Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

[Mr. Coffee]

Bullshit, I can tell that's a telephoto lens with a flare protector even in that shot. A trained soldier in the army, even if he isn't familiar with camera equipment, should be able to recognize that isn't a weapon.

So you're saying that based on a grainy black and white picture in which you can only see 4 or 5 inches of the object that it is camera equipment beyond the shadow of any doubt what so ever?

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that.

[Big Phil]

Then they should not be using helicopter gunships for urban warfare.

On what are you basing these assertions? Is this just your gut feeling about how urban warfare should be fought, or do you have any experience or supporting evidence that justifies your arguments?

Reason dumbass.

If it is that easy to use this equipment to mistake non-weapons for weapons, then it is unsuited for urban warfare where all manner of people carry around objects on shoulder straps, and objects on belt loops. In the first few seconds the guy monitoring the gun cam mistook a camera for a gun on a holster. That could also easily happen with a fucking cell phone in a case etc. That level of uncertainty is not acceptable for urban warfare unless you are willing to kill a fuckton of innocent civilians.

Your gut and your personal opinion, in other words... we should all make decisions like this. Hell, let's let everyone with an opinion decide how we fight wars.

[Flagg]

On what are you basing these assertions? Is this just your gut feeling about how urban warfare should be fought, or do you have any experience or supporting evidence that justifies your arguments?

Reason dumbass.

If it is that easy to use this equipment to mistake non-weapons for weapons, then it is unsuited for urban warfare where all manner of people carry around objects on shoulder straps, and objects on belt loops. In the first few seconds the guy monitoring the gun cam mistook a camera for a gun on a holster. That could also easily happen with a fucking cell phone in a case etc. That level of uncertainty is not acceptable for urban warfare unless you are willing to kill a fuckton of innocent civilians.

Your gut and your personal opinion, in other words... we should all make decisions like this. Hell, let's let everyone with an opinion decide how we fight wars.

You mean... Like... A democracy?

[Gil Hamilton]

So you're saying that based on a grainy black and white picture in which you can only see 4 or 5 inches of the object that it is camera equipment beyond the shadow of any doubt what so ever?

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that.

Look at the damn image. You can see a small box on the end of a small tube that is about the same length of guys head (so about a little more than a foot long). That's the exact proportions of many telephoto lens with a flare protector. If I can make out that much, I would expect trained soldiers who are used to looking at such images to be able to do the same.

[Big Phil]

You mean... Like... A democracy?

That's fucking brilliant. Let's VOTE on military tactics. That won't get a shitload of people killed...

[Mr. Coffee]

So you're saying that based on a grainy black and white picture in which you can only see 4 or 5 inches of the object that it is camera equipment beyond the shadow of any doubt what so ever?

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that.

Look at the damn image. You can see a small box on the end of a small tube that is about the same length of guys head (so about a little more than a foot long). That's the exact proportions of many telephoto lens with a flare protector. If I can make out that much, I would expect trained soldiers who are used to looking at such images to be able to do the same.

You mean this image?



All I can see is a guys head and a few inches of something cylindrical. We know after the fact that it was a camera lens, but right then and right there I can see where the pilots could mistake what that is, especially pilots that are trained to err on the side of not getting their own people killed. So don't try and tell me that you would have known it was a camera, there are other objects that shape and general size that aren't cameras. You know it's a camera now, because after the fact it turns out it was a camera.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And we should also make a point to never fight people who make a habit of not wearing easily identifiable uniforms, should only fight if it's in an open field, if a civilian is present in five miles of where a fight may occur we should disengage immediately, blah blah blah...

False analogy. There is a difference between picking one's fights, and picking the correct equipment and training for the one you decide to fight. For example, it is probably a dumb idea to assault a castle. However if you are going to do that, it is best not to send your pikemen into the keep where they cannot maneuver properly and can get cut to ribbons by kitchen servants with daggers.\

Bit of a reversal of outcome but there it is.

