this will have some consequences......

[McDaniel]

Sorry I made a mistake by having hope, around these forum we could behave like grown up people, and handle this with given respect.

 

I learned my lesson today.

 

Sad

 

McDan out

Edited April 9, 2010 by McDaniel

[L4key]

The defence:

 

For those unaware of my background, I have spent quite a lot of time (a conservative estimate would be around 4500 hours) viewing aerial footage of Iraq (note: this time was not in viewing TADS video, but footage from Raven, Shadow, and Predator feeds). I am certain my voice can be heard on several transmissions with several different Crazyhorse aircraft, as I have called them to assist troops on the ground more times in my 24-months in Iraq than I could even attempt to guess. I need no reassurances to determine the presence of an RPG7 or an AK-variant rifle, especially not from a craft flying as low as Apache (even after the video has been reduced in dimensions to a point at which it is nearly useless).

 

Several commenters on Twitter and You Tube have expressed a great deal of anger towards the United States and members of its military. Many of them, unsurprisingly, have wished death on us all. Part of the problem, which is far more complex than I have the time or desire to fully discuss, lies in the presentation of above video.

 

What could have been the case is identified for the viewer quite readily. What certainly is true, in several key moments, is not. When presenting source media as the core of your argument, it is grossly irresponsible to fail to make known variables not shown within that media. If you are going to take the time to highlight certain things in said media, you should make certain all key elements are brought to the attention of your viewer.

 

WikiLeaks failed to do these things in this video, happily highlighting the positions and movements of the slain reporter and photographer while ignoring those of their company. It is also, until their arrival on scene, never clear where exactly the ground forces are in reference to Crazyhorse 18 and flight. I can make a pretty good guess, given my background. I would guess the same cannot be said by the vast majority of WikiLeaks’ target audience.

 

Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment. This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18. At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache. This all goes by without any mention whatsoever from WikiLeaks, and that is unacceptable.

 

At 4:08 to 4:18 another misidentification is made by Crazyhorse 18, where what appears to clearly be a man with a telephoto lens (edit to add: one of the Canon EF 70-200mm offerings) on an SLR is identified as wielding an RPG. The actual case is not threatening at all, though the misidentified case presents a major perceived threat to the aircraft and any coalition forces in the direction of its orientation. This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error.

 

(note: It has to be taken into consideration that there is no way that the Crazyhorse crew had the knowledge, as everyone who has viewed this had, that the man on the corner of that wall was a photographer. The actions of shouldering an RPG (bringing a long cylindrical object in line with one’s face) and framing a photo with a long telephoto lens quite probably look identical to an aircrew in those conditions.)

 

I have made the call to engage targets from the sky several times, and know (especially during the surge) that such calls are not taken lightly. Had I been personally involved with this mission, and had access to real-time footage, I would have recommended against granting permission. Any of the officers with whom I served are well aware that I would continue voicing that recommendation until ordered to do otherwise. A few of them threatened me with action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for doing so. Better officers than they, fortunately, were always ready to go to bat for me and keep that from happening. That said, if either of the clearly visible weapons been oriented towards aircraft, vehicles, troops, or civilians I would have cleared Crazyhorse 18 hot in a heartbeat and defended my actions to the battle staff if needed.

 

(nte: The above is based on the number of times footage from a UAV under my unit’s control produced visual evidence that showed a lesser threat level than that reported as possible by either attack aviation or troops on the ground. Such footage may not have been available during this incident, and as such if the camera was thought to be an RPG the engagement of the personnel was well within any ROE I have ever seen. By making the call, I mean that I have quite literally been the voice heard over the radio clearing an engagement. It is important to note that while I was a position to influence the decision, the actual decision was not mine to make – that falls to the officer-in-charge, not the non-commissioned officer-in-charge.)

 

The point at which I cannot support the actions of Crazyhorse 18, at all, comes when the van arrives somewhere around 9:45 and is engaged. Unless someone had jumped out with an RPG ready to fire on the aircraft, there was no threat warranting a hail of 30mm from above. Might it have been prudent to follow the vehicle (perhaps with a UAV), or at least put out a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) for the vehicle? Absolutely without question. Was this portion of the engagement even remotely understandable, to me? No, it was not.

