Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

[Plekhanov]

Standard RPG-7, but there's others, we had an incident in August of '03 where an Abrams had it's frontal armor penetrated and the projectile went and buried itself 2-3 inches in the rear of the tank. The culprit is thought to have been a more advanced Russian weapon, specifically the RPG-22.

They had already asked for and received permission to open fire and were trying to do so before they saw the camera. Till that point all they'd seen is some guys meandering around in the open with straps over their shoulders.

They'd have killed the Iraqis regardless of whether or not they'd seen the camera, as such the camera and it's alleged resemblance of assorted kinds of weapon is irrelevant.

[Gil Hamilton]

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.

No, I can tell by looking at the image. That's not a few inches, that's about a foot. You almost make out the body of the camera behind the lens. What I see there is something about a foot long that has a boxy something on the end of it and is cylindrical shaped behind held by someone. You know what I think of when I see something like that? Camera with a telephoto lens. That's not hindsight in this case, that's actually where my mind goes because I do some photography.

So in other words, your call of bullshit is bullshit. Even watching the video, I could make out the dude's camera bag when the helicopter panned around (the grainy black box hanging at the guys side in the video, if you are wondering).

[Knife]

You know what I think of when I see something like that? Camera with a telephoto lens. That's not hindsight in this case, that's actually where my mind goes because I do some photography.

Confirmation bias, right there. They are soldiers in a combat zone, their minds go to weapons.

So in other words, your call of bullshit is bullshit. Even watching the video, I could make out the dude's camera bag when the helicopter panned around (the grainy black box hanging at the guys side in the video, if you are wondering).

And their mind probably went to spare barrel, ammo bag. See, works both ways.

[Thanas]

Listen, I do some photography as well but all I see is some thing that might or might not be a tube. It is a tube-like object.

However, as they already asked for and received permission to fire before they saw the tube, as Plekhanov says, the point is moot. Fact is these guys waited only for a few seconds before blowing the guys away and the US Army hushed it up. Neither of those facts are a positive or even an acceptable thing.

[Knife]

Listen, I do some photography as well but all I see is some thing that might or might not be a tube. It is a tube-like object.

However, as they already asked for and received permission to fire before they saw the tube, as Plekhanov says, the point is moot. Fact is these guys waited only for a few seconds before blowing the guys away and the US Army hushed it up. Neither of those facts are a positive or even an acceptable thing.

Indeed. I'm sure nobody here is happy with the situation, and I'm sure almost all of us want something done about the situation. That said, if we left it at that, we'd not have a discussion. Seems people are more arguing over the particulars and outliers now. That should not be interpreted to mean that we condone the actual cover up or the deaths of innocents.

Edit: teaches me to hit submit without finishing my though.

[Flagg]

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

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

We do that now, you apologist fucktard. Turns out the people we elect to represent us get to approve of and disapprove of strategies and tactics. Who knew?

[Mr. Coffee]

No, I can tell by looking at the image. That's not a few inches, that's about a foot. You almost make out the body of the camera behind the lens. What I see there is something about a foot long that has a boxy something on the end of it and is cylindrical shaped behind held by someone.

And I see something cylindrical ending in the wall with some guy's head poking out above it. Who knows what the fuck the pilots thought they saw.

You know what I think of when I see something like that? Camera with a telephoto lens. That's not hindsight in this case, that's actually where my mind goes because I do some photography.

So you're predisposed to see "camera" and the pilots were predisposed to see "weapon". He'll there's a couple of spots in the video where I could swear I saw this boxy thing at the ass end of the tube that made me think "camera" too. But then again, I'm not an apache pilot/gunner and neither are you.

So in other words, your call of bullshit is bullshit. Even watching the video, I could make out the dude's camera bag when the helicopter panned around (the grainy black box hanging at the guys side in the video, if you are wondering).

And to the pilot that could ahve been a bag full of ammo or a satchel charge or some shit. Point is you're looking for camera gear, they weren't. So unless you're saying that the pilots misID's the cameras as weapons on purpose, I don't see what the fuck we're arguing about here.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also, Marina, your argument that this is how pilots always sound is ridiculously false, considering that when Air Force pilots were asked to bombard some trucks in Afghanistan, they not only asked for confirmation several times and then did numerous identification attempts before bombing.

I didn't make that argument. I said they "sound like abbott and costello", i.e., they cannot identify anything worth a damn. Not that they all laugh and jeer at the oppotunity to kill.

Note that Apache = Army helicopter pilots, not Air Force pilots, too, so very different institutional cultures.

[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.

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

Yeah my bad, I was getting so riled up I forgot from what reference I was arguing.

[Quetzalcoatl]

For anybody who is interested, Cryptome has acquired the initial report on the incident done by the US army.

http://cryptome.org/reuters-kill.zip

I'm still looking through it, so no comments yet.

[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...

We do that now, you apologist fucktard. Turns out the people we elect to represent us get to approve of and disapprove of strategies and tactics. Who knew?

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you functionally 'tarded? Nobody gets to vote on tactics and deployments. You don't get to decide which unit goes out on patrol, where they patrol, which weapons they're equipped with, who they shoot at, etc. You have no direct input in any of that. You only get to vote indirectly for policy - do we go to war in Iraq or not? Do we support Republicans who balloon defense spending in Alabama and Texas, or Democrats who balloon defense spending in Washington and California?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok, we're talking about the US Military here, arguably the most technologically advanced and best equiped military there is.

Yes. And we went into the Iraq war with a tactical doctrine that is not suitable for urban warfare. As a result of that, there is a systemic problem with equipment optimization.

Bearing that in mind, what equipment should we have been using since you just said that this better equipment doesn't exist?

