WikiLeaks posts video of 'US military killings' in Iraq

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Hm. I didn't know that they had to look through a low quality camera when flying a multi millon dollar helicopter. I've never been in an Army aircraft before but I'm going to assume they can look with THEIR EYES to spot potential threats...Not a shitty camera. Either way. If any of those people even looked like they had weapons and were firing....I would not give a flying fuck and would be glad that our soldiers came out alive and the enemy did not prevail. Unfortunately it seems like a bunch of innocent photographers and a few children were brutally wounded or murdered by two trigger happy soldiers who were incredibly eager to kill.

They did look with their eyes, they used a telescope/camera to assist them and their eyes. It was hardly a crappy camera. Watch the very beginning of the video again. You see lots streets and buildings and then they zoom in to the street where the men were gathered. I'm not sure how far away they were but it seemed very far because of the difference in time from when you heard the helicopters gun fire to when you see the bullets hitting people.

Again, I believe that I do see someone holding a gun. A rifle. AK-47? And unfortunately the photographer who was squatted down near the edge of the building could be and was misidentified as someone holding a RPG or rocket launcher.
 
They didn't know the van had children in it. That was truly tragic that those children were shot.

That's not the point, the point is these US soldiers are just as bad as the terrorist, they just want to kill and get blood and then go drink beers afterward and joke about it.


What's sick about this is the US govt trying to cover it, not even investigating. :( :( :(
 
The soldiers did say that shots were fired. That's some extra context, but not nearly enough, IMO.

They do say shots were fired but you don't see any being fired, you see a bunch of guys walking around openly...

...having said that, it's not the soldiers actions that bother me in this video, but the joy they get out of it.
 
The other thing is, when they open fire, they're all huddled together in a crowd. That doesn't look like a threatening thing to me at all. If they were spread out and hiding in alley ways, it would be a completely different story.

Once the first set of firing is done, the gunner zooms in with that "CCTV" camera and it does some good detail. Why didn't he do that when they were surveying the crowd? They would of made out guns much more easily. That's obviously assuming that they use that shitty camera as their source of viewing their targets, which is highly doubtful.

I don't think that they were in much fault when they opened fire on those targets as it really was hard to make out what they were doing/carrying. I think they should be punished for their attitude. It would of been appalling even if they were shooting "real' targets with obvious sign of aggression. How can you honestly enjoy shooting people? Unless they're already crazy. The gunner sounded pretty loopy, anyway.
 
That's not the point, the point is these US soldiers are just as bad as the terrorist, they just want to kill and get blood and then go drink beers afterward and joke about it.


What's sick about this is the US govt trying to cover it, not even investigating. :( :( :(

These soldiers are not terrorist nor do their actions equal terrorist acts.

These soldiers were sent by their gov't to fight and win a war. They are fighting people in a foreign country who want to kill them. You bet these kids are going to be paraoid and gun happy . . . they want to survive and win the war. They saw the people on the ground as the enemy and did not want the enemy to get away.

This isn't a court of law, there doesn't need to be beyond a reasonable doubt, this is a war . . . war is hell.

If anything blame the gov't for putting them in the position. But these are the type of people you want to fight for you when you are in a time of war.
 
These soldiers were sent by their gov't to fight and win a war. They are fighting people in a foreign country who want to kill them.

Oasama bin Laden to his troops:
"I am sending you to fight and win a war. We are fighting people in a foreign country who want to kill us."

There are few differences.
 
These soldiers are not terrorist nor do their actions equal terrorist acts.

These soldiers were sent by their gov't to fight and win a war. They are fighting people in a foreign country who want to kill them. You bet these kids are going to be paraoid and gun happy . . . they want to survive and win the war. They saw the people on the ground as the enemy and did not want the enemy to get away.

This isn't a court of law, there doesn't need to be beyond a reasonable doubt, this is a war . . . war is hell.

If anything blame the gov't for putting them in the position. But these are the type of people you want to fight for you when you are in a time of war.

A lot of our soldiers are just as bad as the terrorists, they rape, murder, etc, things that you won't see on cnn/foxnews.



By the way here's an interesting article. I'll post it here.

GORDON DUFF: “COLLATERAL DAMAGE,” SPINNING AWAY MURDER IN IRAQ (from Veterans Today)


EXCUSES, EXPLANATIONS OR CONSPIRACY AND MISPRISION OF A FELONY

TIME FOR THE “SPIN MASTERS” TO “PAY THE FIDDLER”

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

MSNBC, in an excellent video, has put out both sides of the story on the 2007 ”video game murder” in Iraq. The most telling aspect of this story isn’t just that we now know our own Army leaked the video or that many others like it exist, it is the lengths we go to using “surrogates” to spin away murder. Years of lies droning on, filling the American airwaves have made senseless and fantasy based explanations for daily issues, be they war, health care or the presidents birth certificate subject to “conspiracy theory.” What so many Americans have awakened to is that our real conspiracies are all formulated “at the top” where money and power seek to control public opinion thru disinformation. Now we are being told black is white on a video we can actually see.

I wish to thank WikiLeaks and the people of the United States military who leaked this film along with those who support realistic reforms that this film demands. Taking a moment to put some reality into the spin, misinformation and attempts at a cover-up, we can get a few facts out.

