Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

From WikiLeaks, Collateral Murder

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Zraver Reply

    Have you read the AR 15-6 report?

    I can't download it but here's a link that'll get you there-

    AR 15-6 July 12, 2007

    Conclusions indicate the investigating officer believed the pilots to see a van assisting the escape of combatants. I don't know the ROI but B Co. 2-16 Inf. had been in continuous contact all morning and remained so at the scene of the incident. I know that the video indicates a description of what the pilots saw when the van arrived and their request to engage. BUSHMASTER 7gave them that permission.

    Zraver, you offer Article 24 UN Convention (I)for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field in defense of your position. In point of fact, so too bigross86 offers articles 39-42 from the same document. I saw plenty to mitigate against article 24 and see little that affirms that articles 39-42 were followed.

    UN Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

    Article 40 makes clear the conditions underwhich article 24 is applicable-

    "Article 40. The personnel designated in Article 24 and in Articles 26 and 27 shall wear, affixed to the left arm, a water-resistant armlet bearing the distinctive emblem, issued and stamped by the military authority."

    None of that was present but that's not the only mitigation.

    Please review the documents that you've heretofore not read and ask yourself if you've given due process and proper context to the circumstance.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
      I too want evidence of this
      The van was two blocks away at the time of the shooting. After all were dead except one unarmed guy crawling along and the guys in the apache were talking about how much they hoped he would find a weapon so they could finish him off a van that had been 2 blocks away at the time of the shooting arrived and tried to help the wounded unarmed man. The van was inhabited by a man and two children. The Apache then opened fire on the unarmed man whom they previously felt they had no justification to open fire on. They also opened fire on the van and it's occupants at that time.

      Wal mart truck with water is old and common news.
      Originally posted by he president of New Orleans' Jefferson Parish, Aaron Broussard, was interviewed by NBC's Tim Russert.
      Let me give you just three quick examples. We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water, trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn't need them. This was a week ago.
      No word on whether it was National Guard troops doing the enforcing for FEMA but that is who was their performing that function in general.

      Soldiers at Katrina unconstitutionally confiscating weapons is a court case that has been tried and won by the victims.


      People being forced into the superdome when they wanted to stay in their homes is old and common news.
      Originally posted by http://www.amazon.com/review/R2N5ZEVBQUBZWL
      **Former New Orleans Saints player & NOLA native Kevin Young went back to New Orleans from his home in Dallas to care for his mother before Katrina hit. He managed to get her to Charity Hospital, where she died. He was then forced to evacuate to the Superdome, the very building where he had once played pro ball. He tells of the evil and nightmare that was the Superdome during those days.
      That guy wasn't killed at the superdome but he was the first I saw. Some went there voluntarily, some didn't.

      The reasonable conclusion that they would shoot me in similar circumstances comes from the fact that If I were in that van I would have stopped to help. They shot the guy who was with his kids and stopped to help. When an earthquake comes here and my neighborhood is declared a national disaster area and that guy is walking my streets, I hope he's better at killing bad guys and missing good guys than he is now. Right now he shoots up cars full of good samaritans. Apparently that's pretty much OK w/ everyone except me and Hitman.
      Last edited by Roycerson; 07 Apr 10,, 03:24.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
        Not only are you wrong, as Bigross pointed out, but....

        I'll tell you what. When you become a soldier and live in a combat zone for months on end, and know what it's like to face death from every direction every damn day, then you can talk about how well you do or don't do at your job back here in the hideously dangerous United States.
        Same for you then? dead kids and reporters business as usual? Nothing to see here? Nothing to be improved upon?

        Comment


        • Aid

          I see no aid rendered at the scene. No first-aid bag. No medical equipment. The Investigating Officer says the pilots believed the van to be assisting the removal of bodies, weapons, and wounded.

          That's not medical attention. That's escape.
          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Roycerson View Post

            Wal mart truck with water is old and common news.