Let's flip this shit around though, let's say that the situation was that the guys really were armed and that they were the people the ground forces thought was firing on them.

It is a risk function. The marginal risk of taking an extra five seconds of time to ID one's targets is minimal. There were no friendlies in sight, and they were outside the effective range of any weapons possessed by the "insurgents". Had they been correct in their identification, it says nothing about the suitability of their equipment or their decision making process. Only that they cast the dice and came out a winner.

Your gut and your personal opinion, in other words... we should all make decisions like this. Hell, let's let everyone with an opinion decide how we fight wars.

I tend not to rely on my gut, but rather reason. It is logical to select a weapon suitable for the sort of conflict you enter. If you are in urban warfare and your goal is to defeat your enemy and also protect the civilian population, it is logical to select weapons which minimize the risk of collateral damage. A weapon system designed for set piece engagements which does not allow its operator to distinguish between friends carrying mundane objects or hostiles carrying weapons at its operational range does not do a sufficient job minimizing the risk of collateral damage.

Do you have a counter to this logical progression? Something having to do with the connection between premise and conclusion perhaps? Or are you simply going to appeal to my lack of qualification on matters military? Appeal to my ignorance and say "you are not an expert in weapons systems therefore you are incorrect"

[Big Phil]

So you're saying that based on a grainy black and white picture in which you can only see 4 or 5 inches of the object that it is camera equipment beyond the shadow of any doubt what so ever?

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that.

Look at the damn image. You can see a small box on the end of a small tube that is about the same length of guys head (so about a little more than a foot long). That's the exact proportions of many telephoto lens with a flare protector. If I can make out that much, I would expect trained soldiers who are used to looking at such images to be able to do the same.

OK - I'm going to address all the fuckheads in here claiming they immediately knew what they were looking at and that there was no way the soldiers could mistake a camera for a rifle.

1. They were hot, stressed, busy doing other things (like flying a helicopter and keeping a look out for people who might be shooting at them), and had to make a quick judgment call.
2. They were watching things happen in real time. I don't know how large a monitor is in an Apache, but I somehow doubt it was a 20" screen like most of us have.
3. They were expecting and looking for people carrying rifles (that old confirmation bias thing again), not photographers and their entourage.
4. These guys were approaching a US patrol that had previously reported taking fire.

Now, it's great that you, sitting in the comfort of your home, not stressed, tired, angry, scared, or overheated, and with the luxury of hindsight and a big-ass monitor, can tell that this was not a camera, but these trained soldiers made a mistake in their identification. I doubt very much the military gives a shit what some fatty nerd on the Internet expects of its trained soldiers, so perhaps you and AD and all the others could leave your personal opinions out of this. It doesn't matter what you guys think.

As others have previously said, the primary problem here is the cover up and the failure to properly investigate this, not whether a bunch of SDNet nerds can tell the difference between a camera and a rifle.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Is there an unedited version of this footage? I'd like to show it to someone who hasn't been following this at all and see if they can identify the equipment as cameras or something else besides weapons.

[ray245]

So you're saying that based on a grainy black and white picture in which you can only see 4 or 5 inches of the object that it is camera equipment beyond the shadow of any doubt what so ever?

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that.

Look at the damn image. You can see a small box on the end of a small tube that is about the same length of guys head (so about a little more than a foot long). That's the exact proportions of many telephoto lens with a flare protector. If I can make out that much, I would expect trained soldiers who are used to looking at such images to be able to do the same.

OK - I'm going to address all the fuckheads in here claiming they immediately knew what they were looking at and that there was no way the soldiers could mistake a camera for a rifle.

1. They were hot, stressed, busy doing other things (like flying a helicopter and keeping a look out for people who might be shooting at them), and had to make a quick judgment call.
2. They were watching things happen in real time. I don't know how large a monitor is in an Apache, but I somehow doubt it was a 20" screen like most of us have.
3. They were expecting and looking for people carrying rifles (that old confirmation bias thing again), not photographers and their entourage.
4. These guys were approaching a US patrol that had previously reported taking fire.

