the only reason this has been leaked is because reuters were trying to find out what happened to their cameramen

how often has it happened with regular civilians?

There's no way in hell what I saw was a photography lens.

Have you seen the size of some telephoto lenses? They can be 18" or longer. Might look like a weapon from a distance, to the untrained eye. In that footage, looks to me like the person is carrying a large telephoto. a 400mm 2.8 lens is massive.

Lol – wow you must have amazing vision. Maybe you should sign up?

I don't think so, I think it's pretty damn clear (and if it wasn't, I wouldn't be shooting at them that's for sure) – you can clearly see a gun slung via straps, hanging in a way that is not normal with a camera/lens combo IMO. And it's way too narrow to be a long lens. And, as a side point, you'd never allow a long-lens like that to be rattling around your legs like he has it, they weigh too much and they're far too delicate to just be slung around like that.

Have you seen the size of some telephoto lenses? They can be 18" or longer.

Yes, I own one. I've even played with an 800mm. And they're a damn sight wider than at least 2 shown in that video, and not quite as long.

This could be mistaken for an RPG launcher…

But not an AK47.

Look at the chaps in the background as he says "request permission to engage". Dangling round below his waist, narrowest at the frontal tip and fairly thick set near the rear unlike a lens, If you can't clearly see that's not a camera I worry that people like you might be in the armed forces 🙂

Never served have you roper?
If you think you see more than the boots on the ground, then you are very very naive

I didn't say that. If you can get past your "us and them, soldier and civilian" idea, you might see that.

Back to the clip in the OP.
The "boots on the ground" who were there (not you or me) and were in action at the time and talking on the radios, and were using all of their experience only someone in the military could possibly have, did not see the truth or reality of the situation. If they had I would like to think they would not have fired at innocent men and children.I don't think that is being naive. A possible attempted coverup but the military only clouded the situation further.
Luckily for us there have been possibly military but specifically nonmilitary people brave enough to report what actually might have happened and bring the facts of the incident out in the open.

you can clearly see a gun slung via straps, hanging in a way that is not normal with a camera/lens combo IMO

Really? Can you? In spite of, as Kimbers has pointed out, no weapons being recovered at the scene by American ground troops?

Really? Can you? In spite of, as Kimbers has pointed out, no weapons being recovered at the scene by American ground troops?

How likely is it, do you think, that they always recover all the weapons/cameras to be found at a scene when under constant threat of fire and on the move? Do you think they sift through the debris until they account for every weapon they think they saw (and that assumes they know exactly how many weapons the copter team saw, and where they were dropped/thrown in the mahem)?

They'd probably have a pretty good rummage around for any weapons, to stop them falling into enemy hands, if nothing else. They didn't find any. I'd say that's pretty conclusive proof that there weren't any.

No matter what you think you saw.

Soldiers learn how to kill people. Soldiers kill people. Bad soldiers kill the wrong people badly.

how often has it happened with regular civilians?

Exactly – and judging by the attitude of most of the military people on here they will always automatically 'look out for their own'. 🙄

No matter what you think you saw.

Look at the video. There's clearly a bloke (pointed out by wikileak or whoever) as a cameraman. He has a small-ish (300mm?) lensed camera on a strap around his waist, that's clear. One of his accomplices also seems to be carrying a small over-shoulder bag of some sort, seems unimportant, but near the back there are clearly 2 guys, both with long stick-like objects hanging around their mid-thigh height, knocking them about. So what's the more likely event:

1) It was an iraqi photographers day out, several were having a picnic, some with 800mm+ F11 (read as long and stupidly narrow) lenses, who are particularly careless with their equipment and don't mind knocking them about. The only thing found was a selection of DSLRs and body parts.
2) There was a photographer with several armed men, some or all were killed and some of the weapons were mislaid in the time between killing and ground forces moving in. The only thing found was the thing that was no-longer of use to surrounding people, a camera.
3) They were all gunmen, the army dislike their own and planted cameras in place of AK47s to shame them in front of the world.

