Analysis of Apache Gunship killing Iraqis Ploughing a field

[Swede]

Run time: 08:44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5zzMIRznDk   Posted on YouTube: October 23, 2006 By YouTube Member: Thunderf00t Views on YouTube: 53202   Posted on DU: December 20, 2006 By DU Member: Swede Views on DU: 3221

 
WARNING. Here's the link to the graphic video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGTaJ9Iu4dM

[Freeusfromthechurch]

1. This needs to be investigated ASAP

Damn this pisses me off. When the hell are we going to learn the simple truth that violence begets violence.
Come on people!

[wtmusic]

5. This video has been around for years

And horrible as it is, it's likely the tip of the iceberg.

[jberryhill]

6. It was

Note the tubular object deposited in the field at the beginning of the video


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/apache_video_040109-1.html

Videotape from the gun camera of a U.S. Apache helicopter shows two suspected Iraqi insurgents handling what the helicopter pilots believe is a weapon.
ABCNEWS.com

Rules of Engagement
Videotape Shows U.S. Helicopter Crew Firing on Suspected Iraqi Insurgents
By Martha Raddatz
ABCNEWS.com

Jan. 9— Graphic video footage from the gun camera of a U.S. Apache helicopter provides a window into the rules of engagement that often determine life and death in Iraq.


The video, obtained by ABCNEWS, shows grainy images of three Iraqis on the ground handling a long cylindrical object that the helicopter pilots believe is a weapon.
The pilots, from the Army's 4th Infantry Division, ask their commanders for permission to engage, then take the three men out one by one, using the Apache's devastating 30 mm cannons.

Nighttime Scene

The video opens with the helicopter tracking a man in a pickup truck north of Baghdad on Dec. 1, one day after the 4th Infantry Division engaged in the bloodiest battles with Iraqi insurgents since the end of major combat.

The pilots watch as the man pulls over and gets out to talk to another man waiting by a larger truck.

"Uh, big truck over here," one of the pilots is heard saying. "He's having a little powwow."

The pickup driver looks around, then reaches into his vehicle, takes out a tube-shaped object that appears to be about 4 or 5 feet long, and runs away from the road into a field. He drops the object in the field and heads back to the trucks.

"I got a guy running throwing a weapon," one of the pilots says. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, an ABCNEWS consultant who viewed the tape, said the object looked like a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, "or something larger than a rifle."

The pilots check in with their operational commander, who is monitoring the situation. When they tell him they are sure the man was carrying a weapon, he tells them: "Engage. Smoke him."

The pilots wait as a tractor arrives on the scene, near the spot where the pickup driver dropped the object. One of the Iraqis approaches the tractor driver.

Then, within minutes, the Apache pilots open fire with the heavy 30 mm cannon, killing first the Iraqi in the field, then the tractor driver. The pilots then fire at the large truck and wait to see if they hit the last of three men.

When he rolls out from under the truck, one of the pilots says, "He's wounded."

The other pilot says, "Hit him," and the Apache opens fire again, killing the man.

The Apache fires nearly 100 30 mm cannon rounds in all.


Engagement Called Justified

A senior Army official who viewed the tape said the pilots had the legal right to kill the men because they were carrying a weapon. He said there were no ground troops in the area and if the Apache pilots had let the three Iraqis go, the men might have gone on to kill American troops.

Keane agreed. "Those weapons were obviously not being pointed at them in particular, but they are using those weapons in their minds for lethal means and they have a right to interfere with that," he said.

Anthony Cordesman, an ABCNEWS defense consultant who also viewed the tape, said the Apache pilots would have had a much clearer picture of the scene than what was recorded on the videotape. He also said they would have had intelligence about the identity of the men in the vehicles. "They're not getting a sort of blurred picture. They have a combination of intelligence and much better imagery than we can see."

As to whether the Apache pilots could have called in ground troops to apprehend the men, Cordesman said: "In this kind of war, wherever you find organized resistance among the insurgents, you have to act immediately. If you wait to send in ground troops almost invariably your enemy is going to be gone."

Army officials acknowledged that the 30 mm cannons used by the Apache gunners were far bigger than what was needed to kill the men, but said it is the smallest weapon the Apaches have.

[wtmusic]

7. "The men might have gone on to kill American troops".

"Saddam might be building an atomic weapon".

In Neocon Connect-The-Dots, the picture is whatever your mind wants it to be.

[jberryhill]

10. It sure is...

...especially when seeing a section of video.

You can't tell, from that video, what was going on before it began or why the helicopter was there. But it's a safe bet that "plowing a field" doesn't involve a pickup truck, a cargo truck, and some dude running across the field to toss a several foot long tubular object with a tag hanging off it.

