6 ms·

Everyone picking up the bodies and from the van was clearly UNARMED. Unarmed non-combatants were picking up the body of an unarmed non-combatant who never held

Everyone picking up the bodies and from the van was clearly UNARMED. Unarmed non-combatants were picking up the body of an unarmed non-combatant who never held a weapon.

otto 17y ago
But, the vehicle was already transporting suspects. That's like using a medical vehicle to transport combatants and then come back and pick up the wounded from the same vehicle.
- metamemetics 17y ago
  The vehicle was not transporting suspects! According to the Huffington Post it was a good semeritan taking his children to tutoring classes. There is no indication it was the same black vehicle at the start of the video. No one on the ground or air claimed it was. Furthermore, even if it was, no one claimed the black vehicle at the start was a target or contained suspects! The air merely stated it passed under their targetting crosshair. The suspect as reported by the ground was ONE MAN, who had appeared in front of their Bradley.
- KirinDave 17y ago
  You need to watch the video again. This time, turn off the sound and ignore the captions. A man covered in blood is crawling along the side of the road as you drive by. You say, "My god! This man is injured! We need to help him!" You and your friend jump out to help an injured man, not really sure what's going on, and tell your children to wait in the car. Suddenly you're dead, because a helicopter flying high overhead killed you instantly because you were moving an injured man. That isn't a hypothetical, that's what happend. And if you ignore the chatter of a few pilots eager to score more kills, it's very clear that these people had no connection to any activity on the scene. The Van is nowhere in sight until the very end of the engagement. What's more, it's clear the pilot is eager to kill. He reports it in the most biased of terms: mentioning they were "possibly recovering weapons" despite seeing NO such action. How do we know he knew such a thing, you might ask? Because just moments before he was literally begging them to pick up a gun so he could kill them, and in the end he got a fire order anyways because of a biased report. The actions of the pilots in that video were reprehensible and it is unfortunate that they will most likely be shielded from prosecution. On that day they ceased to be revered servicemen for the united states and became a representation of every flaw in our military system that Americans revile. They teetered on the edge of becoming war criminals. At the very least they should be dishonorably discharged.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    There are some problems specifically in you analysis. > Suddenly you're dead, because a helicopter flying high overhead killed you instantly because you were moving an injured man. Im not sure if it was just your wording but it was several minutes before they fired on them. > it's very clear that these people had no connection to any activity on the scene. The Van is nowhere in sight until the very end of the engagement. Have you watched the full 39 minute video? I've only had time to watch it once (so am withholding my full analysis of the engagement) but the same van is visible near the start of the video. It may not have been the same van but it seems a natural and fair assumption that it might be. Saying things like "it is clear" based on the single perspective of the Apache gunship seems a little clear cut... (not that I disagree entirely with your point)
    - KirinDave 17y ago