1. This film was made during the height of the surge. The area filmed is called a “hot zone.” This explanation, through omission is a lie. The primary activity of the surge was not combat but rather the realignment of the armed militias in the region being filmed through cash payments. If the two armed security people with the Reuter’s group were militia members, they were most likely employees of the United States government receiving a $300 a month stipend. Journalists are in far more danger in these areas than any other group, including American troops. The number of journalists kidnapped and murdered is astounding. These journalists would have had security personnel with them in that neighborhood.

Thousands of armed militia, real militia with heavy weapons and uniforms, in this area of Baghdad were working for the US at this time. Assuming that these two lightly armed people with the unarmed group were not either security personnel, protecting the others from criminal gangs or paid militia working for the US is not based on the reality of the period and the location, is unrealistic. No permission to fire could have been made against this group, largely unarmed, and not a threat to anyone. Lying to interfere with an investigation or to hide a crime, whether done by a reporter or member of the military is a felony.


RPG 29, WEAPON SAID TO BE INSIDE CAMERA BAG
ScreenHunter_29-Apr.-07-12.15.gif



Namir Noor-Eldeen, MURDERED JOURNALIST SAID TO HAVE 6 FOOT LONG RPG 29 HIDDEN IN HIS LENS BAG
ScreenHunter_38-Apr.-07-15.56.gif



2. Statements that the Apache helicopter was subject to attack by this group is untrue. We have failed to reveal that the helicopter was, based on the optics and pattern of fire, nearly 1 mile away. The M789 ammunition which should have been used has an effective range, capable of piercing tank armor, of 4000 meters, approximately 3 miles. The rationale given for the attack, that the Apache Longbow helicopters that were out of visual range, using their extremely sophisiticated optics were about to be attacked by advanced weaponry that of a size and type that only exists in science fiction, indicates a pattern of systematic deception between pilots and their controllers, deception meant to provide authorization for indiscriminate criminal activity.

American optics can read a car license plate from earth orbit. We can certainly tell a child in a car or a movie camera the size of a woman’s purse from an RPG that is 6 feet long. Hitting a helicopter with a non-existent RPG hidden inside a camera bag, from a mile away, is utterly impossible. Also, hitting any target at long range with an AK-47, a weapon with a short range 7.62/39 cartridge is also impossible.

3. Assuming that a group of men on the streets of a neighborhood filled with criminal gangs, gangs living on bribe money paid by Americans, gangs who make a living by kidnapping journalists and local citizens, who have an armed escort are “insurgents” is simply crazy. Iraqis living there are in far more danger than Americans and die by the dozens, sometimes hundreds, each week. It is still going on at even higher levels than then with no Americans operating in the areas at all. The same people walk the same streets with the same guns today, in exactly the same way. It is how they stay alive. In America, we would call it our 2nd Amendment right.

4. The military and its “surrogates” have suggested the Apache was defending a nearby convoy from attacks from RPG 29s that they spotted inside the camera bags of the Reuter’s reporters. This is a photograph of an RPG 29:

5. The military has released a number of unsupported claims, one being that a convoy was in the area. Imagine a maze of small streets, an almost infinite maze. Not only were there no troops anywhere near the site of the incident but, in fact, directing them to find the area took some time. The “convoy” was, not only not going there, they didn’t even know how to find “there” even with the help of an Apache Longbow helicopter with advanced geo-navigation systems.

30mm CANNON SHELLS USED ON REPORTERS AND VAN
ScreenHunter_31-Apr.-07-13.18.gif



6. Iraq is an Islamic Republic and subject to Islamic law. Islamic law requires all citizens to assist any sick or wounded person. Every American knows this and, frankly, many Americans have benefited from this. Any Muslim that stops to help another is performing a religious duty, an act of similar importance to prayer itself. Attacking a Muslim for aiding the sick or injured is a criminal act in any Islamic country and, frankly, should be everywhere. The Americans who directed the murderous attack on the unarmed people who stopped to help the single severely wounded man were attacked, not only in direct violation of American rules of engagement but Islamic law.

7. Reports from the military indicate that false reports of a fire fight involving ground forces was part of the action. In such cases, commendations and medals are often awarded. What will a search of the military records of all involved reveal? Were any medals or commendations awarded based on inventing an incident to obscure criminal activity? What does this do to every American veteran and every decorated combat veteran if we find commendations were awarded for these “acts?”

8. As no statements on the “load-out” of the Apache Longbow helicopters involved has been made, is it possible that Depleted Uranium ammunition, now being sited by the Department of Veterans Affairs as cause for numerous illnesses suffered by Gulf War veterans, being used in this engagement?


PATTERNS OF SUBTERFUGE AND DECEPTION

The internet is flooded with hundreds of videos, perhaps even thousands, demonstrating the prowess of advanced weaponry being used in an urban environment or against “insurgent” targets. Systems such as the Apache Longbow, designed for use against massed enemy armoured divisions with massive cannons designed to obliterate enemy tanks and highly fortified positions, when used against sporadically armed irregular forces or unarmed civilians seems a misapplication of resources at minimum and, frankly, insanity when looked at carefully.

General Stanley McChrystal, recognizing that it was cheaper to hire insurgents at $300 per month than to use $5000 dollars worth of ammunition to kill one showed, not only amazing judgment but an appreciation for human life seldom seen in military leaders. Were the two armed personnel insurgents planning to attack an American convoy of Bradley fighting vehicles, using only two rifles and no extra ammunition or were these two security guards watching out for Reuters newsmen interviewing local leaders? Were the two armed men who were killed actually employed by the United States, as were others of their ilk in that neighborhood?

