4 ms·

Wow, the apologists are springing into action. Watch the video again. At the exact moment the correspondent is in the crosshairs of the camera and you see that

Wow, the apologists are springing into action. Watch the video again. At the exact moment the correspondent is in the crosshairs of the camera and you see that he is carrying a small black bag you hear the crew saying "Yeah that's a weapon." and "Fucking prick". For God's sake, it's a guy sauntering down the middle of the road carrying a little bag and the crew is making out that they're tracking a dangerous insurgent. Then they start talking about another guy with a weapon and I would swear that the person they're looking at in the crosshairs is actually hobbing along with a crutch. Then the FireDogLake guy makes out that because the black van appears twice it is somehow ominous. He defends firing on the van because one crew member says that the person is the van is picking up weapons. Listen to the video. What he actually said is that there's a van in the area "possibly picking up weapons". Yeah, possibly doing anything. I agree that a video doesn't tell the whole story but so far the people defending the actions of the crew haven't come up with much.

btipling 17y ago
Do you think the gunner had a chance to "watch it again" when he was making his decision? Hacker News is becoming reddit, except reddit has a hide button.
Maktab 17y ago
There are weapons visible at various points in the video and an RPG was found at the scene, these people were not all unarmed. That the journalists were killed is tragic and may very well be due to mistakes or incompetence or even malice, but none of that is clear from this video. What is clear is that the journalist and his driver were in the presence of armed Iraqis carrying AK-47s and RPGs at the wrong time and in the wrong place. It was common practice for Iraqi stringers for news agencies like Reuters to embed themselves with insurgents in the hope of being extremely close to the story and getting pictures they would not otherwise have been able to obtain, but it was a very risky thing to do. If soldiers have already seen the people around you carrying guns and RPGs, they're a whole lot more likely to misinterpret your camera lens as an RPG when it peeks around a corner. There were also two Apaches at the scene, but it's not entirely clear which crew is making each comment on the radio and what they can see as we only have one viewport into this event, which comes from the gunner's sight of only one of the Apaches. It is entirely plausible that the other Apache crew did clearly see weapons and that, outside the field of view of the camera we're looking at, they saw the black van picking up weapons. Further, each helicopter also has a separate sight for the pilot which can be slewed on its own axis and which we cannot see. In short, the video lacks context and it's difficult to make a conclusive judgement without that context. We are given only one limited viewport into this event and expected to pronounce judgement on four guys who at once had a much broader and more detailed view of the situation but who also, unlike us, had to process that information in real-time, not from a video which could be rewound and played back. Whatever happened here, I'm not as ready to call it murder as WikiLeaks and some of the commenters here have been.
- Alex3917 17y ago
  "There are weapons visible at various points in the video and an RPG was found at the scene, these people were not all unarmed." The official military statement about the incident was as follows: "The Apache crew fired because militants 'were endangering the stability of Iraq' and because they had positive identification that the militants 'had weapons and were using them against coalition and Iraqi security forces.'" There aren't any coalition or Iraqi security forces in the area, and none are ever mentioned in the video. So while it's possible that an RPG was found at the scene, it's just as possible that the military was lying about both.
  - Maktab 17y ago
    The second-to-last photograph [1] taken by Namir Noor-Eldeen shows an American Humvee and the radio calls make it clear that there is a ground force in the vicinity which was reporting a contact with the individuals on the ground, was able to see the individuals at various points in the action and was close enough that it took only 8 minutes for them to mount up and arrive on the scene. This group (apparently "Bushmaster element") appears to be the one which radios "Yeah, we had a guy shooting. And now he's behind the building" at 04:22. Your assertion that there were no Iraqi or coalition ground forces in the area is not supported by the video. [1] http://duckbar.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/c7/c76f1e685afea0b6172abd701e69a42d890d2bd5.jpg http://duckbar.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/c7/c76f1e685afe...
    - Uchikoma 17y ago
      They need to drive 8 minutes to get to the scene, when they are "near"? Even when halving the time for mounting and going by 20kmh they were 1km around 1.5km away. Near? What does "in the area mean"? Bagdad?
      - Maktab 17y ago
        Merely halving the time for mounting and assuming a 20km/h travel speed without any stops (bearing in mind this is a combat zone) seems a bit arbitrary. In any case, the radio calls seem to affirm that the ground element was in visual range of the people before the gunships even opened fire and Namir's photo, if it was indeed taken at the scene as we assume, shows the ground force as being pretty close, perhaps no more than 100-300 m away.
jcnnghm 17y ago
I watched the video multiple times. At 3:38 of the 17:47 video, you can clearly see an AK-47 in one of the mens hands. At 3:48 you can see another AK-47. Also at 3:48, it looks like a third man has either a handgun or a small submachine gun. At 4:12, it definitely looks like there's an RPG. Even more so at 4:19. The helicopter was called in by ground troops who were taking small arms fire from a small group of men in this area. I don't think it would be possible to be called in to look for a group of armed men setting up an ambush with small arms in this area, and not come to the conclusion that these are the guys. They are armed.
- stse 17y ago
  I think 3:38 looks more like a camera strap. An AK is quite heavy and not something you wave around like that. The quality is quite bad so it might be a weapon, but I don't think you can "clearly see an AK-47". I would be very very surprised if the device at 4:12 is an RPG. It looks and behaves like a long lens camera. At 4:15 you can see a space between the device and the body of the person. An RPG is also quite heavy and has a distinct shape and you wouldn't generally turn it around a corner. As there also according to wikileaks were photographers on the scene. It's just far more likely that it's one of the front two guys who carries something that picks up his camera and take some pictures. If that is the case, then I would have to question the chopper crews ability to recognize weapons on the ground.
  - jcnnghm 17y ago
    The standard AK-47 weighs 9.3 pounds. It's not exactly heavy. There is also a lighter version weighing in at 6.8lbs. The way shown in the video is a plausible, common way to carry that type of weapon. There were AK-47's found at the scene. Those are AK-47s. You think it looks like a camera now. Keep in mind that the helicopter was called in to look for a group of men that were firing at troops on the ground that are down the street from where the "camera" is pointing at 4:15. Again, an RPG isn't quite heavy. The standard RPG-7 weighs 15 pounds.
    - stse 17y ago

btipling 17y ago

Do you think the gunner had a chance to "watch it again" when he was making his decision? Hacker News is becoming reddit, except reddit has a hide button.