            No word on whether it was National Guard troops doing the enforcing for FEMA but that is who was their performing that function in general.

            Soldiers at Katrina unconstitutionally confiscating weapons is a court case that has been tried and won by the victims.


            People being forced into the superdome when they wanted to stay in their homes is old and common news.

            That guy wasn't killed at the superdome but he was the first I saw. Some went there voluntarily, some didn't.

            The reasonable conclusion that they would shoot me in similar circumstances comes from the fact that If I were in that van I would have stopped to help. They shot the guy who was with his kids and stopped to help. When an earthquake comes here and my neighborhood is declared a national disaster area and that guy is walking my streets, I hope he's better at killing bad guys and missing good guys than he is now. Right now he shoots up cars full of good samaritans. Apparently that's pretty much OK w/ everyone except me and Hitman.
            So no evidence that soldiers were involved in those incidents, no evidence that soldiers shot anyone during Katrina and no evidence that were soldiers involved in disaster relief in the US that they would use the same ROE's as those where they are involved in combat during a war.
            Kind of makes your entire analogy pointless in the extreme, yes?
            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Roycerson View Post
              The van was two blocks away at the time of the shooting. After all were dead except one unarmed guy crawling along and the guys in the apache were talking about how much they hoped he would find a weapon so they could finish him off a van that had been 2 blocks away at the time of the shooting arrived and tried to help the wounded unarmed man.
              So when the truck was fired upon it was directly at the spot where the engagement was ongoing. It could easily be any number of blocks away at any time prior to the shooting, but where it was when it was shot at is the critical factor and it was on-site where the insurgents and reuters personel were when shot at, yes?
              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

              Leibniz

              Comment


              • The Investigating Officer says the pilots believed the van to be assisting the removal of bodies, weapons, and wounded.
                What the pilots "believed" and what actually was are different things. The pilots "believed they were terrorists" turns out they were kids.

                In the future I'd like to see the pilots "believe" there are two children between their cross hairs. In order to accomplish that I think they're going to have to be much more vigilant in acting only upon what they observe and not on what might be. I noticed a few other inaccuracies in the pilots observations. Consistent inaccuracies in observation that are apparently widely considered to be "close enough". I would argue that they are not "close enough" in their observations and I can show you the dead children to prove it.

                There was no urgent need to make a decision about this van, they weren't under fire or in danger. They misread the situation and children died for it. I don't accuse them of shooting kids on purpose. I accuse them of inattention to detail. Since when do military people dismiss attention to detail so readily? They drilled it into us.

                That was an easy excuse for a TI.

                TI: Why did you (something stupid)?

                Airman: Didn't pay attention to detail sir.

                TI: G***amn right you didn't....etc.

                Easily converts to this situation.

                to pilot: why did you shoot those kids?

                pilot: didn't pay attention to detail sir.
                Last edited by Roycerson; 07 Apr 10,, 03:58.

                Comment


                • Roycerson Reply`

                  "The pilots "believed they were terrorists" turns out they were kids."

                  No. The pilots saw no children. Nor would any reasonable soul presume children showing up immediately in a combat-riddled neighborhood within a vehicle that possessed combatant age men whom rendered no medical aid and showed every intent of assisting the escape of those wounded and the removal of bodies and weapons.

                  "There was no urgent need to make a decision about this van, they weren't under fire or in danger."

                  Actually that's not true and you'd know that if you used the links. B Co. was in continuous contact all morning. They remained so at the scene while evacuating the children. There was an on-going battle that seems to defy your awareness of the circumstance and skews your context far from reality.

                  "I accuse them of inattention to detail."

                  That's clear. What's also clear is that you're far more guilty of such under far less stressful conditions. OTOH, they have far greater actual defense against your accusation. You seem to have none having thus far ignored the findings. If you hadn't you'd have displayed a far greater awareness of the circumstances surrounding this particular battle.