What of the unarmed people with them? Do insurgent groups typically only arm some and not all? Are weapons hard to get in Iraq? We all know better than this. What of the totally unarmed group? Were they actually killed for trying to help wounded, as the tape says? Do Americans pay millions to Boeing to build the Apache helicopter or thousands to General Dynamics to manufacture the ammunition, for such senselessness?

Do we spend millions training pilots for this kind of mission? Is there anything we could have done, spending so much money, misusing so many resources, to do as much damage to the reputation of the United States, the honor of her military forces and veterans and the security of our country?
 
Oasama bin Laden to his troops:
"I am sending you to fight and win a war. We are fighting people in a foreign country who want to kill us."

There are few differences.

Few differnences:

Terrorist target innocent people

Terrorist wouldn't care about seeing weapons, getting confirmation to shoot . . . their primary objective is to kill as many innocent lives as possible (could you imagine if the roles were reversed, the terroroist in the helicoptor would have shot anything in sight without authorization, including children they see because they target childeren and women)

The army is not roaming the streets of the US looking to kill terrorists. The army is not setting up explosive devises along teh streets where terrorist roam

Osama bin Laden is in hiding from gov'ts of all counties including his own. US soldiers are not in hiding and working with the Iran gov't

Basically terrorist are in hiding with the goal being to kill as many innocent western lives as possible.

Seems like big differences to me. Just because Bin Laden wants to characterize the terrorist as soldiers of war doesn't mean they are.
 
A lot of our soldiers are just as bad as the terrorists, they rape, murder, etc, things that you won't see on cnn/foxnews.



By the way here's an interesting article. I'll post it here.

GORDON DUFF: “COLLATERAL DAMAGE,” SPINNING AWAY MURDER IN IRAQ (from Veterans Today)


EXCUSES, EXPLANATIONS OR CONSPIRACY AND MISPRISION OF A FELONY

TIME FOR THE “SPIN MASTERS” TO “PAY THE FIDDLER”

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

MSNBC, in an excellent video, has put out both sides of the story on the 2007 ”video game murder” in Iraq. The most telling aspect of this story isn’t just that we now know our own Army leaked the video or that many others like it exist, it is the lengths we go to using “surrogates” to spin away murder. Years of lies droning on, filling the American airwaves have made senseless and fantasy based explanations for daily issues, be they war, health care or the presidents birth certificate subject to “conspiracy theory.” What so many Americans have awakened to is that our real conspiracies are all formulated “at the top” where money and power seek to control public opinion thru disinformation. Now we are being told black is white on a video we can actually see.

I wish to thank WikiLeaks and the people of the United States military who leaked this film along with those who support realistic reforms that this film demands. Taking a moment to put some reality into the spin, misinformation and attempts at a cover-up, we can get a few facts out.

1. This film was made during the height of the surge. The area filmed is called a “hot zone.” This explanation, through omission is a lie. The primary activity of the surge was not combat but rather the realignment of the armed militias in the region being filmed through cash payments. If the two armed security people with the Reuter’s group were militia members, they were most likely employees of the United States government receiving a $300 a month stipend. Journalists are in far more danger in these areas than any other group, including American troops. The number of journalists kidnapped and murdered is astounding. These journalists would have had security personnel with them in that neighborhood.

Thousands of armed militia, real militia with heavy weapons and uniforms, in this area of Baghdad were working for the US at this time. Assuming that these two lightly armed people with the unarmed group were not either security personnel, protecting the others from criminal gangs or paid militia working for the US is not based on the reality of the period and the location, is unrealistic. No permission to fire could have been made against this group, largely unarmed, and not a threat to anyone. Lying to interfere with an investigation or to hide a crime, whether done by a reporter or member of the military is a felony.


RPG 29, WEAPON SAID TO BE INSIDE CAMERA BAG
ScreenHunter_29-Apr.-07-12.15.gif



Namir Noor-Eldeen, MURDERED JOURNALIST SAID TO HAVE 6 FOOT LONG RPG 29 HIDDEN IN HIS LENS BAG
ScreenHunter_38-Apr.-07-15.56.gif



2. Statements that the Apache helicopter was subject to attack by this group is untrue. We have failed to reveal that the helicopter was, based on the optics and pattern of fire, nearly 1 mile away. The M789 ammunition which should have been used has an effective range, capable of piercing tank armor, of 4000 meters, approximately 3 miles. The rationale given for the attack, that the Apache Longbow helicopters that were out of visual range, using their extremely sophisiticated optics were about to be attacked by advanced weaponry that of a size and type that only exists in science fiction, indicates a pattern of systematic deception between pilots and their controllers, deception meant to provide authorization for indiscriminate criminal activity.

American optics can read a car license plate from earth orbit. We can certainly tell a child in a car or a movie camera the size of a woman’s purse from an RPG that is 6 feet long. Hitting a helicopter with a non-existent RPG hidden inside a camera bag, from a mile away, is utterly impossible. Also, hitting any target at long range with an AK-47, a weapon with a short range 7.62/39 cartridge is also impossible.

3. Assuming that a group of men on the streets of a neighborhood filled with criminal gangs, gangs living on bribe money paid by Americans, gangs who make a living by kidnapping journalists and local citizens, who have an armed escort are “insurgents” is simply crazy. Iraqis living there are in far more danger than Americans and die by the dozens, sometimes hundreds, each week. It is still going on at even higher levels than then with no Americans operating in the areas at all. The same people walk the same streets with the same guns today, in exactly the same way. It is how they stay alive. In America, we would call it our 2nd Amendment right.

