8 ms·

As a tax payer, I'm not too happy about paying for these peacekeeping/war adventures in the M/E. I'm not convinced that I'm more secure because of them. That

by clammer 17y ago

As a tax payer, I'm not too happy about paying for these peacekeeping/war adventures in the M/E. I'm not convinced that I'm more secure because of them. That said, in the style of warfare that exists in these areas, it's probable that innocent people will be killed. In a war, intent determines if innocent people are being killed or murdered. Can this video prove intent?

invisible 17y ago
I agree, however it could be easily claimed that this is negligent homicide.
madars 17y ago
The video can prove grave incompetency. If you can't distinguish between standard photo lens [1] and a full-blown rocket-propelled grenade [2] you shouldn't be engaging in combat. [1] - http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/5dwlens.jpg.html http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/5dwlens.jpg.html [2] - http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/terrorist_pg7c.jpg.html http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/terrorist_pg7c.jpg.h...
- scott_s 17y ago
  That's not necessarily true. It depends on what expectations the soldier has for that area. If it's an active combat zone, then a solider has less than a second to make a shoot/no-shoot decision. Someone raising something long to their eyes will resemble raising a weapon. With that said, I haven't watched the video, and I don't know if that was an active combat zone, or if it was considered "safe."
  - elblanco 17y ago
    The sad things was that in July of 2007 all of Baghdad was an active combat zone.
- bcl 17y ago
  On of the men clearly did have an RPG. The cameras were mistaken for AK-47's. One the left as they point out the 2nd cameraman note the long tube that one of the 'innocent civilians' is carrying and leaning on the ground. It also looks to me like this is the same guy peeking out from behind the wall, the tube is too long to be a camera. I expect that the source video for this is much cleaner than a youtube conversion, and seeing it in real life, by an experienced pilot and gunner, would make it clearer that these were not simply locals gathering to talk to a reporter.
  - chloraphil 17y ago
    at 3:55 the crosshairs are one a guy with what looks like an RPG (could be something else) and is clearly not a camera. I think the guy peeking out from behind the wall does have a camera with a telephoto lens and not an RPG.
    - bcl 17y ago
      Watch the mp4 (http://collateralmurder.com/file/CollateralMurder.mp4.torrent http://collateralmurder.com/file/CollateralMurder.mp4.torren...) or the 480p version. It is sitting on the ground as the gun camera sweeps back around and is clearly too long to be a telephoto lens.
      - chloraphil 17y ago
        good catch - that's no camera.
  - moo 17y ago
    What about a tripod. Cameramen don't just carry cameras. When the rescue van showed up the attack helicopter crew is saying they are picking up guns. Total BS. What the heli pilots relate to the command officer is alot of FUD. Regardless of the tripod the rescuers and children were attacked without provocation.
- clammer 17y ago
  Remember though, you're watching after knowing that innocent people were killed. In fact, I watched it in 480res, full screen, on a 23" monitor and I too thought it was an RPG. What do you suppose the heli gunner was watching on?
- Skeuomorph 17y ago
  Right, because photo stills from "collateralmurder.com" are intended to convey the ease of identification from a moving helicopter during a live situation? There are other form factors for RPGs: http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg22-2.jpg http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg22-2.jpg http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg26-1.jpg http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg26-1.jpg http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rshg2-1.jpg http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rshg2-1.jpg I wouldn't want to be wrong on the fly about whether it was an RPG or a black telephoto barrel that's sticking around the corner aiming at my crew. Presumably I'd use other cues to help decide. The site leaves out stills showing the key decision-triggering factor - surreptitious behavioral cues. Here is one they left out: http://imgur.com/PjolB.jpg http://imgur.com/PjolB.jpg The site talks about the cameraman shooting a picture of "whatever is occurring further down the street" but the video, even in slow replay (that the airmen didn't have in the moment), suggests the man is taking cover then popping out to aim at the helicopter. The man appears to "engage" the