There aren't enough dots to unambiguously connect in that piece of video.

[Swede]

11. The tractor was plowing the field,that was obvious.

The guy in the half ton was relieving the other guy on the tractor,they switched places. The guy in the big truck,who knows,the boss checking his workers? A long tube,that was carelessly tossed,no hurry to leave,they all appear to be smoking cigarettes. Yep,blast 'em.

[jberryhill]

12. I don't know what happened...

But "casually tossing" a long rigid tubular object into a field that is being worked by a disc plow doesn't strike you as a bit odd?

[Swede]

13. He tossed it where the soil had not be tilled yet,he then jumped

on the tractor that stopped right where he tossed it,possibly marking the place for the tractor to stop. He's working a field for god's sake.

[wtmusic]

15. A bit odd. That justifies killing all of them?

Are you out of your mind?

[jberryhill]

17. No, I'm not

and I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.

I said nothing about justification. The entire adventure is unjustified, in case you missed that point.

What I did say is that there is no way to know what was going on before that sequence begins, or what that tubular object is.

IED's and ambush sites don't just bloom at night on their own. Was that what was going on here? I don't know.

Since you are a bit on the dense side, have someone help you with "I don't know" if you don't know what that means.

[rman]

16. which part of "plowing at dusk" and "field markers" did you not understand?

[jberryhill]

18. So now it's "dusk"

...and that object is a "field marker".

Well, I guess that settles it then. Just what is a "field marker"?

[reorg]

19. Seems like a reasonable assumption

"Field Markers are 60 inch acetate flag poles with 13 by 13 inch red nylon flags and galvanized steel ground spikes. Field Markers come in a set of 4, feature a strong spring base and won't break or shatter. Read more ..."

http://www.redcarpetshopping.com/Catalog/high_quality/Field_Marker?cm_mmc=Shopbots-_-Dealtime-_-Field_Marker-_-199735#features

[jberryhill]

20. It's all about assumptions

The helicopter crew had a better view than the gun camera video and assumed it was a weapon. Also, time did not begin at the start of that video, so we don't know where the pickup truck came from, or why the heli crew was watching these folks in the first place.

Me? I don't know what it was.

But if the point is that the helicopter crew made a mistaken assumption about what the object was, then what you have is a mistaken assumption. You don't need to go to Iraq for that, as right here in the US people get shot when doing things like reaching for their wallet to show ID to a police officer, etc.

We shouldn't be there in the first place, but I do not believe this video tells the complete story, including whatever assumptions were made by the crew, or how reasonable those assumptions were.

This activity, at least, was correctly identified:

http://www.youtube.com/v/mc0uulemjRQ

[Ian_rd]

21. The heart of the matter is this: "Did the soldiers reasonably think it was a weapon?"

I really don't think it matters what the object actually was with regard to the question of whether or not the troops were justified in killing these men. What matters is if the troops thought it was a weapon, and if they were thinking in a reasonable fashion.

I don't mean to imply that it doesn't matter if these men were in fact mistakenly killed over a bundle of field markers (if that's what they were), it matters tremendously. But in judging the specific question of whether the troops were justified in opening fire, I repeat:

*** What matters is if the troops thought it was a weapon, and if they were thinking in a reasonable fashion. ***

If you read the articles that jberryhill posted and watch the video, it is clear that the troops' assumption that the object was a weapon somehow evolved into a forgone conclusion by the military with their statement that the shooting was justified, even though this "weapon" was not pointed at these particular troops. Hang on a minute, they don't know it was a weapon and they never did. This is incredibly dishonest and highly suspect. Even so, I find it obvious that these troops, at least at the time, thought it was a weapon.

Now the question remains: Was this thought reasonable? This is highly open to opinion, but I find it unreasonable for them to assume it was a weapon. If our soldiers are going to assume that every long and cylindrical object is a weapon, then our Army is working under a debilitating paranoia. My opinion is that this shooting was unjustified.

What I see in that video are a couple of scared troops who see danger everywhere they look (which is perfectly understandable). They saw a few locals who they considered suspicious, and in a fearful knee-jerk reaction, killed three men who, by all indications, were innocent civilians.

I am fully willing to accept that civilians will be killed in war, and many times it will be at no fault of anyone. But I find fault in this case, with the troops, and with the leaders who sent them there with no justification to start with.

[jberryhill]

22. Bingo

"What matters is if the troops thought it was a weapon, and if they were thinking in a reasonable fashion."