4. The military and its “surrogates” have suggested the Apache was defending a nearby convoy from attacks from RPG 29s that they spotted inside the camera bags of the Reuter’s reporters. This is a photograph of an RPG 29:

5. The military has released a number of unsupported claims, one being that a convoy was in the area. Imagine a maze of small streets, an almost infinite maze. Not only were there no troops anywhere near the site of the incident but, in fact, directing them to find the area took some time. The “convoy” was, not only not going there, they didn’t even know how to find “there” even with the help of an Apache Longbow helicopter with advanced geo-navigation systems.

30mm CANNON SHELLS USED ON REPORTERS AND VAN
ScreenHunter_31-Apr.-07-13.18.gif



6. Iraq is an Islamic Republic and subject to Islamic law. Islamic law requires all citizens to assist any sick or wounded person. Every American knows this and, frankly, many Americans have benefited from this. Any Muslim that stops to help another is performing a religious duty, an act of similar importance to prayer itself. Attacking a Muslim for aiding the sick or injured is a criminal act in any Islamic country and, frankly, should be everywhere. The Americans who directed the murderous attack on the unarmed people who stopped to help the single severely wounded man were attacked, not only in direct violation of American rules of engagement but Islamic law.

7. Reports from the military indicate that false reports of a fire fight involving ground forces was part of the action. In such cases, commendations and medals are often awarded. What will a search of the military records of all involved reveal? Were any medals or commendations awarded based on inventing an incident to obscure criminal activity? What does this do to every American veteran and every decorated combat veteran if we find commendations were awarded for these “acts?”

8. As no statements on the “load-out” of the Apache Longbow helicopters involved has been made, is it possible that Depleted Uranium ammunition, now being sited by the Department of Veterans Affairs as cause for numerous illnesses suffered by Gulf War veterans, being used in this engagement?


PATTERNS OF SUBTERFUGE AND DECEPTION

The internet is flooded with hundreds of videos, perhaps even thousands, demonstrating the prowess of advanced weaponry being used in an urban environment or against “insurgent” targets. Systems such as the Apache Longbow, designed for use against massed enemy armoured divisions with massive cannons designed to obliterate enemy tanks and highly fortified positions, when used against sporadically armed irregular forces or unarmed civilians seems a misapplication of resources at minimum and, frankly, insanity when looked at carefully.

General Stanley McChrystal, recognizing that it was cheaper to hire insurgents at $300 per month than to use $5000 dollars worth of ammunition to kill one showed, not only amazing judgment but an appreciation for human life seldom seen in military leaders. Were the two armed personnel insurgents planning to attack an American convoy of Bradley fighting vehicles, using only two rifles and no extra ammunition or were these two security guards watching out for Reuters newsmen interviewing local leaders? Were the two armed men who were killed actually employed by the United States, as were others of their ilk in that neighborhood?

What of the unarmed people with them? Do insurgent groups typically only arm some and not all? Are weapons hard to get in Iraq? We all know better than this. What of the totally unarmed group? Were they actually killed for trying to help wounded, as the tape says? Do Americans pay millions to Boeing to build the Apache helicopter or thousands to General Dynamics to manufacture the ammunition, for such senselessness?

Do we spend millions training pilots for this kind of mission? Is there anything we could have done, spending so much money, misusing so many resources, to do as much damage to the reputation of the United States, the honor of her military forces and veterans and the security of our country?

I'm not talking about the other incidents but this one in particular. You say these soldiers are just like the terrorist because they just want to kill and get blood and then go drink beers afterward and joke about it.

I see it different. They want to kill terrorists . . . they might have made a mistake, but they want to kill terrorist and wait to get authorization from people higher up before they kill.

Terrorist want to kill innocent people. they don't need authorization because as far as they are concerned, any western man, woman or child is fair game.

So in this instance, eventhough a mistake was made (which I can easily see during a time of war) the soldiers should not be compared to terrorist, IMO.
 
If anything blame the gov't for putting them in the position. But these are the type of people you want to fight for you when you are in a time of war.

No, they most certainly are not.

They make me sick.

And these particular people VOLUNTEERED to be in that position because they are mentally deficient sadists, not out of any desire to serve their country in a patriotic manner.
 
Few differnences:

Terrorist target innocent people

Terrorist wouldn't care about seeing weapons, getting confirmation to shoot . . . their primary objective is to kill as many innocent lives as possible (could you imagine if the roles were reversed, the terroroist in the helicoptor would have shot anything in sight without authorization, including children they see because they target childeren and women)

The army is not roaming the streets of the US looking to kill terrorists. The army is not setting up explosive devises along teh streets where terrorist roam

Osama bin Laden is in hiding from gov'ts of all counties including his own. US soldiers are not in hiding and working with the Iran gov't

Basically terrorist are in hiding with the goal being to kill as many innocent western lives as possible.

Seems like big differences to me. Just because Bin Laden wants to characterize the terrorist as soldiers of war doesn't mean they are.

This.

I might add that US forces aren't setting off cars filled with explosives in Iraqi marketplaces filled with civilians, either.

Terrorists are afforded rights from the Geneva Convention when captured. When our troops are captured they are afforded summary execution, dragged through the streets, hung from a bridge and set on fire.

The Iraqi war could have been over in weeks and we could have gone back home, if we didn't care about killing civilians. It would have been a short war had the US simply used up their old dumb bombs from WWII, the Korean Conflict and Vietnam to level their cities.

The US avoids killings civilians; terrorists embrace that as a strategy.

