Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Real Apache video gunning down civies

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

  • Real Apache video gunning down civies

    [warning: contains some graphic content]

    I don't know if this is appropriate to post here and I didn't know if anyone that reads the general discussion thread would be as interested as you guys would be in this seeing as it is an actual Apache gunner/pilot communicating with each other and command on whether or not to gun down these suspected insurgents. I couldn't find a video that wasn't ridden with military whistleblowers dialogue or text so if you want you can (like I did) just skip over the first part and get to the action. IN ANY CASE it provides some good tips for communication in ArmA.



    and here is a shorter version


  • #2
    Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

    This should be in the sandbox and not directly linked. people can find it on wikileaks if they so want.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

      moved to sand box, not for arma 2 Gen Discussion

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

        This really isn't appropriate for any of the forums

        [unit][squadl][command2]

        KnyghtMare ~You could always tell the person holding the gun to your head you would like to play on a different server...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

          Not cool, Watching that video I would have done the same thing, they looked like they were carrying weapons, I hate how the media makes a mistake out to be a act of evil

          My name: Adept a skilled or proficient person Abyss a deep, immeasurable space, gulf, or cavity
          So I'm a very skilled deep hole :D

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

            Its unfortunate, but they were there trying to protect their guys on the ground and they believed they were looking at a threat to the guys.



            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

              Originally posted by Dredge View Post
              This really isn't appropriate for any of the forums
              With the appropriate disclaimer, why not?

              Ditto on the ****ty situation, but Apache guys were just looking out for the dudes on the ground. Kinda messed up how they zoomed in on the kids. Like the Pilot and Gunner could actually see that?
              |TG-X|Turkish

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

                Looks like an unfortunate happening in the killings and multiple not so great decisions afterwards. Can't expect an Apache gunner to be able to tell someone isn't an insurgent if they're WITH insurgents.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

                  Originally posted by TurkishDelight View Post
                  With the appropriate disclaimer, why not?

                  Ditto on the ****ty situation, but Apache guys were just looking out for the dudes on the ground. Kinda messed up how they zoomed in on the kids. Like the Pilot and Gunner could actually see that?
                  Alright, sure. Looking out for their buddies on the ground makes some sense when its the two photographers and they could conceivably have a weapon. That doesn't cover him verbally hoping that one journalist go for a weapon so he can shoot him again, nor does it cover shooting someone very obviously acting in a medical capacity.
                  I can ADS using more than a 2x without significant stutter! This was a good patch.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

                    Can't expect an Apache gunner to be able to tell someone isn't an insurgent if they're WITH insurgents.
                    That's actually what quite a few persons do seem to expect. I chalk such unrealistic expectations down to a combination of 20/20 hindsight from the viewer watching the video and incorrect assumptions about the precision of military weaponry and/or intel.

                    Rac, there's nothing "wrong" about a warrior wanting a guy who he thinks is an insurgent (bad guy out to kill his buddies) to show hostile intent so he can reengage. It's showing restraint. That's the military mindset. A soldier that doesn't wish to kill the enemy is a poor soldier.

                    For a medical target to be protected under the Law of Armed Conflict it has to be identified as such. If the van that rolled onto the scene had been white with a big-ass red crescent the Apache would not have fired. Since it was an unmarked, innocuous black van with personnel without any sort of indication that they were actual medical personnel - they jumped out and began the process of moving the body into the van for apparent transport, no CPR, no bandaging any wounds, etc. - it is reasonable for the Apache crew to conclude that these were fellow insurgents coming to move their fellows to a safe location. There's nothing in the LOAC that says you can't shoot an enemy soldier rendering first aid to a fellow soldier... if he's not marked as a medic. Then you technically can't.

                    As for the news reporters... don't follow insurgents around when they're on the prowl? Interview them when they're hanging out at their house, for Christ's sake.

                    Also fairly laughable was the attempt to paint this as some grand military conspiracy. Submitting a Freedom of Information Act to the military? Disclosure of classified documents is exempt from FOIA requests. These gunship videos are usually classified as Secret level... they're technically not supposed to be anywhere on the internet.
                    Last edited by Gill; 04-06-2010, 04:13 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

                      Originally posted by TurkishDelight View Post
                      With the appropriate disclaimer, why not?
                      Because these videos are listed with a "Secret" Clearance. They shouldn't be on the internet. I understand that its the internet and you can find anything but we don't need to be promoting that. Unless these video's are released in an official capacity, we dont need them here. Thats just asking for trouble.

                      [unit][squadl][command2]

                      KnyghtMare ~You could always tell the person holding the gun to your head you would like to play on a different server...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

                        Originally posted by Razcsak View Post
                        Alright, sure. Looking out for their buddies on the ground makes some sense when its the two photographers and they could conceivably have a weapon. That doesn't cover him verbally hoping that one journalist go for a weapon so he can shoot him again, nor does it cover shooting someone very obviously acting in a medical capacity.
                        Not sure man, to me it looks as though they believed that the guys in the van were trying to remove weapons and evidence of the guys being insurgents. Of course after the shooting we know they are journalist who were in the wrong area at the wrong time.

