06 Apr 10
Unquestionably they were NOT "unarmed civilians." They're clearly armed and simply refusing to put on a uniform doesn't make you a "civilian." I've deployed to Iraq twice. The residents in the area know they're not supposed to be doing things walking around a combat zone with weapons or they might get blasted. These guys knew it too which is why they were carrying them vertically against their bodies to hide them.
Think about this logically. What were they doing walking around with AK47's with US troops close by? Is it just a coincidence that the troops had just received incoming fire? What was so news worthy about these guys (who were armed) for the reported to be embedded with them?
Point blank: The helicopter crews caught them with their pants down.
Weapons are clearly seen in their possession, even in the limited footage that was leaked. Weapons, including RPG's were found at the scene.
In the short clip they show this guy is definitely carrying a weapon. The picture is fuzzy but it looks an awful lot like an RPG to me.
For another perspective:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperGood work!
Unquestionably they were NOT "unarmed civilians." They're clearly armed and simply refusing to put on a uniform doesn't make you a "civilian." I've deployed to Iraq twice. The residents in the area know they're not supposed to be doing things walking around a combat zone with weapons or they might get blasted. These guys knew it too which is ...[text shortened]... RPG to me.
For another perspective:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php
That IS NOT a camera!
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI am talking about the guy who looks like he is trying to conceal his weapon holding it verticle net to his leg. Its hard to tell exactly what kind of weapon,looks like some sort of RPG.
The guy who was crouching around the corner (in the video) was taking pictures - and probably of oncoming troops. But they did find RPG's on the scene.
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI have not read the entire other thread; I did read related stories online and in the NY Times. But for clarity is it your contention that the ROE in Iraq in 2007 for Apache crews allowed firing on ALL of the following:
Unquestionably they were NOT "unarmed civilians." They're clearly armed and simply refusing to put on a uniform doesn't make you a "civilian." I've deployed to Iraq twice. The residents in the area know they're not supposed to be doing things walking around a combat zone with weapons or they might get blasted. These guys knew it too which is ...[text shortened]... RPG to me.
For another perspective:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php
1) Any armed Iraqi EVEN IF said Iraqi did not act with hostile intent towards the Apache, was not engaged in combat with Coalition ground forces nor had been positively ID'ed as hostile by other Coalition forces? (BTW, what percentage of adult Iraqis would you estimate owed a firearm?);
2) Any person in the vicinity of any armed Iraqi EVEN IF that person was not positively IDed as armed and/or hostile?;
3) Any vehicle which comes into the vicinity of any armed Iraqi EVEN IF the persons in the vehicle were not positively IDed as armed and/or hostile?
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperEveryone who were shot carried a weapon? Even the kids?
Unquestionably they were NOT "unarmed civilians." They're clearly armed and simply refusing to put on a uniform doesn't make you a "civilian." I've deployed to Iraq twice. The residents in the area know they're not supposed to be doing things walking around a combat zone with weapons or they might get blasted. These guys knew it too which is ...[text shortened]... RPG to me.
For another perspective:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php
What animals are shooting at children? American animals? Or Iraqi animals?
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI did read the military's "investigation". I have two observations: one, it is alleged that what was fired on was a group of "armed insurgents" who had recently been engaged in combat against US forces. There are 9 "military age males" in the first group and 3 around the van after the first shooting. Apparently only one has a rifle and one an RPG. Is it typical of groups of "armed insurgents" to have only 2 out of 12 of them actually armed when engaging in battle with US troops?
Unquestionably they were NOT "unarmed civilians." They're clearly armed and simply refusing to put on a uniform doesn't make you a "civilian." I've deployed to Iraq twice. The residents in the area know they're not supposed to be doing things walking around a combat zone with weapons or they might get blasted. These guys knew it too which is ...[text shortened]... RPG to me.
For another perspective:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php
Secondly, the investigating officer made recommendations on how to prevent similar incidents. These recommendations are redacted in your link. Why?
07 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by joneschrIf that makes you feel better, fine. I find such an explanation ridiculous; you might as well as redacted the entire investigation report which used gun camera photos, conversations of the Apache pilots, etc. etc. The ROE are available online for Christ's sake.
And neither do insurgents (who perhaps would have used them to their advantage), which is probably why they were redacted.
EDIT: Would you have been equally satisfied with a report that said: "We killed these people for a very good reason, but we can't tell you anything about the details because it might help the terrorists"?
07 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, but that's not the report that we got, is it?
EDIT: Would you have been equally satisfied with a report that said: "We killed these people for a very good reason, but we can't tell you anything about the details because it might help the terrorists"?
And that answers your questions why part of the report isn't redacted - it provides the details on what they feel was good reason.
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by joneschrThe recommendations are an important part of the report; the substance of the recommendations would shed light on what went wrong in the investigating officer's mind. To not allow it to be made public makes any conclusions difficult to assess. The bottom line is that a reporter's camera was misidentified as an RPG and a bunch of people died as a result. And a van with children and unarmed people was fired on and people died as a result. Knowing what steps the military is going to make to prevent such errors in the future would be nice to know since we are paying the freight.
No, but that's not the report that we got, is it?
And that answers your questions why part of the report isn't redacted - it provides the details on what they feel was good reason.