Now, it's great that you, sitting in the comfort of your home, not stressed, tired, angry, scared, or overheated, and with the luxury of hindsight and a big-ass monitor, can tell that this was not a camera, but these trained soldiers made a mistake in their identification. I doubt very much the military gives a shit what some fatty nerd on the Internet expects of its trained soldiers, so perhaps you and AD and all the others could leave your personal opinions out of this. It doesn't matter what you guys think.

As others have previously said, the primary problem here is the cover up and the failure to properly investigate this, not whether a bunch of SDNet nerds can tell the difference between a camera and a rifle.

Hell, even then, there are people on this very forum that finds it hard to identify the things that the reporters are carrying.

[Alyrium Denryle]

1. They were hot, stressed, busy doing other things (like flying a helicopter and keeping a look out for people who might be shooting at them), and had to make a quick judgment call.

You do not seem to understand this. When someone is under that stress, perhaps even sleep deprived or on stimulants to keep them operational for longer, they should not be making quick judgement calls. I do not blame the individual soldiers in this case, but rather the situation. Their orders, training (the part that makes them dehumanize their enemy. Good for a soldier, bad for occupation), equipment.

2. They were watching things happen in real time. I don't know how large a monitor is in an Apache, but I somehow doubt it was a 20" screen like most of us have.

Then the equipment was not up to the task that it was assigned to perform.

3. They were expecting and looking for people carrying rifles (that old confirmation bias thing again), not photographers and their entourage.

See above.

[Big Phil]

Let's flip this shit around though, let's say that the situation was that the guys really were armed and that they were the people the ground forces thought was firing on them.

It is a risk function. The marginal risk of taking an extra five seconds of time to ID one's targets is minimal. There were no friendlies in sight, and they were outside the effective range of any weapons possessed by the "insurgents". Had they been correct in their identification, it says nothing about the suitability of their equipment or their decision making process. Only that they cast the dice and came out a winner.

Let's say they took five minutes to make an identification instead of 90 seconds, and still reached the same conclusion and killed those people. Would that satisfy you, or would you instead be whining that they should have taken six minutes?

Your problem is that innocent people were killed, and you're not willing to accept that even taking longer, they might still have been killed.

Your gut and your personal opinion, in other words... we should all make decisions like this. Hell, let's let everyone with an opinion decide how we fight wars.

I tend not to rely on my gut, but rather reason. It is logical to select a weapon suitable for the sort of conflict you enter. If you are in urban warfare and your goal is to defeat your enemy and also protect the civilian population, it is logical to select weapons which minimize the risk of collateral damage. A weapon system designed for set piece engagements which does not allow its operator to distinguish between friends carrying mundane objects or hostiles carrying weapons at its operational range does not do a sufficient job minimizing the risk of collateral damage.

Do you have a counter to this logical progression? Something having to do with the connection between premise and conclusion perhaps? Or are you simply going to appeal to my lack of qualification on matters military? Appeal to my ignorance and say "you are not an expert in weapons systems therefore you are incorrect"

Guys with rifles on the ground still kill civilians by mistake... they do it a lot, at much closer ranges, and sometimes with more time to think about what they're going to do. Should the military therefore take soldiers' rifles away and equip them all with knives?

Following your logic to its ultimate (and ridiculous) conclusion, perhaps the military should require fingerprinting, multiple forms of identification, and a full forensic examination before they're allowed to kill anyone, to make sure that the people they kill are in fact shooting at them, and not at some other people.

In any case, your whining about the helicopter is a blatant red herring, and irrelevant to the core issue of the failure to investigate properly and the cover up.

