20 January 2020, 19:13:29 *

Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to War and Tactics!    War and Tactics Forum is currently undergoing some modifications that might disable features you are used to. This is unabvoidable as we have to update the forum engine to a new structure that is incompatible with many of the features we had used so far. The good news: WaT will be more secure and stable, and most of the features we uninstalled will be a natural part of the new structure anyway. For the rest we will be looking for solutions. (APR 23, 2018)
   
  Home   Forum   Help ! Forum Rules ! Search Calendar Donations Login Register Chat  
Pages:  [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Share this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on MySpaceShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on TechnoratiShare this topic on TwitterShare this topic on Yahoo
Author Topic: WikiLeaks to unveil "Pentagon Murder Coverup"  (Read 7496 times)
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« on: 4 April 2010, 11:58:26 »
ReplyReply

On Monday, WikiLeaks plans to show classified video of a 2009 U.S. military air strike in Afghanistan that reportedly claimed the lives of dozens of civilians. Wikileaks claims it has “cracked the encryption” of a copy of that vid that never got shown. According to them, the video will show proof of a “Pentagon murder-coverup.”

If true, you will find it here: http://wikileaks.org/

I have been following WikiLeaks for some time now, for me (of cause all governments hate it) it is an outstanding organisation that atttacks one of the main problems in our information societey, the fact that the citizisens that are in theory to control the governments in democracy do not have the information necessary to do so effectively. What is worse, even the information gathering arms are unequally distributed: While any government agency or any big firm can find out about you anything they want whether you intend to hide it or not, you OTOH cannot find out anything about them. Access to "privileged" information in a hierarchically leveled information society has become the ultimate power tool and the new status symbol, and the legal systems in place to keep people from spying at you in fact only keep you from spying at them, the higher you get in power or money the less those legal barriers factually exist (as probably all of you sometimes have found out, when e.g. trying to find a secret tlephone number, or the name of the owner of a car from the number plate: A friend in the right place, or a little cash overcomes the legal hurdles easily).

This is a topic that has me interested for a long time, much longer than computers exist in the way we use them today. The solution to it I found 1975 in John Brunners book "The Shockwave Rider" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider, with "The Sheep Look Up" and "Stand on Zanzibar" those three belong into my top 10 books of all time). He proposed to make *all* information publicly accessable without barriers, as those work one wy only: Lifting the secrecy on information would give both the spied-on and the spy the same weaponry, you would be able to retrieve every bit you were interested in from top down the president to your neighbour (and they about you), the sheer mass of information and the equality in weaponry would make misuse much less a problem than todays system of privileges by level. In his book, the main character invents a "worm", a self replicating computer program (actually *this* book gave the name to todays computer worms), that releases all possible information on every computer to the public(as a result e.g. on every can you would read the *real* ingredients, etc), of cause under heavy prosectuion of the government (in the end they even allow a nuclear strike on his suspected whereabouts).  Until today still believe this holds true and should be the way to go.

Now, the guys from WikiLeaks (http://wikileaks.org/) obviously have read the same books as I as a young man and made their own idea on how to at least make some privilieged information public. They worked on "Tor", a tool that allows you to move anonymously through the net, and - in a trust based system like "Hearing Aid" in the Shockwave Rider - they guarantee their whistleblower sources absolute security of not getting blown.

As a result, WikiLeaks has been able to release everything from thousands of 9/11 text messages to detailed descriptions of sensitive jamming devices used by the U.S. military to thwart roadside bombs, or documents that proved how banks were goldmining the government bail out funds.

Some examples, just from the last days:

-  29. Mar. 2010: U.S. Embassy profiles on Icelandic PM, Foreign Minister, Ambassador (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/iceland-profiles.pdf)
Three classified U.S. profiles of key Icelandic figures. (1) Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir; (2) the then Icelandic Ambassador to the U.S., Albert Jonsson; (3) Minister of Foreign Affairs and External Trade, Ossur Skarphedinsson, interesting read.

- 17. Mar. 2010: Update to over 40 billion euro in 28167 claims made against the Kaupthing Bank, 3 Mar 2010 (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/kaupthing-claims-update.pdf)
The document is significant because it reveals billions in cash, bonds and other property held with Kaupthing by a vast number of investors and asset hiders, including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanly, Exista, Barclays, Commerzbank AG, etc.