                        To the gunner verbally hoping for the guy to pick up a gun, that seems to be what I hear from most of my military friends, "the best insurgent is a dead insurgent." They patch guys up and if they have to release them for some reason, they almost always see them out there again.



                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

                          For anyone unclear, this happened back in 2007 in "New Baghdad", a particular hellhole near Sadr City (in other words one of the most active combat areas in Baghdad). It was also situated next to Rte. Predators, a super dangerous route that had a huge number of IED incidents. The entire place was basically an insurgent stronghold, and a dangerous place to be, especially at the height of the insurgency when everything was heating up.

                          IIRC that neighborhood (New Baghdad) is right next to Rt Predators east of Sadr City, it's a ___hole Shia ghetto ass neighborhood. Every time we went in there it was a TIC* or a close one. Predators alone had one of the highest IED rates during that time period. (*troops-in-contact, a firefight)
                          Also note that there is a second Apache shooting at the same thing - which makes sense, Apaches fly together, usually one at a lower altitude than the other. You can hear the pilot for the second Apache a few times in the video (4:16 - 4:18 in the longer video he reports seeing someone crawling around down there, and that they're "shooting some more" along with corresponding puffs of debris from more 30mm chaingun rounds hitting the ground near the top left of the screen).

                          Army Times has an article about it.

                          http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/0..._video_040510/

                          U.S. confirms video of Baghdad firefight

                          Apache fired on group of men in street, including Reuters photographer
                          By Anne Flaherty - The Associated Press
                          Posted : Monday Apr 5, 2010 21:00:21 EDT

                          WASHINGTON — A gritty war video circulating on the Internet that shows U.S. troops firing repeatedly on a group of men — some of whom were unarmed — walking down a Baghdad street is authentic, a senior U.S. military official confirmed Monday.

                          The official said the video posted at Wikileaks.org was of a July 12, 2007, firefight involving Army helicopters in the New Baghdad District of eastern Baghdad.

                          Among those believed to have been killed in that attack was Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his driver Saeed Chmagh, 40. Two children also were wounded.

                          The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the video, said the military could not confirm the identities of the Reuters employees in the film.

                          The Pentagon would not confirm the video’s authenticity on the record, despite repeated requests from The Associated Press.

                          “At this time, we are working to verify the source of the video, its veracity, and when or where it was recorded,” a statement from U.S. military headquarters in Iraq said late Monday.

                          The military also provided redacted copies of portions of its inquiry into the July 2007 incident, again without confirming that the incident described in those documents is the same one posted by Wikileaks.

                          According to a July 19 summary of the investigation, U.S. troops acted appropriately. Reuters employees were likely “intermixed among the insurgents” and difficult to distinguish because of their equipment, the document states.

                          “It is worth noting the fact that insurgent groups often video and photograph friendly activity and insurgent attacks against friendly forces for use in training videos and for use as propaganda to exploit or highlight their capabilities,” the document concludes.

                          The incident has been reported before, but the video had not been released.

                          The video provides a rare, disturbing close-up of modern urban warfare at a time when violence was near its peak in Baghdad and the U.S. death toll was mounting.

                          In this incident, soldiers flying attack helicopters were called in to assist ground troops who had been pinned down by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

                          According to U.S. officials, the pilots arrived at the scene to find a group of men approaching the fight with what looked to be AK47s slung over their shoulders and at least one rocket-propelled grenade.

                          A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK47.

                          Wikileaks.org posts video and documents passed along by anonymous sources. They posted the video of the July 2007 firefight at “collateralmurder.com.”

                          The shooters can be heard asking for permission to engage, and one says “Light ‘em up!”

                          Some men drop immediately, while at least one can be seen scrambling to get away.

                          “Ah, yeah, look at those dead bastards. Nice,” one shooter says.

                          The helicopters later destroy a vehicle that arrived on the scene to help a wounded man. When ground forces arrive, the video shows what looks to be a child being carried from the vehicle and U.S. troops saying the child should be sent to a local Iraqi hospital.

                          “Well, it’s their fault bringing their kids into the battle,” a cockpit voice can be heard saying.

                          Navy Capt. Jake Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said U.S. forces in Iraq recognize many of the images in the video posted at Wikileaks.org and have no reason to believe it is a fake. However, he said, they were still comparing the video and audio to see if it matched their own.

                          Headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., Central Command is responsible for U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.

                          Reuters said it couldn’t verify that the video was of its employees dying, even though it looks like one of the men killed had a camera slung over his shoulder.