[Knife]

I have training in the military and I'm familiar with various military weapons but have fucking no clue what a journalists camera looks like from a distance. Those who want to then ban equipment like a helo from air support if they can't properly ID such things are missing the easier possibility that would more likely go into effect; ban journalists with camera's.

Some how I doubt those advocating the ban on helo gun support would like that easier option.


As an aside, I too wholeheartedly support both an investigation into the events and a scathing investigation into the military for covering this up.

[Mr. Coffee]

False analogy. There is a difference between picking one's fights, and picking the correct equipment and training for the one you decide to fight. For example, it is probably a dumb idea to assault a castle. However if you are going to do that, it is best not to send your pikemen into the keep where they cannot maneuver properly and can get cut to ribbons by kitchen servants with daggers.

Ok, if a better system then what they were using exists then name it. What I've been saying, and if you'll drop the fucking indignant act for a second you'll understand this too, is that it's kind of easy to see how the made the mistake in identification. Here's another thing to consider, if they did this on purpose, which is what you and a bunch other people in this thread seem to want to suggest, then why did they wait to open fire with a clear line of sight even though they had weapons capable of penetrating the walls and buildings those guys were hunkered down next too? If they're so unconcerned with civilian casualties, then why did they wait to fire from an angle that would minimize damage to the surrounding area?

It is a risk function. The marginal risk of taking an extra five seconds of time to ID one's targets is minimal.

To us talking about it now, sure. They really should have taken a little more time to make sure those were really armed badguys. Problem is, we're talking about this well after the fact, already knowing that the people being shot at aren't armed at all.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

There were no friendlies in sight, and they were outside the effective range of any weapons possessed by the "insurgents".

No friendlies in sight on the gun camera, which is of course pointed at the people they think are armed bad guys. We hear the pilots say multiple times that they can see the friendlies when their were trying to direct them in.

Had they been correct in their identification, it says nothing about the suitability of their equipment or their decision making process. Only that they cast the dice and came out a winner.

Bullshit. Had they made the right call I doubt we'd even be having this conversation. Hell, had those guys really been armed, and the pilots misID'd them as non-hostiles and a bunch of ground troops died as a result, I doubt we'd have this conversation.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Let's say they took five minutes to make an identification instead of 90 seconds, and still reached the same conclusion and killed those people. Would that satisfy you, or would you instead be whining that they should have taken six minutes?

It did not take them 90 seconds in this case, it took them far less. However yes. That would satisfy me that their decision making process was adequate and given the unsuitability of their equipment, that they made the best decision they could have made.

Your problem is that innocent people were killed, and you're not willing to accept that even taking longer, they might still have been killed.

No. The result was tragic, but it happens. My issue is that they did not take the necessary precautions to minimize the risk of it occurring. Do not presume to read my mind.

Guys with rifles on the ground still kill civilians by mistake... they do it a lot, at much closer ranges, and sometimes with more time to think about what they're going to do. Should the military therefore take soldiers' rifles away and equip them all with knives?

No. There are a lot more soldiers on the ground. Without seeing the stats on how often it happens per capita I cannot say. One also needs to separate out war crimes from good faith errors.

Following your logic to its ultimate (and ridiculous) conclusion, perhaps the military should require fingerprinting, multiple forms of identification, and a full forensic examination before they're allowed to kill anyone, to make sure that the people they kill are in fact shooting at them, and not at some other people.

Wow. You have not heard of an optimization function at all have you? You assume I only include one variable in the equation. Risk minimization. When in reality there are two, risk minimization and combat effectiveness. You wish to find a local maxima in the ratio of combat effectiveness to risk, one which also provides as high a combat effectiveness score as possible.

In any case, your whining about the helicopter is a blatant red herring, and irrelevant to the core issue of the failure to investigate properly and the cover up.

Oh that is an entirely different bucket of fish.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok, if a better system then what they were using exists then name it.

It does not exist, because we went into this war from the start in a haphazard fashion without the proper equipment.