Nailed it. That's what matters. And that's why one would want to know the backstory up to the point this video begins.

Many folks do not appreciate that a "correct" decision and a "reasonable" decision are two different things. Nobody makes correct decisions 100% of the time, and what matters is whether the decision is reasonable.

My question here is, why was the helicopter there in the first place? Had there been specific intelligence or reason to follow the guy in the pickup truck to that point? Those sorts of questions would set the context for how "suspicious" it seemed to the crew when he ran across the field, tossed a tubular object (which could more clearly be seen by the crew than by us in this video), and ran back.

The video alone does not provide the entire factual context in which the decision was made, rightly or wrongly, that these were combatants.

And, just to be clear again, my answer is "I don't know". It is not "it was reasonable" or "they were justified".

And that is always the problem with fighting a guerrilla insurgency, and why virtually nobody has ever defeated one.

[reorg]

24. I think you are making excuses

It is quite obvious from the video that the three individuals are not fighting. They don't train a weapon at anybody, all there is to see is a bag which may or may not contain something of interest.

It is immaterial whether or not these individuals were suspected to be partisans for some reason not apparent from the video. You don't shoot civilians based on the mere suspicion that they may have engaged in resistance activities at some point. This is even clear from the dialogue in the video itself - the commander explicitly asks for confirmation that the individuals are armed.

The confirmation given is not based on factual observation, but stated as fact.

It is either based on an illusion - the soldier may have thought he saw a weapon while he did not. Or he may have based his confirmation on an assumption - although he clearly stated it as fact. Such an assumption may be influenced by several factors: The soldier may be an idiot and generally assume that any "tubular object" of a certain size is a weapon. Or he may have an interest in "engaging" as many "insurgents" as possible to be eligible for promotion. Or he may be frustrated and/or trigger-happy and simply want to shoot people.

The military does not seem to have an interest in finding out the details. Why is that? Maybe they want their soldiers this way?



The Trial of German Major War Criminals
Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
7th January to 19th January, 1946

Twenty-Eighth Day: Monday, January 7th, 1946
(Part 7 of 10)

Interview Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, S.S. Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen S.S., responsible for the struggle against the Partisans in the war against the Soviet Union:


(...)

Q. In your opinion, were the measures taken in anti-Partisan operations far more severe than the circumstances warranted, or were they not?

A. Since there were no definite orders and since the Lower Command was forced to act independently, many undertakings were executed according to the character of the officer in command and to the quality of the troops. These, naturally, varied very considerably. I am of opinion that operations on numerous occasions, not only failed in their purpose, but they very often overshot their mark.

Q. Did these measures result in the unnecessary killing of large numbers of the civilian population?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you report these excessive measures to the commanders of the Army Groups and other Wehrmacht officers with whom you collaborated?

A. These measures were generally known. There was no necessity to make any special report, since every operation was directly reported in each individual case and in its every detail, and was known to every responsible leader.

(...)

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-04/tgmwc-04-28-07.shtml

[jberryhill]

25. No...

"Making excuses" would be asserting that the decision was reasonable. I don't know if it was reasonable. I am just not as quick as some to judge the actions of others, I suppose.

[wtmusic]

33. It was clearly unreasonable

The soldiers were not threatened. Their action was murder. The "backstory" is 100% irrelevant.

[MAX 1]

26. Reason-able-ness

Reasonably Bush thought Saddam HAD WMD's, WAS connected to 9/11, yada yada yada...you know that story, NO?

Reasonable to wiretap without warrents because ... well you know that logic too, NO?

Reason enough to thrust democracy upon them at the end of a gun, right?

This shit lacks reasoning.

you do not support the troops when you support the lies that sent them into a war that gets them killed.

[Ian_rd]

29. ...

"Reasonably Bush thought Saddam HAD WMD's, WAS connected to 9/11, yada yada yada...you know that story, NO?"
I never said this nor even remotely implied it.

"Reasonable to wiretap without warrents because ... well you know that logic too, NO?"
I never said this nor even remotely implied it.

"Reason enough to thrust democracy upon them at the end of a gun, right?"
I never said this nor even remotely implied it.

"This shit lacks reasoning."
Explain what "shit" lacks reasoning.

"you do not support the troops when you support the lies that sent them into a war that gets them killed."
I never said this nor even remotely implied it.

I've had people put words in my mouth before, but I do believe you're going for a record.

[wtmusic]

27. Even if it was a weapon

they had no right to kill them. Period. It was lying in a field, for chrissakes. :crazy:

[Ian_rd]

30. If they thought it was a rifle, I tend to agree.

But if they thought it was an RPG, that kind of weapon could only be expected to be used on U.S. troops and would make the men in question most likely members of a group supporting attacks against U.S. troops or the attackers themselves.