 

All in all, the engagement clearly went bad. I would have objected when I was a private first-class pulling triple duty as an RTO, driver, and vehicle gunner. I would have objected when I was a sergeant working well above my pay-grade as the Brigade Battle NCO. My assessment is based on my experiences in that very theater of operations. I did not see a threat that warranted an engagement at any point. I did, however, see the elements indicating such a threat could develop at any moment. (note: As I did, in fact, already know several things about the situation when I viewed this footage I cannot say with any certainty that had I viewed the exact same footage at the time of the incident that I would not have concluded the camera was an RPG as well.) People can make their judgements however they wish, but what is clearly visible is not the entire picture. I’ll also say that I’ve seen Crazyhorse elements do some pretty drastic maneuvers to protect troops and civilians alike. Those pilots have saved the lives of my friends many times, and a bad shoot is not going to ruin them as far as I’m concerned.

 

 

Not the poster's words, copied from somewhere else - I'm not sure of who it is though! Sorry that isn't clearer!!

Edited April 9, 2010 by L4key
Insufficient referencing.

[McDaniel]

L4key

 

You have my deepest respect, for posting this very fair wright up from a "witness" point of view.

 

As you also pointed out, I was very disturbed in the beginning, but then I watched closer and the fact that I saw the AK and the RPG at around 3.45 made me rethink, I tried to get the whole picture.

 

I have no right to judge or interpret, but some things went wrong in this engagement, and I feel sorry for all the souls which got involved in this.

 

McDan out

Edited April 9, 2010 by McDaniel

[Shaman]

War is hell, shit happens all the time then.

 

Peace!

[Bucic]

My understanding is that AH-64 crews engage armed individuals which are confirmed that they are not either Afghan Army nor friendlies. The crew identified the group of people as armed correctly. They only failed to identify video equipment.. Can we blame them? I think we can't.

 

What I find the most disgusting is that some people are trying to imply that the crew should have seen the children and stop shooting.

 

Here's what I wrote earlier

 

I watched the whole video. Those people appeared to be armed (at one point AK-47 clearly visible). Camera optics taken as RPG... All of this at probably worse viewing conditions (shaky, small LCD display) than we all have using fullscreen mode on YouTube. I'm open to suggestions on what could have given the gunner a clue that he deals with press - not Taliban. IMO the communications is the only thing that failed. The mission operator had no information that those journalists will be at that exact location. The mission operator hadn't had that information so it's even more silly to blame gunners. And what's with the children. Was that a moronic attempt to imply that those who did the shooting should have seen them?! I hope not.

 

Regarding soldiers' attitude. Some people see racism on the video. They should certainly seek qualified help. Possibly the worst thing being said there is something like "look at those dead bustards". Well, those who probably could kill soldier's squad buddies one day ARE bustards to him. And the fact is they were dead.

[sniffer]

Don't want to comment on situation cause it's war... shaman said what I think about it very well...

 

Link to report: Report of Investigation UP AR 15-6

 

[Lucas_From_Hell]

L4key (or whoever wrote that) has a good point, but there's still a bit of the 'trigger-happy' asshole involved, as shown around 4:50, when the pilots say:

 

-"Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards."

-"Nice."

 

Later on the van incident, before it arrives, they can't stop wishing the guy to get a weapon, and when the van stops by (probably to help the wounded man), they ask in every possible way for permission to shoot just for the sake of blowing things up, which they end up getting.

 

No one is saying all people from Crazyhorse unit are murderers or anything like that, but those guys involved in the incident are clearly a bunch of assholes shooting people at will.

 

Their "collecting bodies" referred to a van who stoped to help some guy in the street, and nothing else. Funnily enough, they already started transmissing their story before the van even stopped.

 

Not to mention they also were kind enough to share some of their ammunition with the civilian buildings around, without giving a damn to any civilians inside them.

 

Well, at least that's a very fair and reasonable war... isn't it?

[159th_Viper]

This must be the third thread I have seen on these boards relating to the same incident.......

 

Seriously Folks, this is not the time nor the place for these types of threads, especially not on these Boards - As I said before, if one has an itch to scratch, take it to Apache-Clips :disgust:

[L4key]

159th Respect your opinion but this is a discussion thread and is in the wider media so why not? If it needs to be moved or merged to a 'technically' more apt destination then no problem but I can't see the harm otherwise.