                  You lack any ounce of credibility. Zero.
                  Last edited by S2; 07 Apr 10,, 04:11.
                  "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                  "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Roycerson View Post
                    Same for you then? dead kids and reporters business as usual? Nothing to see here? Nothing to be improved upon?
                    You sure do know how to A.) Put words in people's mouths and B.)Completely ignore what somebody has actually said.
                    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                      Zraver, I don't mean to seem pushy, but it's getting quite late (early) and I would like to know if you have a response to what I said about them both being the same treaty. I don't want to pound "I'm right, you're wrong", I'm, honestly interested in hearing your response.
                      Sorry, you kept calling it the GC. Generally speaking things are listed in order of precedence, the emblem requirement is listed after the inviolability of people caring for the wounded.

                      S-2,

                      have you even watched the video?

                      I see no aid rendered at the scene. No first-aid bag. No medical equipment. The Investigating Officer says the pilots believed the van to be assisting the removal of bodies, weapons, and wounded.

                      That's not medical attention. That's escape.
                      The went for the wounded man, not bodies. No one was gathering weapons, they pulled up to the wounded man and jumped out to render aid. The Apache pilots had already verified he was unarmed. The pilots comments were assumptions unsupported by the facts. The neat thing about that gun camera footage is its tied into where they are looking, so we actually do see what they saw.

                      Comment


                      • All of you who were so positive it was an rpg.,,,, Just know that in all this I never saw anything that wasn't there. I was told in this thread I have zero credibility. I only see what I see when possible, I sure try. This is why. Why do I see one thing and you another? Training. Skills in observation. Attention to detail.

                        Originally posted by bigross
                        Both reporters are clearly seen talking with the people in the group with the RPG
                        Is it still that clear after the pentagon said it was a camera?

                        , the Pentagon fired back with large pieces of its own 2007 investigations into the attack. It concluded that the Reuters employees had joined up with several armed insurgents on a day that had been filled with attacks on U.S. troops in the vicinity. One knelt to take a photograph, without wearing any vest or other apparel indicating he was a reporter. From the Apache, the camera was mistaken for an RPG launcher
                        Same question I asked before, do you honestly think they wouldn't have shot the RPG at the Apache, given even the slightest chance?
                        yes. There was no RPG

                        Originally posted by zraver
                        STFU, those reporters were war corespondents, they knew the risk and chose to hang out with an armed group engaged in combat with Americans. A group that had an RPG which is a shoot on sight offense.
                        [/QUOTE]

                        ummm..... No RPG.

                        while the weapons, especially the RPG, were extremely noticeable.
                        They were?
                        Last edited by Roycerson; 07 Apr 10,, 04:54.

                        Comment


                        • Wikipedia (I know) indicates that two RPG-7s and an AK-47 were recovered from the scene. They cite the report released on cryptome as the source of the information.

                          I haven't been able to get the rar to work, so I can't say if that's correct or not.
                          "Nature abhors a moron." - H.L. Mencken

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Roycerson View Post
                            All of you who were so positive it was an rpg.,,,, Just know that in all this I never saw anything that wasn't there. I was told in this thread I have zero credibility. I only see what I see when possible, I sure try. This is why. Why do I see one thing and you another? Training. Skills in observation. Attention to detail.
                            Which matters ZERO. You're sitting behind a computer screen, not real time, making real time decisions. This was combat. Men looking for threats and if you're not faced down, hands out, anything you point into the sky is a threat.

                            I know you've never had a gun pointed at you, let alone people shooting at you or your people on the ground. So, unless you tell me that you are qualified to make combat decisions, then, you are extremely ill qualified to state what those pilots should have seen.

                            I've watched the video and there was ONLY the question about the van. And even here, it is a judgement call. These were obvious unarmed participants but without obvious identification marks on themselves or the van, there was no way of knowing whether they indeed unarmed, rendering medical evac or they just left their weapons in the van.