But as I said, there was no reason for them to think this, and therefore no reason to shoot.

[reorg]

31. after watching the uncommented version again

I think they might have thought along these lines. The scene on the ground:

Pick-up truck arrives at the scene, tractor not yet there. Two individuals looking around, maybe checking if they are being watched. One individual takes long, thin object(s) covered in cloth from pick-up, runs quickly into the field only to deposit the object, returns quickly. Then the other individual, also running, places something in the field, could be a tripod or something to prop up a gun, or maybe not. Then the tractor arrives, the first individual goes to the tractor, apparently to release the driver. When the latter walks towards the other vehicles, he is shot. While all three individuals up to this point do not seem to realize that they are being targeted (although some shots were fired previously) - when the tractor driver is devastatingly hit, the other two must see and hear this. The individual to the right immediately runs away to hide under the truck. What is interesting is that the one left by the tractor seems to have grasped the object from the field, or a similar one, and attempts to remove the cloth as quickly as he can - instead of trying to hide somewhere. So, yes, maybe it is some kind of weapon he wants to use at this point to defend himself - although we never see it, he is dead before the object is uncovered.

The suspicion may have been that these three individuals were setting up a sniper nest, hiding behind three civilian vehicles in the field, maybe to shoot at vehicles passing by on a street somewhere in the vicinity.

If this was the suspicion, and even if it was correct - why didn't the helicopter crew make sure that it was actually the case? Why did the gunner lie to his commander, saying they had "weapons in their hands", which they obviously had not up to this point? And finally - this is actually the scene that I find the most revolting - when the last of the three individuals hit is lying on the ground, obviously heavily wounded, no weapon anywhere near: why do they shoot twenty more rounds to kill him?

If the goal of the American military is to kill everyone who they suspect "might" engage in resistance activities, then there is no way they will "win" this. If their goal is to appear ruthless, they may well achieve it with such actions. To what end? I suspect for a very long time now that the actual goal is to stir up trouble, not to "pacify" the region.

[wtmusic]

32. A good way to test their standard of proof:

Q: Would it fly in this country?
A: Of course not. Imagine the outrage: in America, a police helicopter sees suspicious people below with what they think is a weapon. They kill all of them with a f*cking CANNON?

This double standard is only one of the reasons our war of opportunity in Iraq is doomed.

[rman]

23. It was dusk all along:

The HUD shows 16:28 zulu time.
Ploughing at dawn or dusk is customary in warm climates.
It is explained what field markers are for.

It seems you have not watched the video or you were not paying attention.

[leftchick]

2. oh god that is horrible

"smoke em" :puke:

:cry:

[Ezlivin]

3. Goddamn! This has enraged me!!

I saw this video about two years ago. It was touted as the "good" guys taking out some "bad" guys with weapons.

After watching this video and the very clear explanations, I could just weep.

What has this country become?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Disturbing and horrific in

far too many aspects. God damn it! These events should not ever be occuring... but for some dim-son dictator :cry:

[mogster]

8. Very disturbing

Exporting democracy and freedom, locally.

[sweetheart]

9. that was me who died in that field

I was blown to bits by a 30mm cannon,
farming the ground my family has plowed for a thousand years.
I am dead now with my father and we are at peace,
but i am no longer a citizen of any nation except justice.

[populistdriven]

14. I am sick beyond imagining

[rman]

28. followup: for what it's worth...

I forwarded the OP to myspace and one of my buddies there replied:


From Orwells Ghost

"This nealr happened on my watch in Afghanistan shortly after we first invaded.

A Blackhawk came across a figure with a vehicle and reported it. The commaning officer gave the order to shoot it down...

but they had just destroyed an entire convoy the night before, we never knew if they were the friendly Northern Alliance or the Taliban.

All the pilot had to do was get a closer look to see if a white cross was on the roofs of the vehicles. But they said go ahead and destoryit without confirmation whether it was enemy or not...

so this pilot refused a direct order and got a closer look.
It was a lone farmer and his tractor.

Then the same thing the following day. Pilot encounters a vehicle the order is given to take it out...
pilot refuses, gets a closer look...

busload of women and children.

I worked Operations during Operation Enduring Freedom, which is right alongside Intel, so the Intel guys told me all sorts incidents like this.

Sad."

[ama]

34. ¨He´s wounded hit him¨

So under the Geneva convention we can now shoot wounded people?
i think CW4 nager, the pilot and cpl. alioto the gunner have some ´splaining to do