Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
The web site Wiki Leaks, run out of Scandinavia, has released a videotape of an American operation in Iraq in 2007 in which several people were killed by an Apache gun ship. It is entitled, "Collateral Murder". The theme of the video and narration is that troops carelessly attacked and killed some 25 people including two Reuters photographers. Fox News this morning has called into question the analysis of the tape and pointed out that the attack was justified. The Fox article is below:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/military-raises-questions-credibility-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/?test=latestnews
Here is the actual video. Pay close attention to the radio transmissions (also in captions).
As Fox News (Megyn Kelly) pointed out this morning, in the opening scenes, four men can be seen walking behind one of the photographers. The troops ascertain that they are carrying automatic weeapons, which can be seen (but ignored by Wiki Leaks). The transmissions also show that the troops reported their observations and requested authority to shoot, which was approved. After the initial attack, you can see a wounded suspect crawling on the sidewalk. The attackers, rather than immediately shoot at him, try to determine if he is carrying a weapon. Eventually, they request and receive authorization to take out the van that comes to rescue him. (It was later determined that there were two children in the van, who were removed to a hospital. Wiki Leaks even criticizes the decision of which hospital they were sent to.)
The intent of Wiki Leaks is to claim that the attack was wanton. They point out "casual" comments picked up from the transmissions to support their assertion.
Well, it is refreshing to see that someone far removed from Iraq is able to see through the fog of war and second guess the actions of these troops. While it is fairly certain that some innocent people were killed or injured, the troops correctly identified enemy fighters with automatic weapons gathered together on the street. Sadly, it happens in war, but if you pay attention to the transmissions, it is also clear the troops did everything they could to identify weapons before they were authorized to shoot. Is Wiki Leaks condemning them because one soldier was heard to comment, "Nice"? Isn't that what those on U-Boats used to say when they had struck and sunk an enemy ship?
Maybe this outfit should try and dig up old transmissions from World War II, when Americans were storming the beaches at Normandy or crossing the Rhine or bombing Berlin. What a scandal that would make.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 Comments - Share Yours!:
However you view this video, one thing is clear. The truck that arrived to try and carry the wounded from the battle, presented no threat.
If one of us had a friend or relative hurt in a violent clash, I suspect we all would try our best to take them to safety. I have seen all kinds of justifications for shooting up the rescue vehicle, but none that make any sense.
The US military initially provided incorrect information about this incident. It later said that this incident did not violate the rules of engagement for the theater. If shooting at unarmed people attempting to rescue injured people is within our rules of engagement, then imagine how many more times this scenario has played out across Iraq and Afghanistan? Now imagine how many thousands of relatives and friends have been angered to the point that they take up arms against the US Army. I suspect many of us would take up arms against a force that shot our friends and then shot the people sent to rescue them. I know I would.
The Afghan leader has threatened to change sides. Our Army fires without provocation on the same citizens we are reportedly rescuing from terrorists , and our military leaders are unable or unwilling to deter it.
This is liberating Afghanistan? Do you think this was the founders idea of how to use a standing army? How is a global military engaged in struggles like this aligned with the patriot movements efforts to reduce the size and scope of government?
You don't think incidents like this
have not happened in other wars,
going back to revolutionary war?
It is a problem of fighting an enemy who hides behind women and children, in schools, hospitals,
residences, you name it. The Palestinians have used ambulances
marked as Israeli to ferry about armed islamic terrorists throughout
gazastan and the West bank.
These guys erred on the side of not
taking chances and as I said before, I REFUSE to villify or condemn them. Whether Ragastan is worth the shedding of more American blood is something I have mentioend before. When our troops are hamstrung by assinine ROE that
Obama put in place, now it is even harder to keep this type of event
from happening. You are also not really considering the shifting tides of tribal allances in Iraq and Ragastan. You mention the tribal leader considered changing sides,there ya go, pal. One day on our side, the next day he with the Taliban. As another blooger put it,
this was no My Lai lai. I have posted an update on this if care to view it.
I think we should be out of Afghanistan a long time ago.
But to respond to your posting. No one was "hiding behind women and children". What happened in Palestine has no bearing on this incident. The ROE had no bearing on this instance. What happened in WWII has no bearing on this incident. Your just looking for excuses.
The truck pulled up and men got out and tried to help the wounded journalist into the truck so he could be taken to safety. And the pilots shot them. Without any provocation. Unarmed men helping out wounded men is hardly a reason to warrant firing. It was an execution, plain and simple. The soldiers deserve to be up on charges for their recklessness.
I will have a new post that sheds
more light on this and no, they do not deserve to be brought up
on charges. The Siuation In the
Middle east does matter here
tactics used are very similar.
Sorry if you do not like that but
tough
How is any situation in palestine relevent here? You sure you dont want to bring up situations from the frontier Indian wars? or perhaps from Pearl Harbor? Hell we could justify shooting anybody at anytime if we want to dig up every thing that ever happened in the past 200 years. But thats not what our military is supposed to do, now is it? They arent supposed to shoot at imagined threats, especially when they are a half mile away in a helicopter. They are supposed to respond when threatened. And they werent. They were trigger happy.
Why are you in such denial about this. Its not complicated.
Extremeist,
Read through the post I finally
got by from American Power. No,
I am not in denail at all. The
latest post makes me comfortable
with what I have stated and
posted.
Imagined threats? I don't think
so. The new ROE are a handicap
and put our troops in danger
I have many friends in the
military. The loathe the new
ROE, Obama and the left, every
one of them.
You are right,it is not
complicated.
Post a Comment