- 24. Feb. 2010: Cryptome.org takedown: Microsoft Global Criminal Compliance Handbook, 24 Feb 2010 (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/microsoft-spy.pdf)
Cryptome.org is a venerable New York based anti-secrecy site that has been publishing since 1999. On Feb 24, 2010, the site was forcibly taken down following its publication Microsoft's "Global Criminal Compliance Handbook", a confidential 22 page booklet designed for police and intelligence services. The guide provides a "menu" of information Microsoft collects on the users of its online services. Microsoft lawyers threatened Cryptome and its "printer", internet hosting provider giant Network Solutions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA was designed to protect the legitimate rights of publishers, not to conceal scandalous internal documents that were never intended for sale. Although the action is a clear abuse of the DMCA, Network Solutions, a company with extensive connections to U.S. intelligence contractors, gagged the site in its entirety.

Now, according to WikiLeaks' Twitter feed, people associated with the Web site are being harassed over its plans to release the encrypted video that WikiLeaks claims shows the death of civilians and journalists in Afghanistan:

WikiLeaks' Twitter feed released a series of ominous postings Wednesday claiming people working for the organization were being followed and then detained for nearly a day. "If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible," one tweet read.

Over the course of the day, WikiLeaks' Twitter messages became more alarming: "We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the air strike," one message read.

And: "We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Don't think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks."

This is not the first time the organization has claimed that it has been the target of a coordinated U.S. government campaign to stop its activities. On March 15, WikiLeaks, which has grown in fame for its role in exposing secrets, released a U.S. Army document titled "WikiLeaks.org -- An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?"

The classified "secret" U.S. Army document says the Web site may post "a potential force protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC), and information security (INFOSEC) threat to the US Army."

CIA planned to take out WikiLeaks before:

Quote
U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks, 18 Mar 2008 (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf)
This document is a classified (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks. ``The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing sensitive or classified information to WikiLeaks.org cannot be ruled out''. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize the organization. Since WikiLeaks uses ``trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers or whistleblowers'', the report recommends ``The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the WikiLeaks.org Web site''. [As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective]. As an odd justification for the plan, the report claims that ``Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the WikiLeaks.org website''. The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks---U.S. equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay.



Let us see what the vid will show...

Rattler
« Last Edit: 8 December 2010, 00:11:35 by Rattler » Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #1 on: 4 April 2010, 12:35:56 »
ReplyReply

didn't know this, thx for reporting  salute
Logged
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #2 on: 6 April 2010, 18:08:29 »
ReplyReply

is this the one?

Quote
Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010



Logged
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: 6 April 2010, 21:43:50 »
ReplyReply

yep, it is, the short version.

The l onger version here: http://www.collateralmurder.com/

The Guardian has an article on the video:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

Quote
A secret video showing US air crew falsely claiming to have encountered a firefight in Baghdad and then laughing at the dead after launching an air strike that killed a dozen people, including two Iraqis working for Reuters news agency, was revealed by Wikileaks today.

The footage of the July 2007 attack was made public in a move that will further anger the Pentagon, which has drawn up a report identifying the whistleblower website as a threat to national security. The US defence department was embarrassed when that confidential report appeared on the Wikileaks site last month alongside a slew of military documents.

The release of the video from Baghdad also comes shortly after the US military admitted that its special forces attempted to cover up the killings of three Afghan women in a raid in February by digging the bullets out of their bodies.

The newly released video of the Baghdad attacks was recorded on one of two Apache helicopters hunting for insurgents on 12 July 2007. Among the dead were a 22-year-old Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40. The Pentagon blocked an attempt by Reuters to obtain the video through a freedom of information request. Wikileaks director Julian Assange said his organisation had to break through encryption by the military to view it.

In the recording, the helicopter crews can be heard discussing the scene on the street below. One American claims to have spotted six people with AK-47s and one with a rocket-propelled grenade. It is unclear if some of the men are armed but Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera. Chmagh is talking on his mobile phone.

One of the helicopter crew is then heard saying that one of the group is shooting. But the video shows there is no shooting or even pointing of weapons. The men are standing around, apparently unperturbed.

The lead helicopter, using the moniker Crazyhorse, opens fire. "Hahaha. I hit 'em," shouts one of the American crew. Another responds a little later: "Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards."

One of the men on the ground, believed to be Chmagh, is seen wounded and trying to crawl to safety. One of the helicopter crew is heard wishing for the man to reach for a gun, even though there is none visible nearby, so he has the pretext for opening fire: "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." A van draws up next to the wounded man and Iraqis climb out. They are unarmed and start to carry the victim to the vehicle in what would appear to be an attempt to get him to hospital. One of the helicopters opens fire with armour-piercing shells. "Look at that. Right through the windshield," says one of the crew. Another responds with a laugh.