 

To clarify that is not my opinion - god I wish I had enough time to write that - I had italliced after copying to show that, sorry I don't want to pass it off as my own.

 

IMHO I do agree with the main slant of the defence, but I would add that the gung-ho rhetoric you hear is not going to help the coalition, fair enough these guys are in a war and may have lost buddies but a certain amount of professionalism wouldn't go amiss. I'm going to be a bugger now and suggest that I would hope that UK forces would have maintained a more apt discipline in their communications. Save the verbal high fives for the mess room.

 

[ducks under a table] :smilewink:

[159th_Viper]

Video/Link to said video and any discussion thereto is a blatant infringement of Rule 1.1 of the Forum rules. Could go on, but that right there is enough......

 

As said - this is not the place.

[McDaniel]

My understanding is that AH-64 crews engage armed individuals which are confirmed that they are not either Afghan Army nor friendlies. The crew identified the group of people as armed correctly. They only failed to identify video equipment.. Can we blame them? I think we can't.

 

What I find the most disgusting is that some people are trying to imply that the crew should have seen the children and stop shooting.

 

Here's what I wrote earlier

 

 

Sorry, Bucic, but before you write stuff like this, make sure you are informed.

1. this engagement was in Iraq and there is no Taliban....

2. ROE are clear, no weapon, no danger, no engagement. Have you seen any weapon or dangerous situation in the part where the Van shows up?

 

I know its very easy to make hard and radical statements, if you are not involved in a incident.

 

I also feel sorry for the guys, which took the shots, because every normal human comes to the conclusion in a debrief, that they overreacted, which I am relating back to fear and combat-stress, but be sure, they are not happy about that.

 

This kind of combat environment is very hard on soldiers and officers, they have to make decisions in seconds and under life threatening situations, errors will happen.

 

McDan out

Edited April 9, 2010 by McDaniel

[RedTiger]

159th Respect your opinion but this is a discussion thread and is in the wider media so why not?

 

Because topics like this have a tendency to not end well. I'm assuming that you are not new to the internet and I'm sure you've seen this before?

 

Besides the possibility of someone taking the forum rules and applying them to the video and finding it offensive, this controversial nature of this creates, quite obviously, controversy.

 

Now magnify this this a couple times if you're on an international board with a diverse group with equally diverse opinions. Magnify it again if its a board having to do with military topics, which by their very nature involve killing human beings.

 

All it takes is one post as a spark to start the poo-throwing. Then its "Hi mom! IBTL"

[McDaniel]

Sorry for the repost, I just thought that this video fits very well to the topic:

 

reality/ Military and Aviation

 

well and I hoped for people to handle it with respect, but as Viper has pointed out right, there is so many different opinion and views on topics like this.

 

 

McDan out

 

Moderators: feel free to close the thread, but we all will hear and see the consequences of this leak, it will be ugly, more hate, more violence..... just sad.

Edited April 9, 2010 by McDaniel

[L4key]

Video/Link to said video and any discussion thereto is a blatant infringement of Rule 1.1 of the Forum rules. Could go on, but that right there is enough......

 

As said - this is not the place.

 

Ok, so just read rule 1.1 and still don't follow, but I'm not a mod and they can obviously interpret for themselves.

 

There are clearly two schools of thought on the topic and it's interesting to see what people think. No one has been offensive in doing that I don't think.

 

Look at it this way, it beats another 'what aircraft do you want to see next/where's my A10 at' thread! :lol:

[L4key]

Because topics like this have a tendency to not end well. I'm assuming that you are not new to the internet and I'm sure you've seen this before?

 

Besides the possibility of someone taking the forum rules and applying them to the video and finding it offensive, this controversial nature of this creates, quite obviously, controversy.

 

Now magnify this this a couple times if you're on an international board with a diverse group with equally diverse opinions. Magnify it again if its a board having to do with military topics, which by their very nature involve killing human beings.

 

All it takes is one post as a spark to start the poo-throwing. Then its "Hi mom! IBTL"

 

Thats when the forums are at there most entertaining! Have you seen the factions warring in PAK-FA v F22 thread??

 

Seriously though I'm not on a big free speech crusade so I'll bow completely if the feeling is against it and do understand your reasoning.