                          The video is “graphic evidence of the dangers involved in war journalism and the tragedies that can result,” said David Schlesinger, editor-in-chief of Reuters news.
                          That being said... is it sad to see? Yes. I feel pity seeing the guy struggling to crawl away - but only because I know he wasn't actually a bad guy. I feel anger for the absolute stupidity of the reporters for walking around in proximity of pinned-down US force without any sort of blatantly-recognizable gear identifying them as noncombatant journalists (maybe, you know, like a flak jacket with the words "PRESS" on it along with a corresponding blue kevlar helmet? >:P). I feel sad seeing the busted-up little kids, too. Damn idiot parents. Who drives their kids into the middle of a damned firefight?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

                            Originally posted by Gill View Post
                            Damn idiot parents. Who drives their kids into the middle of a damned firefight?
                            Someone who can't see the Apaches (I don't have a source, but I'm seeing somewhere between 1.6 and 2km out written in many places) and saw several wounded men lying around several minutes after the shooting had stopped. Basically, when its not a firefight. And yes, I know that legally, the vehicle needs to be marked as a medical vehicle to fall under that protection. Legally, the crews should be fine. I am still bothered that the military is following so close to the letter instead of the spirit in that case. Yes, if they're wounded and treated they'll return to the fight. The same would have applied just as much if there was a red cross on the vehicle, so...?

                            All in all, though, I'm inclined to think that the video is nowhere near as shocking as a lot of websites are claiming it is. Opening fire makes sense to me, given that they were in the midst of a group of men with guns and were carrying something that very much could have been firearms.
                            I can ADS using more than a 2x without significant stutter! This was a good patch.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Real Apache video gunning down civies

                              Originally posted by TurkishDelight View Post
                              Ditto on the ****ty situation, but Apache guys were just looking out for the dudes on the ground. Kinda messed up how they zoomed in on the kids. Like the Pilot and Gunner could actually see that?
                              No, it's kinda messed up that the Apache crew fired on the van when they were showing no hostile intentions and clearly had no weapons. Sure, the pilot and gunner could probably not see the children. But they should have refrained from firing on the van without evidence that they were enemy combatants.

                              It seems like it would be a violation of the Geneva Convention to fire on wounded enemy combatants anyway. Right?

                              Chapter II. Wounded and Sick

                              Art. 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

                              They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.

                              Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.

                              Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex. The Party to the conflict which is compelled to abandon wounded or sick to the enemy shall, as far as military considerations permit, leave with them a part of its medical personnel and material to assist in their care.

                              Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

                              (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
                              (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
                              (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
                              (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
                              (c) that of carrying arms openly;
                              (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
                              (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
                              (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany.
                              (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law.
                              (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

                              Art. 14. Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the wounded and sick of a belligerent who fall into enemy hands shall be prisoners of war, and the provisions of international law concerning prisoners of war shall apply to them.

                              Art. 15. At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled. Source.
                              Those who have been rendered non-combatant by injury or sickness also seemed to have faced many difficulties in Iraqi conflict. This time the Coalition Forces could be held responsible. First of ali, the medical treatment and çare of the soldiers from either side should be assumed by both sides.33 As the hospitals and many other vital infrastruetures were damaged, the possibility of adequately treating them by the Iraqis should be limited. Thus, it could be said that the relevant rules of the Geneva Conventions are violated by depriving the sick and injured people the adequate medical treatment or necessary equipment. On the other hand, the reports suggest that the attempts by some international organizations to treat these people and provide medical support were not facilitated by the two sides.34 This is an obvious violation of the Geneva Conventions too.35Source.
                              Originally posted by Gill View Post
                              For a medical target to be protected under the Law of Armed Conflict it has to be identified as such. If the van that rolled onto the scene had been white with a big-ass red crescent the Apache would not have fired. Since it was an unmarked, innocuous black van with personnel without any sort of indication that they were actual medical personnel - they jumped out and began the process of moving the body into the van for apparent transport, no CPR, no bandaging any wounds, etc. - it is reasonable for the Apache crew to conclude that these were fellow insurgents coming to move their fellows to a safe location. There's nothing in the LOAC that says you can't shoot an enemy soldier rendering first aid to a fellow soldier... if he's not marked as a medic. Then you technically can't.
                              It is not reasonable to shoot unarmed civilians by any standard of conduct. I'm interested in the provision in the Law of Armed Conflict you are referencing. Could you post a link, as I was unable to find it.

                              Originally posted by Gill View Post
                              As for the news reporters... don't follow insurgents around when they're on the prowl? Interview them when they're hanging out at their house, for Christ's sake.

                              Also fairly laughable was the attempt to paint this as some grand military conspiracy. Submitting a Freedom of Information Act to the military? Disclosure of classified documents is exempt from FOIA requests. These gunship videos are usually classified as Secret level... they're technically not supposed to be anywhere on the internet.
                              It's not laughable for Reuters, a respected news agency, to request information regarding the deaths of their reporters. Believe me, if you worked for Reuters and knew those reporters that were killed, you would want the same thing.

                              Here's what I will say about this unfortunate incident and so many like it. If the US government had not ordered our troops thousands of miles away into this conflict of asymmetric/counter-insurgency warfare that had absolutely nothing to do with the security of the United States, we would not be having this conversation. In the future the American public should demand that our government not engage us into meaningless conflicts that are of NO benefit to our soldiers and the American public as a whole. Also, people must understand that war is a disgusting business and is not to praised, glorified, and cheered for - period.
                              |TG-X| mp40x



                              Register for the Forums! | Get on Teamspeak! | Play Squad! | Join Discord! | Support Tactical Gamer!

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X