Sitting behind the windscreen were two children who were wounded.

After ground forces arrive and the children are discovered, the American air crew blame the Iraqis. "Well it's their fault for bringing kids in to a battle," says one. "That's right," says another.

Initially the US military said that all the dead were insurgents. Then it claimed the helicopters reacted to an active firefight. Assange said that the video demonstrated that neither claim was true.

"Why would anyone be so relaxed with two Apaches if someone was carrying an RPG and that person was an enemy of the United States?" he said. "The behaviour of the pilots is like a computer game. When Saeed is crawling, clearly unable to do anything, their response is: come on buddy, we want to kill you, just pick up a weapon ... It appears to be a desire to get a higher score, or a higher number of kills."

Wikileaks says it will shortly release a second secret US military video showing the deaths of civilians in an attack in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has been seeking ways to prevent classified material appearing on Wikileaks, including through "criminal sanctions". Wikileaks has made public classified US army reports on weapons, military units and battle strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon report, reflecting the depth of paranoia about where Wikileaks is obtaining its material, speculates that the CIA may be responsible. But perhaps most embarrassing leak for the US defence department was that of the 2008 report itself which appeared on the Wikileaks site last month.



Reactions:

July 12th, 2007 New York Times reports that two Iraqi journalists were killed in a militia clash with U.S. forces - ''There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,'' said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.

July 13th, 2007 Press statement from public affairs office in camp Victory reports on the event. "There is no question that Coalition Forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force," said Lt. Col Scott Bleichwehl, spokesperson and public affairs officer for MND-B.

July 13th, 2007 Reuters blog posts an entry on the killings of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Namir was the 109th journalist to be killed in Iraq since the invasion in 2003, and Saeed the 40th member of support staff.

July 16th, 2007 Reuters seeks U.S. probe into the killings of their staff. "Our preliminary investigation raises real questions about whether there was fighting at the time the two men were killed," said David Schlesinger, editor-in-chief of Reuters. Specifically, Reuters wanted an explanation of why the two cameras were confiscated, access to any cameras onboard the Apache helicopters that were involved in the incident, access to any voice communications between the helicopter crews and U.S. ground forces and access to reports from the unit involved in the incident, in particular a log of any weapons taken from the scene.

July 16th, 2007Counterpunch reports that "The US military says US and Iraqi forces engaged "a hostile force" and, after coming under fire, called for air support that killed nine insurgents and two civilians. The police and witnesses tell a different story. A preliminary police report from al-Rashad police station said Mr Noor-Eldeen and Mr Chmagh were killed along with nine others by a "random American bombardment." One witness, Karim Shindakh, said: "The aircraft began striking randomly and people were wounded. A Kia [mini-van] arrived to take them away. They hit the Kia and killed ... the two journalists."

March 2008 Reuters opens website "Bearing Witness" dedicated to the memory of the Reuters journalists that have been killed in Iraq during the war: Taras Protsyuk (2003); Mazen Dana (2003); Dhia Najim (2003); Waleed Khaled (2005); Saeed Chmagh (2007); Namir Noor-Eldeen (2007); and an anonymous Reuters journalist who was killed in 2007.

July 15th, 2008 Reuters posts memorial article. In it they mention that "Reuters News is seeking video footage from the U.S. military and other materials relating to the killing of Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh. The footage was taken by cameras on board the U.S. helicopters involved in the incident, in which nine other people were killed. The U.S. military said last week it is still processing the request"

Rattler
« Last Edit: 6 April 2010, 23:56:40 by Rattler » Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #4 on: 7 April 2010, 18:14:06 »
ReplyReply

Quote
yep, it is, the short version.


ah, ok, because in your original post you wrote '2009' so I wasn't sure what to look for...

quite surprising that the US government didn't manage to censorship this.....  Huh?
Logged
stoffel
WaT supporter
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Netherlands

Location: Eemnes The Netherlands
Posts: 1885


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: 7 April 2010, 21:14:38 »
ReplyReply

It all depends from what side you are looking at it.
These pilots made a mistake, that is sad, very sad but thats war.
Soldiers also get killed by "friendly fire" in such case no-one gives a damn.
All you can bring to bear is that the aftermath, the wounded children and so on was very badly managed, and critical errors were made.
I can understand why you dont bring this out public.
Its 1 such action that can damage all the progress you made, all good work is gone in one moment.
Why?
Because after all we are the bad guys.
Public opinion is basically left winged and not objective.
Basically it will make it more and more tougher for the troops to do their work.
For example, in Chora the Taliban killed 60 women and girls at a school, and many, many more, same in Iraq.
Terrorists hide behind civillians hoping that allied fire will kill those civillians.
Many troops  do not call up on airpower or artillery often because commanders are afraid for colletaral damage, you never hear that you never hear it in the news when troops got killed because of cowardly terrorist attacks because they cant defend properly.
Like in the case of the fatalities among the Germans and few weeks ago where UK troops were killed in an ambush.
You might ask yourself, with bringing this out public if you do not bring more risks to your countries soldiers?