What I've been saying, and if you'll drop the fucking indignant act for a second you'll understand this too, is that it's kind of easy to see how the made the mistake in identification.

Oh, I am aware that the mistake was easy. Too easy. That is my whole fucking point. Add in poor equipment optimization with confirmation bias and the results of the Zimbardo prison experiment and we should expect these things. That does not make them OK. It means we are doing a poor job of managing risk.

Here's another thing to consider, if they did this on purpose, which is what you and a bunch other people in this thread seem to want to suggest, then why did they wait to open fire with a clear line of sight even though they had weapons capable of penetrating the walls and buildings those guys were hunkered down next too?

I have never claimed that it was intentional. Do not lump me in with others.

If they're so unconcerned with civilian casualties, then why did they wait to fire from an angle that would minimize damage to the surrounding area?

See above.

To us talking about it now, sure. They really should have taken a little more time to make sure those were really armed badguys. Problem is, we're talking about this well after the fact, already knowing that the people being shot at aren't armed at all.

I am not talking about just them. The decision making process here has a faulty basis. Yes, they should have taken some extra time. On the other hand for the conflict they are fighting they should have better equipment, better oversight, better training for urban warfare, and better on-sight psychiatric care to identify the ones that might be getting a little crazy.


Bullshit. Had they made the right call I doubt we'd even be having this conversation. Hell, had those guys really been armed, and the pilots misID'd them as non-hostiles and a bunch of ground troops died as a result, I doubt we'd have this conversation.

False analogy. There is a difference between picking one's fights, and picking the correct equipment and training for the one you decide to fight. For example, it is probably a dumb idea to assault a castle. However if you are going to do that, it is best not to send your pikemen into the keep where they cannot maneuver properly and can get cut to ribbons by kitchen servants with daggers.

Ok, if a better system then what they were using exists then name it. What I've been saying, and if you'll drop the fucking indignant act for a second you'll understand this too, is that it's kind of easy to see how the made the mistake in identification. Here's another thing to consider, if they did this on purpose, which is what you and a bunch other people in this thread seem to want to suggest, then why did they wait to open fire with a clear line of sight even though they had weapons capable of penetrating the walls and buildings those guys were hunkered down next too? If they're so unconcerned with civilian casualties, then why did they wait to fire from an angle that would minimize damage to the surrounding area?

It is a risk function. The marginal risk of taking an extra five seconds of time to ID one's targets is minimal.

To us talking about it now, sure. They really should have taken a little more time to make sure those were really armed badguys. Problem is, we're talking about this well after the fact, already knowing that the people being shot at aren't armed at all.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

There were no friendlies in sight, and they were outside the effective range of any weapons possessed by the "insurgents".

No friendlies in sight on the gun camera, which is of course pointed at the people they think are armed bad guys. We hear the pilots say multiple times that they can see the friendlies when their were trying to direct them in.

Had they been correct in their identification, it says nothing about the suitability of their equipment or their decision making process. Only that they cast the dice and came out a winner.

Bullshit. Had they made the right call I doubt we'd even be having this conversation.

Because we would not have found out about it and the issue would never have come to our attention, not because we would have said "good job". Or at least I would not.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Those who want to then ban equipment like a helo from air support if they can't properly ID such things are missing the easier possibility that would more likely go into effect; ban journalists with camera's.

That would also work. Or at least make them have some sort of marker IDing them as journalists from a distance.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Gee whiz. Seeing as they were obviously not RPGs, perhaps it would be wise to start using higher resolution cameras, or spring for optical binocs.

When you design a reliable small camera with enough durability to be strapped into a rotor wing CAS platform that needs to survive being rocked by 23mm cannon fire I'm sure the US Army will be more than happy to install it into their next next generation of helicopter gunships.

[Ritterin Sophia]

There were no friendlies in sight, and they were outside the effective range of any weapons possessed by the "insurgents".

As stated earlier in this thread, this is allegedly the picture he had taken right before the incident. So no, he was most definitely within range to have caused damage were he an insurgent.