[Bucic]

Sorry, Bucic, but before you write stuff like this, make sure you are informed.

1. this engagement was in Iraq and there is no Taliban....

2. ROE are clear, no weapon, no danger, no engagement. Have you seen any weapon or dangerous situation in the part where the Van shows up?

 

I know its very easy to make hard and radical statements, if you are not involved in a incident.

 

I also feel sorry for the guys, which took the shots, because every normal human comes to the conclusion in a debrief, that they overreacted, which I am relating back to fear and combat-stress, but be sure, they are not happy about that.

 

This kind of combat environment is very hard on soldiers and officers, they have to make decisions in seconds and under life threatening situations, errors will happen.

 

McDan out

1. I meant insurgents of course. This is what happens when some word is banging your head from a TV for 12 hours a day...

 

2. Gunner saw armed men among the first group of people. If the first group was identified as insurgents then I don't blame the gunner that he treated the second group as hostile too. Current ROE clearly does not include subjects to be hostile at the moment as a mandatory condition. Otherwise the Internet is swarming of videos of Apaches killing... hikers armed with AK-47s and RPGs. It's not a sarcasm, just to be clear. Also my posts are not just to express my "rapid" opinions. I'm rather looking forward to be corrected by someone who has some insight knowledge. As I see it now you consider my opinions valid (except those misfortunate Talibans...).

[Vault]

The attack on that Nissan Bongo's occupants was blatantly outside ROE. The gunner states "go on just pick up a weapon" as if looking for any excuse, but he didn't pick up any weapons and the Nissan driver was unarmed but yet he still got cleared hot. Unless the video was edited to exclude datails that could of possbily warranted the attack on that Bongo that was murder. That clip was a D-I-S-G-U-S-T-I-N-G example of the epitome of humanity, wish I'd never watched it TBH and I have to agree with Viper nasty shit like that doesn't belong here.

[RedTiger]

Thats when the forums are at there most idiotic, disgraceful, and pointless!

 

Fixed that one for you. ;) Because:

 

Have you seen the factions warring in PAK-FA v F22 thread??

 

Um, no. If you think what has happened in the PAK-FA thread is the same thing that happens in threads like this, you need to re-think that one. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Bucic]

Don't want to comment on situation cause it's war... shaman said what I think about it very well...

 

Link to report: Report of Investigation UP AR 15-6

 

Thanks.

 

Look at it this way, it beats another 'what aircraft do you want to see next/where's my A10 at' thread! :lol:

I like your way of thinking :D ED should start canceling those threads starters' serial numbers by now :P

 

@RedTiger, 159th_Viper:

As far as I'm concerned this thread goes without any non-gentlemen posts and were on the subject until someone tossed a bunch of "COSE THIS CLOSE THIS!" posts. This is why I kindly ask anyone interested in knowledge and proper discussion to ignore closeit! posts.

 

 

IMHO I do agree with the main slant of the defence, but I would add that the gung-ho rhetoric you hear is not going to help the coalition, fair enough these guys are in a war and may have lost buddies but a certain amount of professionalism wouldn't go amiss. I'm going to be a bugger now and suggest that I would hope that UK forces would have maintained a more apt discipline in their communications. Save the verbal high fives for the mess room.

This is very sensible and I think of that too every time I hear US/UK troops radio communications. On the other hand this cowboy-iiha attitude is so standard in their communications nowadays that it has absolutely no power as an argument in this particular case.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Bucic

[flanker1]

**** these cowardly ****in american bastards. . . let them eat their own shit. . .

 

i m not a friend of those words, but in this case. . . BASTARDS!

[L4key]

**** these cowardly ****in american bastards. . . let them eat their own shit. . .

 

i m not a friend of those words, but in this case. . . BASTARDS!

 

:doh:

[McDaniel]

Sorry to all, this was not my intention, Flanker please remove your post, its not helping to show some respect about the whole story, for any side or affected people.

 

McDan out

 

:cry:

Edited April 9, 2010 by McDaniel

[flanker1]

sure, this was not your intention.

 

respect about the story? this story is sad as it can be. . . respect to the one side - the victims of this awful tragedy. . . scorn regarding the commiter of this barbarian act.

[GGTharos]

Thread closed due to lack of civility from some.