After all if the Taliban or a criminal gang in Iraq kills 100 people its no news, if we kill 1 civillian up there it is the crime of the century.
A reporter here blamed US journalists for not publishing this earlier, it was  a failure of the journalists he said.
But I think those journalists in the US can see the bigger picture, and see the risks for their fellow coutrymen who risk their lives everyday.
Here in the relatively safety of Europe we are (still)not accustomed to wars, left winged media have the upperhand and will do what they can to find mistakes, despite all the good work thats been done.
If you look at Uruzgan you see a province much safer than ever, with factories, trade and safety, even electricty, water and schools.
Never do you hear anything about those positive results.
Sad too.........
Logged

My topics are about my personal opinion, my thoughts and what I think. They do not reflect the official opinion of the ministry of defense of the Netherlands.
MontyB
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

New Zealand

Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1005




View Profile
« Reply #6 on: 7 April 2010, 22:10:20 »
ReplyReply

I disagree, I accept that they made a mistake and given the distances and speed things were happening mistakes will happen but there are two things with the video that concerned me:

1) The firing on a vehicle that they identified as rendering assistance to the injured.
2) Rather than manning up and saying "we screwed up" they went with an elaborate lie that painted innocent people as criminals.

I would have found this incident completely understandable had they just been honest.
Logged

We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #7 on: 8 April 2010, 17:18:33 »
ReplyReply

I always found it strange to hear the heroic babble afterwards...
ok, it's war and they're the bad guys but sometimes I have mixed feelings when I hear the 'YEAH, WE GOT THE BASTARDS' etc...

but from a heli or airplane it's like a videogame so, again, maybe they loose the human feeling with the killing?
Logged
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: 8 April 2010, 21:52:52 »
ReplyReply

It all depends from what side you are looking at it.
These pilots made a mistake, that is sad, very sad but thats war.
Soldiers also get killed by "friendly fire" in such case no-one gives a damn.
All you can bring to bear is that the aftermath, the wounded children and so on was very badly managed, and critical errors were made.
I can understand why you dont bring this out public.
Its 1 such action that can damage all the progress you made, all good work is gone in one moment.
Why?
Because after all we are the bad guys.
Public opinion is basically left winged and not objective.
Basically it will make it more and more tougher for the troops to do their work.
For example, in Chora the Taliban killed 60 women and girls at a school, and many, many more, same in Iraq.
Terrorists hide behind civillians hoping that allied fire will kill those civillians.
Many troops  do not call up on airpower or artillery often because commanders are afraid for colletaral damage, you never hear that you never hear it in the news when troops got killed because of cowardly terrorist attacks because they cant defend properly.
Like in the case of the fatalities among the Germans and few weeks ago where UK troops were killed in an ambush.
You might ask yourself, with bringing this out public if you do not bring more risks to your countries soldiers?

After all if the Taliban or a criminal gang in Iraq kills 100 people its no news, if we kill 1 civillian up there it is the crime of the century.
A reporter here blamed US journalists for not publishing this earlier, it was  a failure of the journalists he said.
But I think those journalists in the US can see the bigger picture, and see the risks for their fellow coutrymen who risk their lives everyday.
Here in the relatively safety of Europe we are (still)not accustomed to wars, left winged media have the upperhand and will do what they can to find mistakes, despite all the good work thats been done.
If you look at Uruzgan you see a province much safer than ever, with factories, trade and safety, even electricty, water and schools.
Never do you hear anything about those positive results.
Sad too.........


I disagree, I accept that they made a mistake and given the distances and speed things were happening mistakes will happen but there are two things with the video that concerned me:

1) The firing on a vehicle that they identified as rendering assistance to the injured.
2) Rather than manning up and saying "we screwed up" they went with an elaborate lie that painted innocent people as criminals.

I would have found this incident completely understandable had they just been honest.