Doesn't seem the same to me.

The US sure as hell is not perfect, but this is war, and bad shit happens in war.

I don't like that this stuff will continue as long as we are there. Which begs the question; Didn't President Obama promise to have the troops out of Iraq in 2009? If you hate this shit, are you writing your president, representatives, senators to tell them to get our troops the hell out of there? Are you organizing 60's-70's style protests to get your message out?

Go Blazers
 
This.

I might add that US forces aren't setting off cars filled with explosives in Iraqi marketplaces filled with civilians, either.

Terrorists are afforded rights from the Geneva Convention when captured. When our troops are captured they are afforded summary execution, dragged through the streets, hung from a bridge and set on fire.

The Iraqi war could have been over in weeks and we could have gone back home, if we didn't care about killing civilians. It would have been a short war had the US simply used up their old dumb bombs from WWII, the Korean Conflict and Vietnam to level their cities.

The US avoids killings civilians; terrorists embrace that as a strategy.

Doesn't seem the same to me.

The US sure as hell is not perfect, but this is war, and bad shit happens in war.

I don't like that this stuff will continue as long as we are there. Which begs the question; Didn't President Obama promise to have the troops out of Iraq in 2009? If you hate this shit, are you writing your president, representatives, senators to tell them to get our troops the hell out of there? Are you organizing 60's-70's style protests to get your message out?

Go Blazers

Sounds appropriate.
 
This.

I might add that US forces aren't setting off cars filled with explosives in Iraqi marketplaces filled with civilians, either.

Terrorists are afforded rights from the Geneva Convention when captured. When our troops are captured they are afforded summary execution, dragged through the streets, hung from a bridge and set on fire.

The Iraqi war could have been over in weeks and we could have gone back home, if we didn't care about killing civilians. It would have been a short war had the US simply used up their old dumb bombs from WWII, the Korean Conflict and Vietnam to level their cities.

The US avoids killings civilians; terrorists embrace that as a strategy.

Doesn't seem the same to me.

The US sure as hell is not perfect, but this is war, and bad shit happens in war.

I don't like that this stuff will continue as long as we are there. Which begs the question; Didn't President Obama promise to have the troops out of Iraq in 2009? If you hate this shit, are you writing your president, representatives, senators to tell them to get our troops the hell out of there? Are you organizing 60's-70's style protests to get your message out?

Go Blazers
Honestly though, you're completely correct. There are some things you can't avoid in war, civilian deaths and friendly fire are good examples.
 
"Ethan McCord had just returned from dropping his children at school earlier this month, when he turned on the TV news to see a grainy black-and-white video image of a soldier running from a bombed-out van with a child in his arms. It was a scene that had played repeatedly in his mind the last three years, and he knew exactly who the soldier was.

In May 2007, the 33-year-old Army specialist had been engaged in a firefight with insurgents in an Iraqi suburb when his platoon, part of Bravo Company, 2-16 Infantry, got orders to investigate a nearby street. When they arrived, they found a scene of fresh carnage – the scattered remains of a group of men, believed to be armed, who had just been gunned down by Apache attack helicopters. They also found 10-year-old Sajad Mutashar and his five-year-old sister Doaha covered in blood in a van. Their 43-year-old father, Saleh, had been driving them to a class when he spotted one of the wounded man moving in the street and drove over to help him, only to himself become a victim of the Apache guns.

McCord, a father of three children himself, was captured in a video shot from one helicopter as he ran frantically to a military vehicle with Sajad in his arms seeking medical care. That classified video created its own firestorm when the whistleblower site Wikileaks posted it April 5 on a web site titled “Collateral Murder” and asserted that the Army had fired on unarmed men. More than a dozen people were killed in three attacks captured in the video, including two Reuters journalists, one of whose camera was apparently mistaken for a weapon.

McCord, who served five years in the military before leaving in Nov. 2007 due to injuries, recently posted an apologetic letter online with fellow soldier Josh Steiber supporting the release of the video and asking the family’s forgiveness.

Wired’s Kim Zetter reached McCord at his home in Kansas. This is his account of what he saw.

DR: At the time you arrived on the scene, you didn’t know what had happened, is that right?

EM: Right. We were engaged in our own conflict roughly about three or four blocks away. We heard the gunships open up. [Then] we were just told … to move to this [other] location. It was pretty much a shock when we got there to see what had happened, the carnage and everything else.

DR: But you had been in combat before. It shouldn’t have surprised you what you saw.

EM: I have never seen anybody being shot by a 30-millimeter round before. It didn’t seem real, in the sense that it didn’t look like human beings. They were destroyed.

DR: Was anyone moving when you got there other than the two children?

EM: There were approximately two to three other people who were moving who were still somewhat alive, and the medics were attending to them.

DR: The first thing you saw was the little girl in the van. She had a stomach wound?

EM: She had a stomach wound and she had glass in her eyes and in her hair. She was crying. In fact, that’s one of the reasons I went to the van immediately, because I could hear her crying. It wasn’t like a cry of pain really. It was more of a child who was frightened out of her mind. And the next thing I saw was the boy. … He was kind of sitting on the floorboard of the van, but with his head laying on the bench seat in the front. And then the father, who I’m assuming was the father, in the driver’s seat slumped over on his side. Just from looking into the van, and the amount of blood that was on the boy and the father, I immediately figured they were dead.