Your call.

coffeeking
so you think the american investigation that, im assuming, studied the images in much greater detail than on the youtube video
wouldnt have said something if there wasnt the merest possibility of it being an rpg?
and while the ground troop were having a laugh when they were running over the dead civilians in their bradleys, their attitude changed when they saw the 2 children, if their had been weapons there surely they would have looked found them

infact im surprised they didnt just plant them (see the other article about digging bullets out of afgahn women)

kimbers – I'm not sure I'd trust an american investigation to tell you anything truthful to be honest. I'm open minded, but I certainly can see what appear to be weapons (certainly not just cameras) in the vid and I'd trust the pilot/vid operators eye over the youtube vid myself. The attitude of them to the children is unimportant, they were clearly not exactly being very thorough and proper in their recovery/checking of the dead guys, so why do you think they were thorough in their search for their weapons? Recovering their weapons to prevent them being re-used would be like bailing a flood with a teacup.

Exactly – and judging by the attitude of most of the military people on here they will always automatically 'look out for their own'.

What? There's not been any of that here at all. What has been correctly pointed out is that if you have not experienced these type of situations, then you are not qualified to judge the actions of those who are.
My views are completely objective. Weapons present = fair kills. Weapons not present = illegal kills. I don't agree with the occupation of Iraq, but that was the labour party's fault and all those who voted for them.

It's almost lunchtime. I think I might fancy a Minty Lamb Bap…

the point is just because someone is carrying a weapon gives them no right to shoot them

its not ilegal in iraq (or america) and the rules of engagement require them to be under attack before returning fire, that helicopter pilot just seemed to make that bit up

i agree its labours fault and why we should all be voting lib dem as they were they only peole to object to the war

dodgy dossier or not 150 people in parliament had the balls to voye against the war and ignore their own party lines

ive voted lib dem at every opportunity since and ill continue to do so till we are out of these places

the point is just because someone is carrying a weapon gives them no right to shoot them

It does if you are american, and rightly so IMHO.

its not ilegal in iraq (or america) and the rules of engagement require them to be under attack before returning fire, that helicopter pilot just seemed to make that bit up

Depends on the reasons for them being there doesn't it? "our" side don't have to be shot at first, this isn't a civilian UK street where someones life has to be in danger first – they are (apparently) trying to flush out the enemy – do you think they do that by going into places and waiting to be shot at? I don't know the laws involved, clearly, but I suspect a) it does look like it was an unprovoked attack (I didn't see any shooting, I agree) but they clearly were armed, and it took 8 minutes for the ground forces to arrive to what appears to be a very badly damaged area – it wouldn't surprise me if a few badly damaged guns were missed in the clean-up.

I thought the rules of engagement stated that they shouldn't fire until fired upon

An apache is fairly nimble and well armoured, and as not one person in that video seemed to acknowledge that it was even there, i think its fairly safe to say they were a fair bit out of range.

Doesn't matter what what knowledge you have regarding war or whether you've served or not, what we saw and heard from that footage was murder plain and simple but because they're iraqi's they're just "collateral damage"

There was no attempt to identify themselves or even fire warning shots, instead they just went in and tore them up, then when help arrived (and showing no evidence of weapons or that they were there to do anything more than help the wounded) they tore them apart too.

Now i'm sure that terrible things have happened to the soldiers in Iraq and "support our heroes" blah blah blah, but that's not an issue here, this was clearly murder and nothing else

I thought the rules of engagement stated that they shouldn't fire until fired upon

That was my original thought too, I agree their basis of engagement seems weak (I've not doubted that at all) – I didn't spot any firing and none of them seemed to be being aggressive toward the copter. But they were calling back repeatedly for multiple requests to engage someone who clearly wasn't firing at them, and the latter times they didn't even seem to suggest anyone was firing but got given permission to engage?

What has been correctly pointed out is that if you have not experienced these type of situations, then you are not qualified to judge the actions of those who are.

But in this case the men with "experience" got it wrong and killed innocent men. Also, if the incident was left to the men with "experience", innocent men would have been killed and the reasons why they were killed would have passed or been covered up. Luckily, people who are non military or"not experienced" were able to help bring the story out which could possibly help prevent such tragic mistakes happening again. I think that qualifies civilians to have a say and a right to opinion, don't you?