Stoffel, I have severe concerns with what you are writing, it seems you did not follow the issue at all in detail; Monty, you are exactly on my line of argument, and I personally feel that is the true line to take, for every soldier, unit, leader and government, if we don´t want to become the bad guys (again):

Of cause, there will always be screw-ups. Solds are solds, humans of a certain social group (rarely academics if you see what I mean), and I will leave their character judgment to the way higher - heavenly - instances (should they exist: Their own conscience will probably do its own thngy ovr the yrs in the personal respect).

OTOH, there are ROEs, training, set ups, and wihitewash, and all of them seem to play a role in this incident, and also a lot of plain lies from almost all involved sides.

Only Henk and some long time TacOps list followers will know what I am refering to here when I get wild about kids in harms way, but as my 30 yrs silence obligation has finally passed (http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/calendar/?sa=post;eventid=47;sesc=1ab7ec52574ebb462c5e5a8c3e55d255) I can divulge that my separation from the army was not really totally peaceful as I (a desk type at the time, in comms) in a maneuvre got reprimanded for not "eliminating" a school class of 20+ x 8 yrs old kids plus their teachers, and in writing. It took me a long time (2 yrs+) to get clear and even win (in normal - nonmil - courts) to get out under honor and even promoted, but those 2 yrs were hell for this individual, and I only wwant to put this up as an example for an atmoshere I judge unhealthy in a good corps (and on the advice of more than one guy - Solideo being te last, truly missed on this forum) I take serious I will leave it at that, no reason to stir the pot again that much later when my army long has changed).

The same reason that had me suffer made the video´s  importance from my POV: Highers, embarrassed, decided to close lines ("we", against "the others" - Reuters in this case - ) and to defend the not defendable, instead of simply acknowledging the SNAFU and show face where doing so yould be acknowledged and appreciated:

The WikiLeaks divulged vid was known to exist for a long time, it´s contents were clearly described in writing before, US Administration had even promised to show it, to further their claim that the chopper was (or suspected to come) under attack... but it never appeared, now that it surfaced they (US Admin) claim it "vanished" from archives "somehow", that´s why they did allegedly not show it...  (erhm, how did WikiLeaks got a hand on it if it had "vanished"??) ?? whistle

That, no matter whether a leftish or rightish take, is a *cover up* in every sense the books calls it so, and it is this what makes the vid important: THis is not supposed to happen in our societey, we are the *goog* guys, remember?. And the shame of the foul-up does not go to the chopper jockeys (though personally: Those are officers, no? I find their take and attitude inapt for their position, not judging their armed actions) but to the government, which does not put it´s money where it´s mouth is, as so often suspected (see just some examples below), just that this time there is proof (and, again, that is the only thing that makes the vid important).

Other examples: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/569510-post.html, all by yours truly.

Let me answer to Stoffel in detail, I think his post deserves it as I am personally considering him a serious taker on solds duties (though he got it all wrong if he shouldn´t be asking us to follow the Nazi "We were just following orders, sir" thingy line of argument):

It all depends from what side you are looking at it.



My POV: No. Officers lying (we were under attack by insurgents with AKs and RPGs, the vid proves the lie), an administration exaggerating based on the lie (the helicopters responded to being attacked in a fire fight) are ot things that depend on "what side you are looking at it from".

If you think that this issue has anything to do with a POV (the angle you are looking at it), please elaborate: What does "It all" mean in your sentence, and what of the facts is changing with POV?

These pilots made a mistake, that is sad, very sad but thats war.


Granted, for now, and for this discussion.

Stress here (and why I am granting) is on "mistake" and "sad". Why not state so publicly (...really a sad mistake, we are sorry and give our condolencs to the news agency and family involved, but such things happen...)? After all, we all are humans and do make mistakes (I make one every week at least in my jobs).

Soldiers also get killed by "friendly fire" in such case no-one gives a damn.


I do not see such a thing, blu-on-blu incidents get a lot of media coverage here, but they almost *never* are getting swept under the carpet, as obviously was the intention here...

All you can bring to bear is that the aftermath, the wounded children and so on was very badly managed, and critical errors were made.


Again you are stating just the reason why some serious (and not necessarily anty mil) people (like me) are mad over this incident: "Badly managed" and "critical errors" are the key words, and then topped by the fact that nobody institutionally put face to them but all institutional comments even denied they ever happened (no LLs, no PR...).

I can understand why you dont bring this out public.



Its 1 such action that can damage all the progress you made, all good work is gone in one moment.[/quote]

From your phrase I read rather "I can understand the temptation to not bring this out public", I can *not* "understand the fact of not actually doing right this, even with view on your furthering in argument:

Why?
Because after all we are the bad guys.

This is just a demagogic remark and not a viable reason that any administration (or even a unit leader) would base decisions on if he ever thought h had to rectify.