So the first thing I did was grab the girl. I grabbed the medic and we went into the back. There’s houses behind where the van was. We took her in there and we’re checking to see if there were any other wounds. You can hear the medic saying on the video, “There’s nothing I can do here, she needs to be evac’d.” He runs the girl to the Bradley. I went back outside to the van, and that’s when the boy took, like, a labored, breath … That’s when I started screaming, “The boy’s alive! The boy’s alive!” And I picked him up and started running with him over to the Bradley. He opened his eyes when I was carrying him. I just kept telling him, “Don’t die; don’t die.” He looked at me, then his eyes rolled back into this head.

Then I got yelled at by my platoon leader that I needed to stop trying to save these mf’n kids and go pull security. … I was told to go pull security on a rooftop. When we were on that roof, we were still taking fire. There were some people taking pot shots, sniper shots, at us on the rooftop. We were probably there on the roof for another four to five hours.

DR: How much sniper fire were you getting?

EM: It was random sporadic spurts. I did see a guy … moving from a rooftop from one position to another with an AK-47, who was firing at us. He was shot and killed.

After the incident, we went back to the FOB [forward operating base] and that’s when I was in my room. I had blood all down the front of me from the children. I was trying to wash it off in my room. I was pretty distraught over the whole situation with the children. So I went to a sergeant and asked to see [the mental health person], because I was having a hard time dealing with it. I was called a pussy and that I needed to suck it up and a lot of other horrible things. I was also told that there would be repercussions if I was to go to mental health.

DR: What did you understand that to mean?

EM: I would be smoked. Smoked is basically like you’re doing pushups a lot, you’re doing sit-ups … crunches and flutter kicks. They’re smoking you, they’re making you tired. I was told that I needed to get the sand out of my vagina. … So I just sucked it up and tried to move on with everything.

I’ve lived with seeing the children that way since the incident happened. I’ve had nightmares. I was diagnosed with chronic, severe PTSD. [But] I was actually starting to get kind of better. … I wasn’t thinking about it as much. [Then I] took my children to school one day and I came home and sat down on the couch and turned on the TV with my coffee, and on the news I’m running across the screen with a child. The flood of emotions came back. I know the scene by heart; it’s burned into my head. I know the van, I know the faces of everybody that was there that day.

DR: Did you try to get information about the two children after the shooting?

EM: My platoon sergeant knew that I was having a hard time with it and that same night … he came into the room and he told me, hey, just so you know, both of the children survived, so you can suck it up now. I didn’t know if he was telling me that just to get me to shut up and to do my job or if he really found something out. I always questioned it in the back of my mind.

I did see a video on YouTube after the Wikileaks [video] came out, of the children being interviewed. … When I saw their faces, I was relieved, but I was just heartbroken. I have a huge place in my heart for children, having some of my own. Knowing that I was part of the system that took their father away from them and made them lose their house … it’s heartbreaking. And that in turn is what helped me and Josh write the letter, hoping that it would find its way to them to let them know that we’re sorry. We’re sorry for the system that we were involved in that took their father’s life and injured them. If there’s anything I can to do help, I would be more than happy to.

DR: Wikileaks presented the incident as though there was no engagement from insurgents. But you guys did have a firefight a couple of blocks away. Was it reasonable for the Apache soldiers to think that maybe the people they attacked were part of that insurgent firefight?

EM: I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there. … You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight. … Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don’t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary.

Now as far as rules of engagement, [Iraqis] are not supposed to pick up the wounded. But they could have been easily deterred from doing what they were doing by just firing simply a few warning shots in the direction. … Instead, the Apaches decided to completely obliterate everybody in the van. That’s the hard part to swallow.

And where the soldier said [in the video], ‘Well, you shouldn’t take your kids to battle’, well in all actuality, we brought the battle to your kids. There’s no front lines here. This is urban combat and we’re taking the war to children and women and innocents.

There were plenty of times in the past where other insurgents would come by and pick up the bodies, and then we’d have no evidence or anything to what happened, so in looking at it from the Apache’s point of view, they were thinking that [someone was] picking up the weapons and bodies; when, in hindsight, clearly they were picking up the wounded man. But you’re not supposed to do that in Iraq.

DR: Civilians are supposed to know that they’re not supposed to pick up a wounded person crawling in the road?

EM: Yeah. This is the problem that we’re speaking out on as far as the rules of engagement. How is this guy supposed to [decide] should I stop and pick them up, or is the military going to shoot me? If you or I saw someone wounded on the ground what is your first inkling? I’m going to help that person. . . .

DR: There was another attack depicted in the video that has received little attention, involving a Hellfire and a building that was fired on.

EM: I wasn’t around that building when it happened. I was up on a rooftop at that time. However, I do know some soldiers went in to clear that building afterwards and there were some people with weapons in there, but there was also a family of four that was killed.

I think that a Hellfire missile is a little much to put into a building. . . . They’re trained as soldiers to go into a building and clear a building. I do know that there was a teenage girl [in there], just because I saw the pictures when I was there, that one of the soldiers took.

DR: Have you heard from any other soldiers since the video came out?

EM: I’ve spoken with one of the medics who was there. He’s no longer in the Army. When this video first came out, there was a lot of outrage by the soldiers, just because it depicted us as being callous, cruel, heartless people, and we’re not that way. The majority of us aren’t. And so he was pretty upset about the whole thing. . . . He kept saying, we were there, we know the truth, they’re saying there was no weapons, there was.