helicopter. Thinking in context of 2007, that was incredibly dumb: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0#t=4m14s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0#t=4m14s Want a picture of an American chopper while you're walking in a hostile zone with militia carrying what even "collateralmurder.com" admits "might be a weapon" and "appears to be a weapon" -- ok, stand in the middle of the street with your camera, wave your obvious press card while wearing your obvious press jacket, and take your picture. Don't duck around corners then share the intel with your gun carrying group. Troops made a call about the RPG vs camera (though certainly doesn't look like a white Canon lens as shown in the website, looks black, and that tube and the way he aims it sure looks like bazooka or anti-tank RPG considering troops can't see around the corner). After that judgment call was based on behavior more than identifying the weapon, what happened after that could have been interpreted as combatants feigning nonchalance until their next chance to ambush from behind cover. Even assuming it's an unmarked photographer, presence of a war correspondent in a hostile zone does not mean the armed men with him are not combatants, that they should be immune from attack, or that they should be free to wander around armed studying long distance photo intel of their enemy to better plan an ambush.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    If a helicopter is not a good platform to do this work from then it shouldn't be done from a helicopter. The whole reason this stuff happens is because at 'stand-off' range the person in the chopper might be safe but those on the ground are no longer to be identified. It's the doctrine of force protection that is the cause here, not some hyped up kid with a trigger happy finger. He shouldn't have been there in the first place. Helicopters are not good at police work, they're good for killing people long distance without too much discrimination. Better zoom lenses would be a mixed bag, it would give you even less field-of-view with a more jittery aim. Choppers are great at evacuation and for killing people and destroying stuff. Boots on the ground are better at identifying friend-or-foe (and even then there are plenty of mistakes) but are more vulnerable.
tfh 17y ago
> I'm not convinced that I'm more secure because of them. I'm convinced you're _less_ secure because of them.
- clammer 17y ago
  Sorry, that was tongue-in-cheek. Yes, I believe in for some more blowback.
NathanKP 17y ago
I'm not convinced that I'm more secure because of them. The argument could be made that in some respects you are in more danger. Not only do incidents such as these promote hate of the US by other countries and terrorism, but many of these soldiers end up badly mentally damaged because of the post traumatic stress disorder from the things they took part in over there. There have been multiple incidents where former soldiers snap and go on killing rampages. War just trades one kind of danger for another. At best it just keeps the majority of the danger in another country.
- sigstoat 17y ago
  multiple incidents? i don't recall hearing of even one in US soldiers returning from the gulf. perhaps the media didn't cover them. regardless, the question that follows is whether or not that rate is higher than the rate of postal workers doing similar things.
  - NathanKP 17y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks - Committed by a Gulf War veteran. This is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but I remember several other incidents through the years in which a former soldier shot up a public place or killed innocent civilians here in the US. I can't offer any statistics about the relative percentage when compared with postal workers, but it would be interesting to see, I think.
jacquesm 17y ago
> I'm not convinced that I'm more secure because of them. Does that mean that you are convinced that you are equally secure ? I would wager you are less secure because of them. For every civilian killed you get a whole family that hates you in return. Note the recent Russian bombings and the fact that at least one of them was carried out by a woman that lost a loved one. Multiply by a few thousand and you get why there is no shortage of people willing to take up arms against what they rightly see as an occupation.
patrickk 17y ago
I'm not convinced that I'm more secure because of them. You are less secure simply because of the pointless decision to go to war in the first place. It was based on utter lies (WMDs, the "link" between 9/11 and Saddam, and "freeing" the Iraqi people nonsense). Anyone can see that. GWB referring to the invasion of Iraq as a "crusade" doesn't help matters either.

