, generally for self defense purposes only. Very rarely (if ever) is a full news crew given permission to walk around with microphones, expensive cameras, and a reporter with a microphone just standing there chiming in. Generally, when you see battlefield footage like that, it's done from a hand-held camera in a safe place. Plus, journalists KNOW not to compromise themselves or the unit they are with, ergo they will not divulge their position willingly nor will they give away information that could be detrimental to the operation. Lastly, most journalists embedded in a unit are going solo. It is not very often you will ever have multiple journalists in one unit/division, or what have you.

 

Ok, now it seems "vogue" for some folks in this topic to take the "moral high ground" on this subject. But there is a question that begs to be answered. Have the aforementioned individuals ever served in the military, let alone, been in a combat zone?? I'm willing to bet that the answer is no. That makes it even easier for ethical armchair quaterbacks to tell you how horrible all this is.

To answer your question, I will answer it with another. Have any of the individuals on this board ever played a snap of division 1 football? Have any of the individuals on this board ever coach a game of division 1 football? The answer for almost every person on this board is probably no, and there are more than likely far fewer individuals on this board that have played/coached division 1 football than we have veterans.

 

But that's the beauty of this whole thing. None of us really know anything about what we're talking about. We speculate, we offer opinions based on facts (or gut feelings), and then we discuss it with one another. That's all you should take away from this, and really nothing more.

[Dundermifflinite]

TIME Magazine story on the video:

link

[SOCALHUSKER]

A couple of commentaries on this debacle.

 

The first, This is War

It’s war you can watch on video, much like a movie, except the victims really die and the killers really murder. If you watch and listen to the entire recording of the July 12, 2007 helicopter attack on a group of Iraqi civilians, including two Reuters employees, you will hear the repeated use of military call signs, but towards the end, you hear an exasperated voice sharing an aside with "Kyle." It’s Grand Theft Auto meets Reno 911 – except it isn’t. One is entertained by GTA and the antics of incompetent policepeople. One is simply floored by what our soldiers are doing, and how they are doing it. In their defense, they say, "This is war."

 

Except, of course, it isn’t war at all. It’s an occupation, and a partial occupation at that. In July 2007, the Iraq mission had been accomplished for over four years. We are allies with Eurasia; we have always been at war with Eastasia. How could you have possibly missed it?

 

The second, How We Lost Our Souls

...allowing institutional purposes to pre-empt our own has been destructive of life, liberty, peace and, ultimately, of civilizations.

The emotional and spiritual dimensions that make us human are of no value to institutions which, in times of political wrong-doing, urge us to suppress such sentiments. Anything that is nonmaterial is immaterial to members of the institutional order. In place of deeply-held philosophic principles, institutions have policies; their sense of "meaning" consists only of perpetuating themselves by maximizing their power and material wealth. To such entities, human beings have value only as fungible resources to exploit on behalf of institutional ends.