I’ve spoken with other soldiers who were there. Some of them [say] I don’t care what anybody says, … they’re not there. … There’s also some soldiers who joke about it [as a] coping mechanism. They’re like, oh yeah, we’re the “collateral murder” company. I don’t think that [the] big picture is whether or not [the Iraqis who were killed] had weapons. I think that the bigger picture is what are we doing there? We’ve been there for so long now and it seems like nothing is being accomplished whatsoever, except for we’re making more people hate us.

DR: Do you support Wikileaks in releasing this video?

EM: When it was first released I don’t think it was done in the best manner that it could have been. They were stating that these people had no weapons whatsoever, that they were just carrying cameras. In the video you can clearly see that they did have weapons … to the trained eye. You can make out in the video [someone] carrying an AK-47, swinging it down by his legs [...]

And as far as the way that the soldiers are speaking in the video, which is pretty callous and joking about what’s happened … that’s a coping mechanism. I’m guilty of it, too, myself. You joke about the situations and what’s happened to push away your true feelings of the matter.

There’s no easy way to kill somebody. You don’t just take somebody’s life and then go on about your business for the rest of the day. That stays with you. And cracking jokes is a way of pushing that stuff down. That’s why so many soldiers come back home and they’re no longer in the situations where they have other things to think about or other people to joke about what happened … and they explode.

I don’t say that Wikileaks did a bad thing, because they didn’t. … I think it is good that they’re putting this stuff out there. I don’t think that people really want to see this, though, because this is war . … It’s very disturbing."

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201...een-from-the-ground/#more-23793#ixzz0lg4KTO4w
 
Oasama bin Laden to his troops:
"I am sending you to fight and win a war. We are fighting people in a foreign country who want to kill us."

There are few differences.

You can't be serious...
 
Pwn@g3. That vid was niceeeeeeeeeeeee.

I think I might mount a 30mm machine gun to my window :]
 
It's tough being a civilian over there. The insurgents treat them like human shields.
 
They didn't know the van had children in it. That was truly tragic that those children were shot.

Did you watch the end of the video? The kids are sitting in the front seat looking right at the heli. My father flew in Nam and he has told me many times that gun crews always look to fire at any opportunity they gets because they are often few and far between.

I asked him about this video, he said there was basically no way they did not see those kids in the front seat of the van.
 
Did you watch the end of the video? The kids are sitting in the front seat looking right at the heli. My father flew in Nam and he has told me many times that gun crews always look to fire at any opportunity they gets because they are often few and far between.

I asked him about this video, he said there was basically no way they did not see those kids in the front seat of the van.

Yes I watched the video, I was the one who started the thread. The end of the video shows an enlarged frame with two blurs. If you go back and watch the video again in real time it's hard to see what is in the van. I don't believe that those in the helicopter knew there were children in that van.

Did you read the interview with the soldier who found the kids in the van? It gives a much more complete and accurate view of what happened.

Again, I feel horrible that those kids were shot. But I honestly feel it was an accident. Our troops did not intend to shoot children and if they knew children were in that van they wouldn't have shot at it.
 
Yes I watched the video, I was the one who started the thread. The end of the video shows an enlarged frame with two blurs. If you go back and watch the video again in real time it's hard to see what is in the van. I don't believe that those in the helicopter knew there were children in that van.

Did you read the interview with the soldier who found the kids in the van? It gives a much more complete and accurate view of what happened.

Again, I feel horrible that those kids were shot. But I honestly feel it was an accident. Our troops did not intend to shoot children and if they knew children were in that van they wouldn't have shot at it.

Don't get me wrong I don't think the sought to shoot children. I think they were so caught up, they adrenaline so pumped that they were armed and ready to kill. The wanted to finish the mission, and I totally understand that. I am not saying they were evil bastards, in fact I think they were quite on point when it came to clearing an area to make it safe for the ground forces. I am more disturbed by the fact that they were clearly so caught up in the moment that their ability to be rational and analyze the situation was gone. That is war, and I understand it.
 
The Iraqi war could have been over in weeks and we could have gone back home, if we didn't care about killing civilians. It would have been a short war had the US simply used up their old dumb bombs from WWII, the Korean Conflict and Vietnam to level their cities.

Only in your dreams. :crazy:

As any experienced soldier or battle strategist will tell you, ideological wars are simply unwinnable. End of story.

We can stay there for 20-50 years killing Iraqi citizens, or we could nuke the country from border to border, but we will never win the war, nor will we ever be obsolved of the guilt of the horrendous crimes our country has committed there on behalf of Halliburton and the oil corporations.
 
It's tough being a civilian over there. The insurgents treat them like human shields.

You seem to be confused about the term "insurgent".

When a country such as Iraq is attacked, each member of the civilian populace is defined by one of 2 terms.

1. Those civilians who do not resist either through the desire to see their present government overthrown and replaced, or simply out of cowardice, continue to be referred to as civilians.

2. Those civilians who do resist either through patriotic support of their country, the desire to protect their families from rape, torture or death, or simply because they have some stones and don't like being pushed around by another country, are referred to as insurgents.

If America were attacked and occupied by China, I would be labelled an insurgent.

Only you can decide what they would call you. :dunno:
 
I understand why they killed the group of guys but killing the people in the van was unnecessary. Like the soldier said, they could've given warning shots before shooting at the van. Also i agree with the soldier saying that it was obvious they were no threat and were just trying to help. I just wonder if people would be making such a big deal if the 2 children were just 2 guys... this is why i don't support war in any way
 
"Warning Shots" isn't like the movies. Their use is strictly regulated, and (at least using Navy Force Protection Rules) this wouldn't qualify for warning shots.
 