      > Im not sure if it was just your wording but it was several minutes before they fired on them. It didn't take “several minutes”. They hadn't even moved the injured man to the car before they were dead. And it's unlikely that they understood they were in a combat zone. Those helicopters fly high above the scene. > Have you watched the full 39 minute video? I've watched the full video once and then after that the shortened one. > I've only had time to watch it once (so am withholding my full analysis of the engagement) but the same van is visible near the start of the video. You can't tell if it's the same van on IR. They don't have a color, and I didn't see enough detail on the vehicles we swept over initially to resolve it without color information. But even if that were the case, would it be so unusual? That wasn't a combat zone, it was an inhabited residential area. People live there. > It may not have been the same van but it seems a natural and fair assumption that it might be. Even if you allow for that, the people in the video never take any clear action constituting engagement. They were addressing a wounded man, and showed 0 evidence of retrieving weapons. > Saying things like "it is clear" based on the single perspective of the Apache gunship seems a little clear cut... I'm only speaking from the perspective of the pilot's actions. They massacred a family and innocent journalists. And I have to tell you, if they think a tulip hood on a 200mm lens looks like an RPG, then someone is in dire need of a refresher course. That shape couldn't be a more distinct signal of photographic equipment. The entire engagement and the series of decisions that lead up to it stink.
tsally 17y ago
If I was running an insurgency in Iraq, I would keep a guy in the back of an unmarked van with an RPG and I would drive around pretending to pick up bodies. I think I'd probably get a lot of kills that way. I don't think it's fair to say the van was clearly unarmed, especially when you consider the fact that the van could have been called in to make a pickup by a group of people confirmed to have at least one RPG and at least one AK-47. In the moment of the firefight it was unclear whether the van was armed or not. Was was clear to the soldiers was that the van responded very quickly to a group of wounded people who had several confirmed weapons among them. Also, as others have mentioned, the soldiers knew the insurgency has used similar tactics in the past to salvage weapons and ammo.
- Uchikoma 17y ago
  "I don't think it's fair to say the van was clearly unarmed, especially when you consider the fact that the van could have been called in to make a pickup by a group." Or my theory: The van COULD have been driven by aliens from Orion 3. Or the van COULD have been driven by the guy from the future who wanted to stop the LHC again by fighting in Iraq. COULD be, you must admit!
- ahlatimer 17y ago
  It doesn't surprise me they found an RPG on the ground after the chopper reported there was one. I have it on good authority from people who were actually on the ground that soldiers regularly keep RPG's and AK-47's in the Humvees such that if they do kill an innocent civilian, they just place the AK-47 or RPG on or near the victim to make them look like an insurgent. I don't know if that's what happened in this particular instance, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. Edit: I guess I'm being down voted for hearsay? Well, I worked with a number of soldiers and have a few friends who are infantry. This does happen, whether people want to accept it or not. Again, it could be that there was someone, or multiple people, were armed in this particular instance. I don't know. I haven't, to my knowledge, met anyone that was involved in this incident to ask. I have, however, talked to a number of people that were on the ground, that did have to take the lives of other people, and did have to cover things up when they made a mistake.