Public opinion is basically left winged and not objective.

Maybe, but what has this to do with the facts as displayed in the video when you then see them contrasted by the whitewash comments of admin? I do not see a political issue here that would not be raised by dubbing a video "lefzish" or "rightish" according to a general stance on soldiering and ignoring ROEs.

Basically it will make it more and more tougher for the troops to do their work.

Again: Maybe. I consider appreciatively you are not advocating that "the work" should be understood to be to kill journous or civilians, and in this respect I have no problem with engaging threats. If there is none, and you even have to invent one ("come on, raise a gun"), something is flawed and has nothing to do with "the work" as we both (hopefully) understand it.

For example, in Chora the Taliban killed 60 women and girls at a school, and many, many more, same in Iraq.
Terrorists hide behind civillians hoping that allied fire will kill those civillians.
Many troops  do not call up on airpower or artillery often because commanders are afraid for colletaral damage, you never hear that you never hear it in the news when troops got killed because of cowardly terrorist attacks because they cant defend properly.

a) You do. b) what has this to do with the (I am quoting you) "badly managed critical errors" as shown in the vid? I am condoning the latter, but I am upset at what I see in the vid, both things are simply different discussions.

You might ask yourself, with bringing this out public if you do not bring more risks to your countries soldiers?

I got confronted with the same take from my superiors in my personal history: Not eliminating (against Genevea Convention which by law we are/were obliged to obey) the school class that spotted us displaying we endangered overall mission success and endangered lives of fellow soldiers. Indeed, and rightly so, is what I always then - and now - answered, it is called "bad luck", and I will always be prepared to pay the price for doing the right thing (and we even had the opportunity of "silencing" them for the time necessary w/o "eliminatng")...

Being a soldier carries risks, one thing is dying knowing that you were unlucky when confronting them, the other thing is living a nightmare for doing something you should not have done by law, religion and conscience.

A reporter here blamed US journalists for not publishing this earlier, it was  a failure of the journalists he said.
But I think those journalists in the US can see the bigger picture, and see the risks for their fellow coutrymen who risk their lives everyday.

Auto censorship is not in a journos book that I knew of, just like treason not in a soldiers book. Different job descrition, a journo is by definition not an influencing factor and even *has* to try and avoid becoming it. One journo who would auto censor himself (there are some, but only very few, exeptions, and even then we just talk about delaying a notice, not about ignoring facts consciously) I would descredit from the title.

Here in the relatively safety of Europe we are (still)not accustomed to wars, left winged media have the upperhand and will do what they can to find mistakes, despite all the good work thats been done.

While I get your hunch nad to a point follow it, shooting journos or civils and be it accidentally *and disguising the fact" afterwards simply cannot qualify as "good work" in my book.

If you look at Uruzgan you see a province much safer than ever, with factories, trade and safety, even electricty, water and schools.
Never do you hear anything about those positive results.
Sad too.........

You do, the news is full of it, but again: This fact (and even if your assumption would be correct) has nothing, but nothing whatsoever to do with why this video should not be have made public.

With all due respect,

Rattler
Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
stoffel
WaT supporter
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Netherlands

Location: Eemnes The Netherlands
Posts: 1885


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: 9 April 2010, 16:50:11 »
ReplyReply

Rattler,

The soldiers in question made mistakes, no argue about that.
The way the US government dealt with it is not good.
But...
Politicians are responsible for the cover up.
The soldiers/or their officers should have been courtmarshalled and reprimanded.
That way the vid could have been kept closed and it would not have been hurting the cause for what we are fighting overthere.

My take.
Logged

My topics are about my personal opinion, my thoughts and what I think. They do not reflect the official opinion of the ministry of defense of the Netherlands.
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: 9 April 2010, 18:30:08 »
ReplyReply

Rattler,

The soldiers in question made mistakes, no argue about that.
The way the US government dealt with it is not good.
But...
Politicians are responsible for the cover up.
The soldiers/or their officers should have been courtmarshalled and reprimanded.
That way the vid could have been kept closed and it would not have been hurting the cause for what we are fighting overthere.

My take.

For once, I am all along your way of thinking here:

- Court Martial (if they get absolved, fine w/ me, but *do* question their decidion making process).

- Actually (according to US mil law IIRC) court martial the commander. Failed leadership, as in "Darker Shade of Blue" (http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm) and IMHO the result of wrongly understood camaraderie (as also found in police forces), for some reason we don´t seem to be able to get rid of that set up.