                            Let's put it this way, a LAV-III with no red-cross on it and a bunch of unarmed soldiers rush out to carry one of their own wounded into that LAV-III is still a legitimate military target. There was no red-cross nor red crecent on any one to indicate that they were non-combattants, especially when the US forces have just engaged against non-uniformed combattants.

                            It makes me sick to my stomache that children has died. I would had hope the APACHE pilots would have stood down had they known children was in the van but I cannot see the van being an illegitmate target.

                            This is not even a grey area. A simple white flag would have done. Granted the civilians did not know any better ... but it is not up to the APACHE pilots to know better, especially when they've just finished engaging non-uniformed and therefore, illegal combattants.

                            No, it does not make it all right for the civilians and especially for the children who died ... BUT it is also not wrong for the APACHE pilots to behave the way they did.

                            It is just sickening and it sucks.
                            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 07 Apr 10,, 05:06.

                            Comment


                            • Which matters ZERO. You're sitting behind a computer screen, not real time, making real time decisions. This was combat. Men looking for threats and if you're not faced down, hands out, anything you point into the sky is a threat.
                              That's unacceptable in an urban environment full of civilians.

                              You might have noticed several military professionals here also sitting behind their screen in the comfort of wherever they are who are so very sure they saw an rpg. Why do they see things that aren't there?

                              know you've never had a gun pointed at you,
                              You are wrong. See what I mean... about people who "know" things that they don't really know. They can't be relied upon to react to what IS.

                              I was once unarmed w/ a gun at my chest. You never know how you're gonna do when that moment happens. I acted quickly and decisively and no shots were fired.

                              Another time was in traffic and it was some kid in his mom's car. I just slowed down and let him leave me behind. A .45 is a big barrel to look at though.

                              The man said 5+ people w/ AK's. That was clearly not accurate. They said they were taking fire. Also not accurate.

                              Is there one single pro-military-war in iraq type person who thinks it's important to have accurate data? Incredibly so, you can't make good decisions with bad information. If the guy can't be relied upon to accurately describe what he sees than what good is he doing speaking at all?
                              Last edited by Roycerson; 07 Apr 10,, 05:27.

                              Comment


                              • Zraver Reply

                                "have you even watched the video?"

                                Really?

                                "The went for the wounded man, not bodies...they pulled up to the wounded man and jumped out to render aid."

                                You could be correct. We'll never know what else they intended but that's speculation. However, there was no first-aid administered. You know that. They picked the individual up and were intending to place him in the van despite those able to render assistance were approximately 100 or so meters away. AMERICAN FORCES. Escape isn't an option.

                                "The Apache pilots had already verified he was unarmed."

                                So? That wouldn't mean he wasn't a combatant nor eligible for engagement. It would, however, mean that it was more difficult picking a body up while holding a weapon.

                                "The pilots comments were assumptions unsupported by the facts."

                                The pilot's comments were his reasoned observations while in the midst of a battlezone and maintaining his best situational awareness.

                                "The neat thing about that gun camera footage is its tied into where they are looking, so we actually do see what they saw."

                                Actually, the I.O. makes a point that what the pilots saw was less than seen on the video-

                                "The gun camera film was a video burned onto a compact disc which I received from my legal advisor. The video provided me an accurate time-line of events and allowed me to corroborate or deny other eye witness testimony received into evidence. However, it must be noted that details which are readily apparent when viewed on a large video monitor are not necessarily apparent to the Apache pilots during a live-fire engagement. First of all, the pilots are viewing the scene on a much smaller screen than I had for my review. Secondly, a pilot's primary concern is with flying his helicopter and the safety of his aircraft. Third, the pilots are continuously tracking the movement of friendly forces in order to prevent fratricide. Fourth, since Bravo Company had been in near continuous contact since dawn, the pilots were looking primarily for armed insurgents. Lastly, there was no information leading anyone to believe or even suspect that noncombatants were in the area." Item 6 Page 2.

                                Did you even read the AR 15-6 report that I offered?

                                Thanks.
                                "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                                "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X