Collateral Murder
In armed conflicts collateral damage is described as the amount of innocent life taken during a military battle. However when does collateral damage turn into just murder or “collateral murder”. The term was coined after release of a classified U.S. Army video via wikilinks. The video show’s U.S. Apache helicopters opening fire on what the Army calls insurgents. The “insurgents” were Reuters cameramen and civilians including a little girl.
I must confess that I first refused to watch the video, I was blinded by my support for the military. I was disgusted that a soldier would release such information to the public during a time of “war”. I also thought that the Army knew what it was talking about when it comes to “insurgents” and rules of engagement(ROE). I was wrong. I watched the entire video; all 39 minutes. What I saw was civilians being gunned down by a 3omm anti tank cannon and hellfire missiles, all because they were carrying cameras AK-47′s.
The video has 2 elements; CrazyHorse element which is the apache helicopter force and Bushmaster element who is the ground force. CrazyHorse can be heard marking targets; the two journalists, as carrying weapons and asking for permission to engage. CrazyHorse is supporting the Bushmaster infantry element, whom is supposedly being engaged by insurgents, however the CrazyHorse element is further up from the Bushmaster element. I do believe that the apache’s had the wrong group. So after CrazyHorse get’s the permission to engage, they mow down a group of 12 standing in a circle; certainly not firing positions.
I continued to watch after seeing the men fall into a heap and the disgusting rhetoric from the helicopter pilots congratulating themselves on good kills. One of the journalists was able to “escape” slightly before he was fired upon and wounded. This is where ROE was violated in my military opinion. ROE permits soldiers to be taken from the battlefield for medical treatment and the U.S. even if it wounds the enemy must provide care. The journalist who tried to run away and was wounded can be seen moving later on in the video. The apache pilot’s were itching to shoot him, even saying “all you have to do is grab a weapon”. He was in to much pain to grab anything, a 3omm round is devastating to a tank let alone a person. You can see a black van approach the journalist and people get out to help him, and start to put him into the van; all the while the apaches are watching.
30mm round next to a .50 cal round and a .556 round
The apaches report what they see, and report “insurgents are picking him up and taking him away, permission to engage?”. Once again the apaches are given permission to fire and they obliterate the van full of people trying to help the man. Turns out that a little girl was also in the van.
I’m no expert on weaponry but I know enough to see the difference between a camera and an AK-47. Even in the video I could see the difference, although I knew before watching the video that they were carrying cameras, and the pilots didn’t. I truly do believe that this was one disgusting mix up of fire. The CrazyHorse group had direct control over whether they fired, all they had to do was say they saw weapons on the person’s.
I again was at first strongly opposed to this video, as I always said support the soldiers and blame the leaders in power for sending them. However this was all at the soldiers hands, they made the sole decision from several thousand feet in the air that they were going to engage and kill “insurgents”. No one ordered them to fire, they were told if they could see weapons to then engage. I saw no weapons. What I saw was civilian’s him hawing around in one big circle just shooting the shit about who knows what. Even if they were somehow armed, it certainly was not enough to threaten the forces present.
The investigation that ensued by the U.S. Army and the U.S. Military concluded that the helicopter attack force was following the laws of armed conflict and the U.S. Army’s ROE. No UCMJ or civil action will come of this, as the Government and military have cleared all involved. I urge you to watch this video and judge for yourself whether you would have fired or not.
Related Posts
-
Arizona’s Crazy Governor Bans Planned Parenthood Funding
Posted on May 6, 2012
-
Author Recommendation: Nelson DeMille
Posted on Apr 30, 2012
-
The Last American Push In Afghanistan
Posted on Apr 17, 2012
-
North Korea Tried So Hard!
Posted on Apr 13, 2012
Tags
Share This
Loading ...
I'm going to have to strongly disagree with your conclusions here.
1. The media types were WITH insurgents. Muiltiple AKs AND RPGs were there, you can see them on the video.
2. They were presumably there to film the local insurgents popping some Americans in an ambush.
3. There was a running gun battle going on a few blocks away, the Apaches were flying top cover and this group does appear to have been setting up an ambush.