Maktab 17y ago

There are weapons visible at various points in the video and an RPG was found at the scene, these people were not all unarmed. That the journalists were killed is tragic and may very well be due to mistakes or incompetence or even malice, but none of that is clear from this video. What is clear is that the journalist and his driver were in the presence of armed Iraqis carrying AK-47s and RPGs at the wrong time and in the wrong place. It was common practice for Iraqi stringers for news agencies like Reuters to embed themselves with insurgents in the hope of being extremely close to the story and getting pictures they would not otherwise have been able to obtain, but it was a very risky thing to do. If soldiers have already seen the people around you carrying guns and RPGs, they're a whole lot more likely to misinterpret your camera lens as an RPG when it peeks around a corner. There were also two Apaches at the scene, but it's not entirely clear which crew is making each comment on the radio and what they can see as we only have one viewport into this event, which comes from the gunner's sight of only one of the Apaches. It is entirely plausible that the other Apache crew did clearly see weapons and that, outside the field of view of the camera we're looking at, they saw the black van picking up weapons. Further, each helicopter also has a separate sight for the pilot which can be slewed on its own axis and which we cannot see. In short, the video lacks context and it's difficult to make a conclusive judgement without that context. We are given only one limited viewport into this event and expected to pronounce judgement on four guys who at once had a much broader and more detailed view of the situation but who also, unlike us, had to process that information in real-time, not from a video which could be rewound and played back. Whatever happened here, I'm not as ready to call it murder as WikiLeaks and some of the commenters here have been.

Alex3917 17y ago
"There are weapons visible at various points in the video and an RPG was found at the scene, these people were not all unarmed." The official military statement about the incident was as follows: "The Apache crew fired because militants 'were endangering the stability of Iraq' and because they had positive identification that the militants 'had weapons and were using them against coalition and Iraqi security forces.'" There aren't any coalition or Iraqi security forces in the area, and none are ever mentioned in the video. So while it's possible that an RPG was found at the scene, it's just as possible that the military was lying about both.
- Maktab 17y ago
  The second-to-last photograph [1] taken by Namir Noor-Eldeen shows an American Humvee and the radio calls make it clear that there is a ground force in the vicinity which was reporting a contact with the individuals on the ground, was able to see the individuals at various points in the action and was close enough that it took only 8 minutes for them to mount up and arrive on the scene. This group (apparently "Bushmaster element") appears to be the one which radios "Yeah, we had a guy shooting. And now he's behind the building" at 04:22. Your assertion that there were no Iraqi or coalition ground forces in the area is not supported by the video. [1] http://duckbar.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/c7/c76f1e685afea0b6172abd701e69a42d890d2bd5.jpg http://duckbar.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/c7/c76f1e685afe...
  - Uchikoma 17y ago
    They need to drive 8 minutes to get to the scene, when they are "near"? Even when halving the time for mounting and going by 20kmh they were 1km around 1.5km away. Near? What does "in the area mean"? Bagdad?
    - Maktab 17y ago
      Merely halving the time for mounting and assuming a 20km/h travel speed without any stops (bearing in mind this is a combat zone) seems a bit arbitrary. In any case, the radio calls seem to affirm that the ground element was in visual range of the people before the gunships even opened fire and Namir's photo, if it was indeed taken at the scene as we assume, shows the ground force as being pretty close, perhaps no more than 100-300 m away.

jcnnghm 17y ago

I watched the video multiple times. At 3:38 of the 17:47 video, you can clearly see an AK-47 in one of the mens hands. At 3:48 you can see another AK-47. Also at 3:48, it looks like a third man has either a handgun or a small submachine gun. At 4:12, it definitely looks like there's an RPG. Even more so at 4:19. The helicopter was called in by ground troops who were taking small arms fire from a small group of men in this area. I don't think it would be possible to be called in to look for a group of armed men setting up an ambush with small arms in this area, and not come to the conclusion that these are the guys. They are armed.

stse 17y ago
I think 3:38 looks more like a camera strap. An AK is quite heavy and not something you wave around like that. The quality is quite bad so it might be a weapon, but I don't think you can "clearly see an AK-47". I would be very very surprised if the device at 4:12 is an RPG. It looks and behaves like a long lens camera. At 4:15 you can see a space between the device and the body of the person. An RPG is also quite heavy and has a distinct shape and you wouldn't generally turn it around a corner. As there also according to wikileaks were photographers on the scene. It's just far more likely that it's one of the front two guys who carries something that picks up his camera and take some pictures. If that is the case, then I would have to question the chopper crews ability to recognize weapons on the ground.
- jcnnghm 17y ago
  The standard AK-47 weighs 9.3 pounds. It's not exactly heavy. There is also a lighter version weighing in at 6.8lbs. The way shown in the video is a plausible, common way to carry that type of weapon. There were AK-47's found at the scene. Those are AK-47s. You think it looks like a camera now. Keep in mind that the helicopter was called in to look for a group of men that were firing at troops on the ground that are down the street from where the "camera" is pointing at 4:15. Again, an RPG isn't quite heavy. The standard RPG-7 weighs 15 pounds.
  - stse 17y ago