It happens. When a problem is systemic, there may not be an option. The equipment would need to be designed, or tactics changed accordingly, with the knowledge that some of the equipment that is possessed is poor for a given set of tasks.

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.

Exactly. That is why I am pissed off. Had someone competant decided when to go to war and given the proper time to planning etc (and this matters on time scale too. No one ever thought we may be engaged in asymmetrical urban warfare when our current weapons systems were designed) we may not have systemic problems like this.

[Flagg]

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

We do that now, you apologist fucktard. Turns out the people we elect to represent us get to approve of and disapprove of strategies and tactics. Who knew?

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you functionally 'tarded? Nobody gets to vote on tactics and deployments. You don't get to decide which unit goes out on patrol, where they patrol, which weapons they're equipped with, who they shoot at, etc. You have no direct input in any of that. You only get to vote indirectly for policy - do we go to war in Iraq or not? Do we support Republicans who balloon defense spending in Alabama and Texas, or Democrats who balloon defense spending in Washington and California?

Who do you think puts such people who make those decisions in charge you waste of space?

[[R_H]]

Something to keep in mind is that insurgents carry cameras with them in order to film their attacks. The Apache crewmembers might have come to that conclusion, if they saw/had been able to recognise cameras.

Ok, we're talking about the US Military here, arguably the most technologically advanced and best equiped military there is.

Yes. And we went into the Iraq war with a tactical doctrine that is not suitable for urban warfare. As a result of that, there is a systemic problem with equipment optimization.

Could you elaborate?

[LMSx]

It's good to see some vague consensus that release of this video was a good thing; both to spur deeper investigation into what sort of cover up went on and to experience firsthand the terrible issues the US military has to cope with in IDing civilians vs. insurgents in an urban environment. So....my mind jumps immediately to some of the torture photos that the ACLU and other NGOs have been trying to get released and the Obama DoJ has successfully kept classified. Volatility of the subject matter (could inflame the populace!) was one of the objections I've read at SDN before; does anyone who objects to the similarity I'm drawing want to explain where they see a substantive difference? I see in both situations that disclosure would help put needed pressure to prevent these events from occurring again.

[Mr. Coffee]

Who do you think puts such people who make those decisions in charge you waste of space?

Actually, none of them except the President and people under him in the chain of command (and all those people are either in the military themselves or are political appointees like the Secretary of Defens, ect). So no, we really don't fucking vote on tactics or strategy or any of the like, unless you're a hyper-retard and actually think that since you voted/didn't vote for the president that you actually have a say in their policies and the policies of the people they appoint to various positions.

tl;dr: Go fucking read up on how our government and military chain of command actually work, Flagg.

[Flagg]

Who do you think puts such people who make those decisions in charge you waste of space?

Actually, none of them except the President and people under him in the chain of command (and all those people are either in the military themselves or are political appointees like the Secretary of Defens, ect). So no, we really don't fucking vote on tactics or strategy or any of the like, unless you're a hyper-retard and actually think that since you voted/didn't vote for the president that you actually have a say in their policies and the policies of the people they appoint to various positions.

tl;dr: Go fucking read up on how our government and military chain of command actually work, Flagg.

I know how our government works, numbnuts. The President gets elected based on his stated policies, then he goes about appointing people who are then confirmed by the senate. So yes, it is very much a democracy. Maybe not on the ground, but policy dictates ROE.

[MKSheppard]

Hey fucking nice.



RPGs recovered off the dead bodies; and live RPG rounds underneath them that gotta be blown by EOD.

Sounds like a bunch of stringers for Reuters embedded with some bad guys, and got shot to shit for their efforts.

PROTIP: When covering a military conflict, do not associate with people carrying RPGs.

[Flagg]

This from the same people who pulled the cover-up?

[MKSheppard]

You know, it's a simple matter for the media to use their sources to run down the various elements in this statment; like live RPG rounds underneath bodies that have to be blown by EOD; there are only so many EOD techs in Vietraqistan....

[Big Phil]

I know how our government works, numbnuts. The President gets elected based on his stated policies, then he goes about appointing people who are then confirmed by the senate. So yes, it is very much a democracy. Maybe not on the ground, but policy dictates ROE.

Flagg - you're either a moron or you're deliberately trolling - which is it?

[MKSheppard]

That is definitely taken by him. It's in the PDF packet as part of the investigation along with a few others.

[Mr. Coffee]

I know how our government works, numbnuts. The President gets elected based on his stated policies, then he goes about appointing people who are then confirmed by the senate. So yes, it is very much a democracy. Maybe not on the ground, but policy dictates ROE.

Jesus fucking Christ... No, Flagg, that doesn't mean we vote on tactics or even ROEs. It just means we vote for one or two people, only one of which is actually in the decision making process and then only at the very top of the command structure, and from there it's out of our hands until the next election cycle. Or do you actually think once he got confirmed that Rumsfeld went "mother may I" to the people in the Senate that confirmed him?

[Mr. Coffee]

That is definitely taken by him. It's in the PDF packet as part of the investigation along with a few others.

You got a link to the PDF, homie?

[Ritterin Sophia]

They had already asked for and received permission to open fire and were trying to do so before they saw the camera. Till that point all they'd seen is some guys meandering around in the open with straps over their shoulders.

That's a red herring in the context of this portion of the argument, this tangent began when someone denied that a camera could be confused with an RPG of any type. If you want to talk about previous to that point, then I'll direct you to the 1:40 mark on full video; the guy with something slung over his soldier could be mistaken as having an AKS-74U in fact that was my first reaction upon seeing it (I had a 45B for a DS and in Blue Phase when he was on CQ and we were made CQ assistants one of his favorite things to do was have us do weapons identification).