- Hit the governmment hard for just another foul coverup, we citizens don´t pay for that and we are fed up with it. It is *this attitude* that endangers soldiers work, not the vid as such.

JFTR, today it is 7 yrs camera Jose Couso was murdered at the Palestine, Baghdad, as obviously as can be, whitewash has everybody cleaned and ok except his colleagues and family. Nobody ever went to trial.

Rattler
« Last Edit: 9 April 2010, 18:36:24 by Rattler » Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
the_13th_redneck
Sergeant Major
**

Offline Offline

Korea, Republic of

Location: on someone else's beach
Posts: 264




View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: 10 April 2010, 05:02:10 »
ReplyReply

In war time, these things can happen.  They have happened before and they will happen again.
Accidents during peacetime are a totally different animal, but in war, it's inherently dangerous.
Apparently this happened during a particuarly bloody month in a very bad part of Baghdad.  I read it somewhere but I cannot find the source so if anyone else has better luck...

I would think that seeing a group of men congregating around a van would immediately bring about suspicion.  Bust out a camera tripod... and we have a very bad day for everyone involved.
Logged

MontyB
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

New Zealand

Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1005




View Profile
« Reply #12 on: 10 April 2010, 06:18:52 »
ReplyReply

In war time, these things can happen.  They have happened before and they will happen again.
Accidents during peacetime are a totally different animal, but in war, it's inherently dangerous.
Apparently this happened during a particuarly bloody month in a very bad part of Baghdad.  I read it somewhere but I cannot find the source so if anyone else has better luck...

I would think that seeing a group of men congregating around a van would immediately bring about suspicion.  Bust out a camera tripod... and we have a very bad day for everyone involved.


I agree to a certain extent, I really don't blame the helicopter crew for the initial attack it was a hostile area and they made a call based on a misidentified weapon, however lets reverse the roles for second had the Taliban or [insert group of your choice here] opened fire on people attempting to help US citizens do you think it would have been brushed under the carpet?

My guess is that the US would have broadcast the "Heinous" act to world as a sign of the barbarians "we" are fighting.

The fact that the attack happened is not an issue for me, it was as well agree a mistake and when you play with guns for a living then mistakes are costly however there is no excuse for attacking the van (in my opinion a sign of ill discipline and indication of a lack of professionalism) but even worse is the attempt to turn an honest mistake into a justifiable act by declaring the victims as "insurgents".

Logged

We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
the_13th_redneck
Sergeant Major
**

Offline Offline

Korea, Republic of

Location: on someone else's beach
Posts: 264




View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: 14 April 2010, 02:47:11 »
ReplyReply

however lets reverse the roles for second had the Taliban or [insert group of your choice here] opened fire on people attempting to help US citizens do you think it would have been brushed under the carpet?


You're right.
That would have been all over the news.
I guess the difference would have been that the US attack was not deliberately targeting non combatants while if the Taliban or whatnot opened fire on civilians aiding US citizens, that would have been a deliberate engagement.  More like if US forces ever JDAMed (yes, it's a verb too!) a village because they were sympathetic to the Taliban.
Logged

MontyB
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

New Zealand

Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1005




View Profile
« Reply #14 on: 14 April 2010, 06:38:23 »
ReplyReply

however lets reverse the roles for second had the Taliban or [insert group of your choice here] opened fire on people attempting to help US citizens do you think it would have been brushed under the carpet?



You're right.
That would have been all over the news.
I guess the difference would have been that the US attack was not deliberately targeting non combatants while if the Taliban or whatnot opened fire on civilians aiding US citizens, that would have been a deliberate engagement.  More like if US forces ever JDAMed (yes, it's a verb too!) a village because they were sympathetic to the Taliban.



As I have mentioned earlier I can accept it was an accident and up until the point that they opened fire on the van they did nothing that I would have raised an eyebrow over but at the point they they fired on the van I think they stepped over a very thin line as their own radio transmissions showed they saw no weapons so they were simply firing on people rendering assistance and that in my opinion is an action worthy of prison time (as we both agree had the roles been reversed prison would have been the least they would have got).

However even that action pales into insignificance when you start covering up a mistake by painting the victims as criminals in my opinion, "we" fight these wars from the position of the "good guys" and as such we are hamstrung by having to act as such so every time one of these accidents happen it gives the opposition both in the country concerned and at home ammunition that makes things more and more difficult for those who are fighting.

In my opinion had the powers that be simply said that after an investigation it was determined that an identification error lead to the deaths of these people, we have implemented systems to help reduce the chances of it happening again and we are negotiating a compensation package with the families of those killed, this whole process would have blown over in days where as now you have the opposition using the footage as a recruiting tool, anti-war folks using it to pressure politicians into reducing funding and support for those stuck over there and half the world once again taking the piss out of yanks with cartoons such as...