4. The Media cameraman sticks his camera around the corner to look down the street and then he shows what he videoed to the insurgents, he was providing them with intel.
At that point those media types were no longer passive actors but active members of the insurgents. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
No crime here at all in fact.
Both journalists are world renowned Reuters journalists, they were their for photos and not to give them intel on how to pop Americans, as insurgents already know how to do that. The gun battle was a few blocks away yes, not where they were standing in a circle. In Iraq every citizen is allowed to posses an AK-47 no crime in having one
The one cameraman was the best known Iraq war photographer, he certainly was not helping the insurgents, and how do you explain the apaches gunning down people holding camera's and not firing at anything?
Standing in a circle in a street in Iraq does not not warrant being opened fire on by an anti tank cannon or any weapon
you're obviously a politician, or some other government official…
Well I will take that to mean you appreciate my insight and it seems like I have inside information
thanks for your comment
Reasons why the Author of this is wrong:
Author: “The “insurgents” were Reuters cameramen and civilians including a little girl.”
JA: Men were clearly seen with no camera’s. Notice one of them were peeking around corners with a tube shaped item. (RPG) Unfortunately, the “little girl” is often used as human shields so ground troops are required not to engage on targets with unarmed women and or children present.
Author: ”What I saw was civilians being gunned down by a 3omm anti tank cannon and hellfire missiles, all because they were carrying cameras AK-47′s.”
JA: 30mm antitank shells cannot be fired in that rate of speed. Shells that large can be shot at a very slow automatic rate because they are too large and very expensive per round. Slower shot rate is more accurate. (Common Sense) OK scroll back to that picture of the 30mm Anti-Tank Shell, Note that “one 30mm” shell can penetrate about 3-4 inches of enforced armor-metal. Why was there no damage to the surrounding concrete or asphalt? Why were roads all intact? Because a 50-cal mounted machine gun was used to engage the targets. Scroll back to the Apache helicopter, The Gatling gun underneath the aircraft could shoot Armor piercing 50 cal rounds at a much (super) faster rate so I question the Apache aircraft that was claimed to be used. More like a Black Hawk Helicopter, they have mounted side guns.
Author: “No one ordered them to fire, they were told if they could see weapons to then engage. I saw no weapons. What I saw was civilian’s him hawing around in one big circle just shooting the shit about who knows what. Even if they were somehow armed, it certainly was not enough to threaten the forces present.
JA: It was determined by the pilots and crew that weapons were present and in clear view, they were there we were not. For civilians to just carry the AK-47’s and certain communication devices, they are in clear violation and are subject to U.S military engagement with no questions asked because of lessons learned from previous military tours. The U.S. public does not know this because they are not told things like this. First, Iraqi civilians are recommended to leave the city; Second, Things like carrying contraband (weapons) is a violation and is announced to the public in Arabic.
All you see is what the Video camera sees. Then you jump to your own conclusions. You do not see the whole picture.
Also, Militants will dress as Iraqi Civilians to be able to easily blend in with the surrounding community. When they are killed due to trying to shoot down US forces, The militants want to pick up their wounded and any weapons so the beloved Press could show that Unarmed Civilians were killed. And you believe it. This practice is often used. They use this footage as recruiting tools to mostly young-poor men. But mainly used politically and to kill international support too. You fell for it…Suckers.
good site!
Thank you
i saw this on the cnn docu about wikileaks so i thought i would grab the full source.
“come on buddy, all you gotta do is pick up a weapon”. that part made me kinda nauseous.. i know u need a strong stomach to be in the military but damn, the guy was struggling to live. last thing he was concerned about was whether there was a weapon nearby or camera as it turned out. those damn yanks are animals once they get the taste for blood and the irony of the co-pilot saying nice shooting. shame about the target dipshit!
and it gets worse.. “well it’s their fault for bringing their kids into battle.” like its not their fault a childs dead. who was it that ivaded whos country again??
julian described it best when he said these people are playing real-life videogames with human lives but still, the least they could do is show a little remorse when they mess up. what did that kid do to die that day? it really makes me sick and im not claiming the taliban are any better but i can understand what they’re fighting for at least.