by clammer 17y ago

invisible 17y ago

I agree, however it could be easily claimed that this is negligent homicide.

madars 17y ago

The video can prove grave incompetency. If you can't distinguish between standard photo lens [1] and a full-blown rocket-propelled grenade [2] you shouldn't be engaging in combat. [1] - http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/5dwlens.jpg.html http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/5dwlens.jpg.html [2] - http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/terrorist_pg7c.jpg.html http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/terrorist_pg7c.jpg.h...

scott_s 17y ago
That's not necessarily true. It depends on what expectations the soldier has for that area. If it's an active combat zone, then a solider has less than a second to make a shoot/no-shoot decision. Someone raising something long to their eyes will resemble raising a weapon. With that said, I haven't watched the video, and I don't know if that was an active combat zone, or if it was considered "safe."
- elblanco 17y ago
  The sad things was that in July of 2007 all of Baghdad was an active combat zone.
bcl 17y ago
On of the men clearly did have an RPG. The cameras were mistaken for AK-47's. One the left as they point out the 2nd cameraman note the long tube that one of the 'innocent civilians' is carrying and leaning on the ground. It also looks to me like this is the same guy peeking out from behind the wall, the tube is too long to be a camera. I expect that the source video for this is much cleaner than a youtube conversion, and seeing it in real life, by an experienced pilot and gunner, would make it clearer that these were not simply locals gathering to talk to a reporter.
- chloraphil 17y ago
  at 3:55 the crosshairs are one a guy with what looks like an RPG (could be something else) and is clearly not a camera. I think the guy peeking out from behind the wall does have a camera with a telephoto lens and not an RPG.
  - bcl 17y ago
    Watch the mp4 (http://collateralmurder.com/file/CollateralMurder.mp4.torrent http://collateralmurder.com/file/CollateralMurder.mp4.torren...) or the 480p version. It is sitting on the ground as the gun camera sweeps back around and is clearly too long to be a telephoto lens.
    - chloraphil 17y ago
      good catch - that's no camera.
- moo 17y ago
  What about a tripod. Cameramen don't just carry cameras. When the rescue van showed up the attack helicopter crew is saying they are picking up guns. Total BS. What the heli pilots relate to the command officer is alot of FUD. Regardless of the tripod the rescuers and children were attacked without provocation.
clammer 17y ago
Remember though, you're watching after knowing that innocent people were killed. In fact, I watched it in 480res, full screen, on a 23" monitor and I too thought it was an RPG. What do you suppose the heli gunner was watching on?
Skeuomorph 17y ago
Right, because photo stills from "collateralmurder.com" are intended to convey the ease of identification from a moving helicopter during a live situation? There are other form factors for RPGs: http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg22-2.jpg http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg22-2.jpg http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg26-1.jpg http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg26-1.jpg http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rshg2-1.jpg http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rshg2-1.jpg I wouldn't want to be wrong on the fly about whether it was an RPG or a black telephoto barrel that's sticking around the corner aiming at my crew. Presumably I'd use other cues to help decide. The site leaves out stills showing the key decision-triggering factor - surreptitious behavioral cues. Here is one they left out: http://imgur.com/PjolB.jpg http://imgur.com/PjolB.jpg The site talks about the cameraman shooting a picture of "whatever is occurring further down the street" but the video, even in slow replay (that the airmen didn't have in the moment), suggests the man is taking cover then popping out to aim at the helicopter. The man appears to "engage" the helicopter. Thinking in context of 2007, that was incredibly dumb: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0#t=4m14s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0#t=4m14s Want a picture of an American chopper while you're walking in a hostile zone with militia carrying what even "collateralmurder.com" admits "might be a weapon" and "appears to be a weapon" -- ok, stand in the middle of the street with your camera, wave your obvious press card while wearing your obvious press jacket, and take your picture. Don't duck around corners then share the intel with your gun carrying group. Troops made a call about the RPG vs camera (though certainly doesn't look like a white Canon lens as shown in the website, looks black, and that tube and the way he aims it sure looks like bazooka or anti-tank RPG considering troops can't see around the corner). After that judgment call was based on behavior more than identifying the weapon, what happened after that could have been interpreted as combatants feigning nonchalance until their next chance to ambush from behind cover. Even assuming it's an unmarked photographer, presence of a war correspondent in a hostile zone does not mean the armed men with him are not combatants, that they should be immune from attack, or that they should be free to wander around armed studying long distance photo intel of their enemy to better plan an ambush.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  If a helicopter is not a good platform to do this work from then it shouldn't be done from a helicopter. The whole reason this stuff happens is because at 'stand-off' range the person in the chopper might be safe but those on the ground are no longer to be identified. It's the doctrine of force protection that is the cause here, not some hyped up kid with a trigger happy finger. He shouldn't have been there in the first place. Helicopters are not good at police work, they're good for killing people long distance without too much discrimination. Better zoom lenses would be a mixed bag, it would give you even less field-of-view with a more jittery aim. Choppers are great at evacuation and for killing people and destroying stuff. Boots on the ground are better at identifying friend-or-foe (and even then there are plenty of mistakes) but are more vulnerable.

tfh 17y ago

> I'm not convinced that I'm more secure because of them. I'm convinced you're _less_ secure because of them.

clammer 17y ago
Sorry, that was tongue-in-cheek. Yes, I believe in for some more blowback.

NathanKP 17y ago

I'm not convinced that I'm more secure because of them. The argument could be made that in some respects you are in more danger. Not only do incidents such as these promote hate of the US by other countries and terrorism, but many of these soldiers end up badly mentally damaged because of the post traumatic stress disorder from the things they took part in over there. There have been multiple incidents where former soldiers snap and go on killing rampages. War just trades one kind of danger for another. At best it just keeps the majority of the danger in another country.

sigstoat 17y ago
multiple incidents? i don't recall hearing of even one in US soldiers returning from the gulf. perhaps the media didn't cover them. regardless, the question that follows is whether or not that rate is higher than the rate of postal workers doing similar things.
- NathanKP 17y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks - Committed by a Gulf War veteran. This is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but I remember several other incidents through the years in which a former soldier shot up a public place or killed innocent civilians here in the US. I can't offer any statistics about the relative percentage when compared with postal workers, but it would be interesting to see, I think.

jacquesm 17y ago

> I'm not convinced that I'm more secure because of them. Does that mean that you are convinced that you are equally secure ? I would wager you are less secure because of them. For every civilian killed you get a whole family that hates you in return. Note the recent Russian bombings and the fact that at least one of them was carried out by a woman that lost a loved one. Multiply by a few thousand and you get why there is no shortage of people willing to take up arms against what they rightly see as an occupation.

patrickk 17y ago

I'm not convinced that I'm more secure because of them. You are less secure simply because of the pointless decision to go to war in the first place. It was based on utter lies (WMDs, the "link" between 9/11 and Saddam, and "freeing" the Iraqi people nonsense). Anyone can see that. GWB referring to the invasion of Iraq as a "crusade" doesn't help matters either.