You seem to be confused about the term "insurgent".

When a country such as Iraq is attacked, each member of the civilian populace is defined by one of 2 terms.

1. Those civilians who do not resist either through the desire to see their present government overthrown and replaced, or simply out of cowardice, continue to be referred to as civilians.

2. Those civilians who do resist either through patriotic support of their country, the desire to protect their families from rape, torture or death, or simply because they have some stones and don't like being pushed around by another country, are referred to as insurgents.

If America were attacked and occupied by China, I would be labelled an insurgent.

Only you can decide what they would call you. :dunno:

I think this is a very warped view.

China would be invading a free country in your scenario. Yet Iraq was hardly free, dominated by a despot dictator, and the people subjected to torture, kidnapping (by the govt.), and worse. If I remember correctly, the coalition of the willing was 40 nations or so, not just the USA.

I would say the people of Iraq have been defined in one of two terms, perhaps. Those who were scared to finger the insurgents, and those who stood in line to join the new army or police force at the risk of being (and often were) bombed to death. Or the higher % than the US population that risked all to go vote.

I think you're very wrong about your response to oldguy.

We easily have the military firepower to have killed every last person in Iraq, hence all the insurgents in the process. There'd be no reason for our troops to be there. Any experienced military person or student of military history will tell you that killing every last enemy was typical of war throughout history.
 
Wow Denny, you bought totally into the warped Bush-Cheney-Rove war propaganda. I thought you were smarter than that. Most American victims of those myths changed their minds later and came to agree with those of us who were against the war from the outset. Most conservatives now know we were right. You still labor under the old warmonger illusions that the US is favored by God, we are the chosen people, we are better than everyone else, etc.

You also think that some country in the world besides Blair was on Bush's side. The US paid off many countries to be very temporary "allies" who wouldn't donate any troops. For example, Bush offered billions of dollars for access through Turkey (no secret, it was in the papers as it happened) yet Turkey still refused, preventing a Northern offensive, forcing all attacks to come from southern Iraq. That's your alliance of 40. There were no allies, and in the half-dozen countries which made a couple of speeches in Bush's favor (making them "allies"), polls showed the vast majority of people strongly disagreeing with their paid-off leaders.
 
Wow Denny, you bought totally into the warped Bush-Cheney-Rove war propaganda. I thought you were smarter than that. Most American victims of those myths changed their minds later and came to agree with those of us who were against the war from the outset. Most conservatives now know we were right. You still labor under the old warmonger illusions that the US is favored by God, we are the chosen people, we are better than everyone else, etc.

You also think that some country in the world besides Blair was on Bush's side. The US paid off many countries to be very temporary "allies" who wouldn't donate any troops. For example, Bush offered billions of dollars for access through Turkey (no secret, it was in the papers as it happened) yet Turkey still refused, preventing a Northern offensive, forcing all attacks to come from southern Iraq. That's your alliance of 40. There were no allies, and in the half-dozen countries which made a couple of speeches in Bush's favor (making them "allies"), polls showed the vast majority of people strongly disagreeing with their paid-off leaders.

I don't think the US is favored by God or anything like it. Just that we have a big military and have the moral authority to use it to help people using it. Hence the reason we develop smart weapons and use them to not target civilians, for example. Or that we don't invade and occupy other nations to increase some empire, for example.

I do happen to think that Saddam was a bad man and did terrible things to his people. That we helped prop him up over the three decades leading up to taking him out. That Britain and the US had something in common - they instituted and flew the no-fly zones, put in place after Bush I encouraged the Iraqis to rebel but provided no support and Saddam murdered tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of his own people in response.

I think your argument is terribly flawed because it is blindly partisan. Do you not remember Bill Clinton's speeches accusing Iraq of having countless amounts of WMDs in the form of poison gasses and other things? Or do you not remember that he ordered a massive military operation against Iraq at the height of his impeachment ordeal?

That said, my preference in 2004 (the invasion was 2003) to bring all the troops home. The mission was accomplished: Saddam was arrested, his sons dead, and the cruel republican guard disbanded. I voted for Mike Badnarik, who would have brought the troops home in 2004.

Tell me you didn't vote for a guy who had "support for the Iraq War and plans to increase the military budget" - or at least tell me why it's not hypocritical. And tell me you weren't one of the anti-war folk who made hay about former Clinton appointed joint chiefs of staff chairman Shinseki's criticism of the Bush administration for not putting 500,000 troops in Iraq.

Tell me you're not one of those guys who says Afghanistan is the just war. That's a war of revenge against people who are dirt poor and who never had much of a nation. And the revenge is for... a bunch of Saudis who came here and perpetrated 9/11?

I see a huge disconnect. Either... we use our might for good, like stopping the genocide in Rwanda (which we didn't do, but should have, IMO) or we use it for revenge. For good would mean taking out a dictator we propped up, helping the people of Afghanistan so its girls and women can attend schools, stepping in to prevent millions of people from being hacked to death with machetes, and that sort of thing. Or... we use our might for revenge against weak countries.

FWIW, I think Clinton was wrong and right. He was wrong not to intervene in Rwanda, and he was right to go after Bin Laden and his training camps when he ordered the bombing of suspected terrorist camps in Sudan and Afghanistan.

As for coalition of the willing... Bush I was able to build a coalition to push Saddam out of Kuwait, but when it came to finishing the job by going into Iraq (to Baghdad) to remove Saddam from power, countries like Turkey and many others would have left that coalition.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top