No.
What makes you think you'd have made a better call? Would it be fair if the receptionist at your work started criticising a poor calls you had made in your professional capacity? People make mistakes and its tragic if innocents are harmed as a result but I do not think even for a second that the pilots go looking for civilians to kill. If the military act out of the ROE (I think the US and UK ROE are quite different) then they deserve to be punished. What is clear is that there's not enough known about this to draw a reasonable conclusion.
In this particular situation and IF some were armed, they were clearly hunched on the corner waiting for something, most probably a convoy was on the way for which the apache was providing security. So (knowing your mates are down there) do you wait for the RPG to slam into the lead hummer before engaging? Like I said, it's not easy and we don't know the details.

backhander, would you care to explain your answer rather than just saying "No" ?

In answer to your questions I've not said I would have made a better call. I don't have a receptionist but to the point I think you are making, no one is above criticism or the law, especially those in important roles like the military.

The guys top centre of the screen at around 3:45 – looks suspiciously like an RPG…

So (knowing your mates are down there) do you wait for the RPG to slam into the lead hummer before engaging?

No, the general view seems to be that UK/US lives are worth much more than Iraqi ones, so it's worth killing many Iraqis (even if they are civilians/innocent) to potentially save one US/UK life? Isn't that basically what you are saying?

Roper; RTFP

Luckily, people who are non military or"not experienced" were able to help bring the story out which could possibly help prevent such tragic mistakes happening again

What is clear is that there's not enough known about this to draw a reasonable conclusion.

You do not know that it was a mistake, it all hinges on whether there were weapons present. If there were, it was a good call.

no one is above criticism or the law, especially those in important roles like the military.

Agreed;

If the military act out of the ROE (I think the US and UK ROE are quite different) then they deserve to be punished.

What shouldn't happen is that people draw conclusions due to their personal convictions (very much like the guardian article) especially when we do not know the facts surrounding the incident. As I have stated, if there were no weapons then the action was not legal and the pilots could rightly find themselves in pokey. the point I'm trying to make which is reflected in various posts by others is that it is not easy to make these decisions, we can't tell if there were weapons or not even with the luxury of being able to pause and rewind the footage.

No, the general view seems to be that UK/US lives are worth much more than Iraqi ones, so it's worth killing many Iraqis (even if they are civilians/innocent) to potentially save one US/UK life? Isn't that basically what you are saying?

That's just bollocks, the pilot is a US pilot wearing a US uniform. His orders are to protect the US convoy not to determine the comparitive worth of life according to national identity.

But aren't the US soldiers there to 'Protect The Iraqi People'? Iraqi people have been killed by US troops. Doesn't seem to be working, does it?

In the heat of battle really awful things happen and awful decisions get made. We owe our troops some leeway in that regard, although their actions should ALWAYS be questioned.

However, the one very clear point from that video is there was NO battle!

backhander, calm down and stop being offensive. Also have a look at these two posts of yours before you tell people to read the posts more clearly.

You do not know that it was a mistake, it all hinges on whether there were weapons present. If there were, it was a good call.

but you also said

It's quite clearly a mistake. They are humans and do make them.

.

I will another go at the point I'm trying to make and you are missing.
I said,

What did you see with your 18 years experience and service see that us ignorant civilians clearly can't see?

You answered

Everything. You can see f*** all from the inside of a newspaper.
Hi Mark <waves>. You still at EOD or back at the sqn?

and

Never served have you roper?
If you think you see more than the boots on the ground, then you are very very naive

The point I have been trying to make is if it was not for Reuters and civilians then this story could well have been hidden by the military, which it looks like was the case. If innocent men and children were shot at and some of those men were killed then it has to be investigated and plans put in to try to prevent it in the future. So in this case the newsmen and civilians seem to have seen the situation clearer than the "boots on the ground". which is why I said

I think that qualifies civilians to have a say and a right to opinion, don't you?

Do you still disagree with that last sentence?

You do not know that it was a mistake, it all hinges on whether there were weapons present. If there were, it was a good call.

but you also said

It's quite clearly a mistake. They are humans and do make them.
Case in point, I didn't look too closely to start with, having reviewed the footage, I think that the two behind them (unsurprisingly not pointed out on the film) are indeed armed (around 3:55). I also think it likely however that they are reuters' security.

So in this case the newsmen and civilians seem to have seen the situation clearer than the "boots on the ground".