 
Logged

We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
the_13th_redneck
Sergeant Major
**

Offline Offline

Korea, Republic of

Location: on someone else's beach
Posts: 264




View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: 14 April 2010, 19:30:17 »
ReplyReply

Considering how many get away with it even during peacetime, it's not too surprising I suppose.
Unfortunate...
Logged

Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: 23 April 2010, 07:43:52 »
ReplyReply

A new perspective on this video comes with an interview that Danger room publishes, an interview with the soldier seen in the video running across the plaza with the girl from the van on his arms.

He offers the insight of the soldier that actually was there, and also some 2nd hand insights from his other comrades. FOr him the first attack was well within ROEs, the 2nd not.

Also, we often forget how traumatizing such events that soldiers live through can be, and comments like "Get the sand out of your vagina and get over it" don´t really help (though I agree they are a result of trying to get to terms with the situation throuhg joking and harsh language).

Some excerpts of the article and interview at Wired´s Danger Room at http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/#more-23793 , well worth reading:

Quote
Wired.com: The first thing you saw was the little girl in the van. She had a stomach wound?

McCord: She had a stomach wound and she had glass in her eyes and in her hair. She was crying. In fact, that’s one of the reasons I went to the van immediately, because I could hear her crying. It wasn’t like a cry of pain really. It was more of a child who was frightened out of her mind. And the next thing I saw was the boy…. He was kind of sitting on the floorboard of the van, but with his head laying on the bench seat in the front. And then the father, who I’m assuming was the father, in the driver’s seat slumped over on his side. Just from looking into the van, and the amount of blood that was on the boy and the father, I immediately figured they were dead.

-snip-

Then I got yelled at by my platoon leader that I needed to stop trying to save these mf’n kids and go pull security…. I was told to go pull security on a rooftop. When we were on that roof, we were still taking fire. There were some people taking pot shots, sniper shots, at us on the rooftop. We were probably there on the roof for another four to five hours.


Quote
Wired.com: Wikileaks presented the incident as though there was no engagement from insurgents. But you guys did have a firefight a couple of blocks away. Was it reasonable for the Apache soldiers to think that maybe the people they attacked were part of that insurgent firefight?

McCord: I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don’t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary.


Quote
I’ve lived with seeing the children that way since the incident happened. I’ve had nightmares. I was diagnosed with chronic, severe PTSD. [But] I was actually starting to get kind of better. … I wasn’t thinking about it as much. [Then I] took my children to school one day and I came home and sat down on the couch and turned on the TV with my coffee, and on the news I’m running across the screen with a child. The flood of emotions came back. I know the scene by heart; it’s burned into my head. I know the van, I know the faces of everybody that was there that day.

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/#more-23793#ixzz0lu4VOIYv



Rattler
Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
the_13th_redneck
Sergeant Major
**

Offline Offline

Korea, Republic of

Location: on someone else's beach
Posts: 264




View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: 29 July 2010, 12:58:20 »
ReplyReply

The biggest culprit in this leak is the US Army.
Their practices in securing important information is VERY poor it seems and it's a surprise it took so look for a major leak to happen.
CDRWs, a PFC with uncontrolled access to sensitive information, a troubled soldier not separated from sensitive information... this is a failure of leadership.

I can tell you without a shred of a doubt that this could not happen in my unit.
The Commanding Officer and the Senior NCO should be shot.
Logged

Alan65
The Postcard man
Captain
***

Offline Offline

United States

Location: Seattle
Posts: 765




View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: 30 July 2010, 17:40:54 »
ReplyReply

"they guarantee their whistleblower sources absolute security of not getting blown."  -- in a world in which every bit of information is completely available about everyone how is this possible?
Either information is completely available to everyone/thing (ie. a computer) or it is possible to have secrets.  It's not possible to 'have your cake and eat it, too', as they say.  Kind of reminds me of Goedel's Paradox; one take on his Theorem is that there are True statements which are not knowable and/or false statements which are proveable.
Logged
the_13th_redneck
Sergeant Major
**

Offline Offline

Korea, Republic of

Location: on someone else's beach
Posts: 264




View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: 30 July 2010, 19:53:40 »
ReplyReply

Why Wikileaks can kiss my ass.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007269,00.html
Logged

Pages:  [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Unique Hits: 27613351 | Sitemap
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page 7 September 2018, 05:17:02