[Mr. Coffee]

It does not exist, because we went into this war from the start in a haphazard fashion without the proper equipment.

Ok, we're talking about the US Military here, arguably the most technologically advanced and best equiped military there is. Bearing that in mind, what equipment should we have been using since you just said that this better equipment doesn't exist? Shit you saw on the latest episode of Future Weapons? Master Chief and the Spartans from Halo? Goddamned Stormtroopers? Toss me a bone here, bud...

Oh, I am aware that the mistake was easy. Too easy. That is my whole fucking point. Add in poor equipment optimization with confirmation bias and the results of the Zimbardo prison experiment and we should expect these things. That does not make them OK. It means we are doing a poor job of managing risk.

And that's why the real WTF part of this whole incident isn't the incident itself, but the shoddy investigation and subsequent cover up of the incident. Instead of finding out what went wrong, who made the bad calls, why they made those bad calls, and using that to figure out changes to proceadures or ROEs to prevent it from happening again, the whole damned thing got swept under a rug and a whole bunch of people died for nothing.

I have never claimed that it was intentional. Do not lump me in with others.

My bad then, but you can see what I'm talking about here though, right?

Because we would not have found out about it and the issue would never have come to our attention, not because we would have said "good job". Or at least I would not.

One "Aw shit" negates a thousand "good jobs", man. I'll say it again, the really horrific part of this incident isn't the incident itself, its the the aftermath.

[Master of Ossus]

That would also work. Or at least make them have some sort of marker IDing them as journalists from a distance.

Seriously. Where were their flak jackets? I'm not trying to blame the victims, becaues I don't know what was happening and there seems to be more than enough blame to give the pilots for their shoddy misidentification, but I'm genuinely curious: Reuters reporters are issued with clearly marked flak vests when they go to Baghdad. Does that not apply to Iraqis who are working for Reuters, or did they get issued the vests but not wear them? It seems plausible that wearing such markers could have prevented the incident, and is one of those little things that obviously led to a giant catastrophe.

[Akhlut]

That would also work. Or at least make them have some sort of marker IDing them as journalists from a distance.

Seriously. Where were their flak jackets? I'm not trying to blame the victims, becaues I don't know what was happening and there seems to be more than enough blame to give the pilots for their shoddy misidentification, but I'm genuinely curious: Reuters reporters are issued with clearly marked flak vests when they go to Baghdad. Does that not apply to Iraqis who are working for Reuters, or did they get issued the vests but not wear them? It seems plausible that wearing such markers could have prevented the incident, and is one of those little things that obviously led to a giant catastrophe.

Honest question: would a flak jacket even protect someone from the rounds a gunship is firing?

[The Spartan]

No. Only the shrapnel from near-hits.

[Formless]

That would also work. Or at least make them have some sort of marker IDing them as journalists from a distance.

Seriously. Where were their flak jackets? I'm not trying to blame the victims, becaues I don't know what was happening and there seems to be more than enough blame to give the pilots for their shoddy misidentification, but I'm genuinely curious: Reuters reporters are issued with clearly marked flak vests when they go to Baghdad. Does that not apply to Iraqis who are working for Reuters, or did they get issued the vests but not wear them? It seems plausible that wearing such markers could have prevented the incident, and is one of those little things that obviously led to a giant catastrophe.

Honest question: would a flak jacket even protect someone from the rounds a gunship is firing?

If it has identifiers marking you as a civilian news reporter then yes, it would, because presumably he gunship would never have fired in the first place. There's more than one way to protect yourself from gunfire...

[Plekhanov]

There were no friendlies in sight, and they were outside the effective range of any weapons possessed by the "insurgents".

As stated earlier in this thread, this is allegedly the picture he had taken right before the incident. So no, he was most definitely within range to have caused damage were he an insurgent.

Nice leap there from 'allegedly' to 'most definitely'.