Everyone picking up the bodies and from the van was clearly UNARMED. Unarmed non-combatants were picking up the body of an unarmed non-combatant who never held a weapon.

otto 17y ago

But, the vehicle was already transporting suspects. That's like using a medical vehicle to transport combatants and then come back and pick up the wounded from the same vehicle.

metamemetics 17y ago
The vehicle was not transporting suspects! According to the Huffington Post it was a good semeritan taking his children to tutoring classes. There is no indication it was the same black vehicle at the start of the video. No one on the ground or air claimed it was. Furthermore, even if it was, no one claimed the black vehicle at the start was a target or contained suspects! The air merely stated it passed under their targetting crosshair. The suspect as reported by the ground was ONE MAN, who had appeared in front of their Bradley.
KirinDave 17y ago
You need to watch the video again. This time, turn off the sound and ignore the captions. A man covered in blood is crawling along the side of the road as you drive by. You say, "My god! This man is injured! We need to help him!" You and your friend jump out to help an injured man, not really sure what's going on, and tell your children to wait in the car. Suddenly you're dead, because a helicopter flying high overhead killed you instantly because you were moving an injured man. That isn't a hypothetical, that's what happend. And if you ignore the chatter of a few pilots eager to score more kills, it's very clear that these people had no connection to any activity on the scene. The Van is nowhere in sight until the very end of the engagement. What's more, it's clear the pilot is eager to kill. He reports it in the most biased of terms: mentioning they were "possibly recovering weapons" despite seeing NO such action. How do we know he knew such a thing, you might ask? Because just moments before he was literally begging them to pick up a gun so he could kill them, and in the end he got a fire order anyways because of a biased report. The actions of the pilots in that video were reprehensible and it is unfortunate that they will most likely be shielded from prosecution. On that day they ceased to be revered servicemen for the united states and became a representation of every flaw in our military system that Americans revile. They teetered on the edge of becoming war criminals. At the very least they should be dishonorably discharged.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  There are some problems specifically in you analysis. > Suddenly you're dead, because a helicopter flying high overhead killed you instantly because you were moving an injured man. Im not sure if it was just your wording but it was several minutes before they fired on them. > it's very clear that these people had no connection to any activity on the scene. The Van is nowhere in sight until the very end of the engagement. Have you watched the full 39 minute video? I've only had time to watch it once (so am withholding my full analysis of the engagement) but the same van is visible near the start of the video. It may not have been the same van but it seems a natural and fair assumption that it might be. Saying things like "it is clear" based on the single perspective of the Apache gunship seems a little clear cut... (not that I disagree entirely with your point)
  - KirinDave 17y ago
    > Im not sure if it was just your wording but it was several minutes before they fired on them. It didn't take “several minutes”. They hadn't even moved the injured man to the car before they were dead. And it's unlikely that they understood they were in a combat zone. Those helicopters fly high above the scene. > Have you watched the full 39 minute video? I've watched the full video once and then after that the shortened one. > I've only had time to watch it once (so am withholding my full analysis of the engagement) but the same van is visible near the start of the video. You can't tell if it's the same van on IR. They don't have a color, and I didn't see enough detail on the vehicles we swept over initially to resolve it without color information. But even if that were the case, would it be so unusual? That wasn't a combat zone, it was an inhabited residential area. People live there. > It may not have been the same van but it seems a natural and fair assumption that it might be. Even if you allow for that, the people in the video never take any clear action constituting engagement. They were addressing a wounded man, and showed 0 evidence of retrieving weapons. > Saying things like "it is clear" based on the single perspective of the Apache gunship seems a little clear cut... I'm only speaking from the perspective of the pilot's actions. They massacred a family and innocent journalists. And I have to tell you, if they think a tulip hood on a 200mm lens looks like an RPG, then someone is in dire need of a refresher course. That shape couldn't be a more distinct signal of photographic equipment. The entire engagement and the series of decisions that lead up to it stink.

tsally 17y ago

If I was running an insurgency in Iraq, I would keep a guy in the back of an unmarked van with an RPG and I would drive around pretending to pick up bodies. I think I'd probably get a lot of kills that way. I don't think it's fair to say the van was clearly unarmed, especially when you consider the fact that the van could have been called in to make a pickup by a group of people confirmed to have at least one RPG and at least one AK-47. In the moment of the firefight it was unclear whether the van was armed or not. Was was clear to the soldiers was that the van responded very quickly to a group of wounded people who had several confirmed weapons among them. Also, as others have mentioned, the soldiers knew the insurgency has used similar tactics in the past to salvage weapons and ammo.

Uchikoma 17y ago
"I don't think it's fair to say the van was clearly unarmed, especially when you consider the fact that the van could have been called in to make a pickup by a group." Or my theory: The van COULD have been driven by aliens from Orion 3. Or the van COULD have been driven by the guy from the future who wanted to stop the LHC again by fighting in Iraq. COULD be, you must admit!
ahlatimer 17y ago
It doesn't surprise me they found an RPG on the ground after the chopper reported there was one. I have it on good authority from people who were actually on the ground that soldiers regularly keep RPG's and AK-47's in the Humvees such that if they do kill an innocent civilian, they just place the AK-47 or RPG on or near the victim to make them look like an insurgent. I don't know if that's what happened in this particular instance, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. Edit: I guess I'm being down voted for hearsay? Well, I worked with a number of soldiers and have a few friends who are infantry. This does happen, whether people want to accept it or not. Again, it could be that there was someone, or multiple people, were armed in this particular instance. I don't know. I haven't, to my knowledge, met anyone that was involved in this incident to ask. I have, however, talked to a number of people that were on the ground, that did have to take the lives of other people, and did have to cover things up when they made a mistake.