How?

Despite the pilot/gunner actions some of the ground troops were trying to help the children. Couldn't be easy to see kids shot up then being told to hand them over to Iraqi Police when it's obvious they need emergency treatment 🙁

backhander
It would appear the gunners misjudged the situation and innocent people may have been killed because of that. It would also appear that somewhere along the chain of command someone thought it best to try to hide that information. Luckily some staff at Reuters persisted in asking what happened to two of their staff, and using the legal system they are starting to find out.
If it was left to te military no one would really know what happened, family members of the men killed would have been told the men had weapons and were or were ready to fire, as these were the accounts of the gunners and pilots.
If there is a lacking in training or communication, then these areas need be looked into and improved. That would mean less innocent people dieing and less solders killing innocent people. So

in this case the newsmen and civilians seem to have seen the situation clearer than the "boots on the ground"

means, in this case, Reuters seem to have seen the situation clearer than the soldiers. Is that clearer?

and

I think that qualifies civilians to have a say and a right to opinion, don't you?

What has been correctly pointed out is that if you have not experienced these type of situations, then you are not qualified to judge the actions of those who are.

this is clearly bollards, in any Civilised Society the Military should and is directly answerable to the public they serve, and anyone in the military that thinks otherwise should really be examining his/her motivation. Otherwise you end up with the "A Few Good Men" defence…

The problem here isn't really the Apache crew, although it seems clear that the pilot and gunner of crazy horse one-eight need to be perhaps a little less gung ho, but they thought they saw weapons, they asked permission to fire, received it, and opened fire. The problem is that the Military in this case have chosen to cover up what is clearly a major clusterf**k. Which leads us to a more interesting question. Why does the US Military feel the need for the cover-up in this instance? It's not like these things don't happen, and soldiers don't make mistakes, they do, all the time. The US military, despite what some on here think, isn't some shadowy organisation hell bent on distorting the truth whenever the situation arises, it serves them and the US Govt. no practicable purpose to act like that.

So, why in this case?

Edit, Forgot to say, of the crew of Crazy horse one eight, we don't know, for instance that they may have been told to look out for specifically 6-8 men who are armed and heading in such-and such direction. They go looking, and oh look, find them… The point is, taken out of context, or viewed in isolation the video "evidence" may not be as clear cut as we may assume on first viewing…

Nope,

It would appear the gunners misjudged the situation and innocent people may have been killed because of that.

You don't know this. I don't know this. I don't think anyone does.
I don't think the pilots would have knowingly opened up on innocent unarmed civilians. How could you improve training or stop this happening again if this is the case? So, no I don't agree that civilians have seen the situation clearer.

this is clearly bollards, in any Civilised Society the Military should and is directly answerable to the public they serve, and anyone in the military that thinks otherwise should really be examining his/her motivation. Otherwise you end up with the "A Few Good Men" defence..

FFS, RTFP;

If the military act out of the ROE (I think the US and UK ROE are quite different) then they deserve to be punished.

What roper is alluding to is like allowing a postman to critique the work of an architect. No offence to postmen intended.

it just makes me sad and annoyed.

"Forgot to say, of the crew of Crazy horse one eight, we don't know, for instance that they may have been told to look out for specifically 6-8 men who are armed and heading in such-and such direction" We do know it's in the dialogue they were requested to take out a group on a roof top with ak47's by hotel two six , that's why the ground troops want to cordon off the buildings to ssc them.
It looks like the Apache crew decided to target people walking in the street on the mistaken assumption that they were involved , the quality of that mistake appears open to interpretation. what appears clear to me is the cold assassination of the clearly unarmed civilians in the van for picking up the body . They start by suggesting picking up weapons but drop that idea before getting permission to fire. That act appears unarguably to be deliberately wrong.

Calm down dear, I did read your post. I just had something to say about this particular comment. The military cannot use as a defence "You weren't there, man" . Is merely the point I wanted to make…

I mostly agree with what you're saying, which seems to be "It's very hard to judge"

What roper is alluding to is like allowing a postman to critique the work of an architect. No offence to postmen intended.

LOL. Clearly that's not what I've been saying is it?
Perhaps you need to go back and read it through again, maybe it will start sinking in then.