Results 1 to 20 of 543

Thread: The Wikileaks collection

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Thank you, Cecil and mfbox, I understand better now where you're coming from.

    Quote Originally Posted by motorfirebox View Post
    The deciding factor, in this case, is the voluntary grouping and cooperation.
    The witnesses said that people clustered around the press, which another journalist confirms tends to happen there (I think it happens pretty much anywhere in the world when a camera crew turns up). That would explain the grouping, and tbh I don't see much evidence of organized cooperation in the video, much less cooperation with armed combatants.

    It comes down to what one wants to believe, I guess.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Eyewitnesses

    I'm underwhelmed by the witnesses interviewed by Rick Rowley:

    AMY GOODMAN: The video is from the July 12th, 2007 attack on Iraqi civilians by US troops, released Monday by the website WikiLeaks.org.

    Well, independent journalists Rick Rowley and David Enders were on the scene the very next day in 2007 and filed this exclusive report for Democracy Now!

    RICK ROWLEY: We came to the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad one day after a US attack helicopter strike that killed twelve Iraqis, including a journalist and a driver working with Reuters. The US military claimed that they were under attack from rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire and that all of the dead, except for the two Reuters employees, were insurgents. But local residents showed us the remains of a burnt-out van spattered with blood and told us a different story.

    WITNESS 1: [translated] The helicopter came yesterday from there and hovered around. Then it came right here where a group of people were standing. They didn’t have any weapons or arms of any sort. This area doesn’t have armed insurgents. They destroyed the place and shot at people, and they didn’t let anyone help the wounded.

    WITNESS 2: [translated] I swear to God it was helicopters that attacked us. These people are all witnesses. They attacked us twice, not once.

    RICK ROWLEY: Another resident went on to describe what happened to the man who tried to help the wounded.

    WITNESS 3: [translated] The driver went to carry the injured, who had been shot in front of his eyes. While he was going to pick them up, the pilot of the helicopter kept flying above, watching the scene. They started firing at the wounded and the dead. The driver and the two children were also there. The helicopter continued shooting until none of the bodies were moving.

    RICK ROWLEY: We asked the crowd of people what might have prompted the attack, and they said that when the journalist arrived, residents quickly gathered around him.

    WITNESS 2: [translated] The group of civilians had gathered here because people need cooking oil and gas. They wanted to demonstrate in front of the media and show that they need things like oil, gas, water and electricity. The situation here is dramatically deteriorating. The journalists were walking around, and then the Americans started shooting. They started shooting randomly and targeted peaceful civilians from the neighborhood.

    WITNESS 3: [translated] There were children in the car. Were they carrying weapons? There were two children.

    WITNESS 2: [translated] Do we help the wounded or kill them? They killed all the wounded and drove over their bodies. Everyone witnessed it. And the journalist was among those who was injured, and the armored vehicle drove over his body.

    WITNESS 3: [translated] The US forces, who call themselves “friendly” forces, were telling us on speakers that they were here to protect and help us. We heard those words very clearly. But what we saw was the opposite of that. We demand the American Congress and President Bush supervise their soldiers’ actions in Iraq.

    RICK ROWLEY: For Democracy Now!, this is Rick Rowley and Dave Enders with Big Noise Films.
    The point is that there were weapons (we know that); but according to witness #1: "They didn’t have any weapons or arms of any sort. This area doesn’t have armed insurgents." And, per witness #2: "They started shooting randomly and targeted peaceful civilians from the neighborhood."

    The van also seemed to have been in close proximity to the action ab initio - per witness #3: "The driver went to carry the injured, who had been shot in front of his eyes."

    Instead of denying the presence of any armed Iraqis, those witnesses would have been more credible if they admitted the weapons and claimed the armed men were part of the "Neighborhood Watch". Of course, depending on the section of Baghdad, the "neighborhood watch" might have been part of a DTO (Designated Terrorist Organization) - a hostile force under the ROEs.

    The Democracy Now webpage leads into another interview, that of Josh Stieber, described as:

    Josh Stieber, former member of Bravo Company 2-16, the company involved in the 2007 US helicopter shooting in Baghdad. He left the military as a conscientious objector last year and is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War.
    As a CO, one would expect that Stieber would have very strong moral and ethical objections to the violence (harm) shown in the video. He does express those, but here is his analysis about what went down viewed from a military standpoint:

    AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined by Josh Stieber in Washington, DC, a veteran of the company involved in the July 2007 shooting of twelve Iraqi civilians in the video released by WikiLeaks. He left the military as a conscientious objector last year and is a member of Iraqi Veterans Against the War.

    Your reaction when you saw this videotape, Josh?

    JOSH STIEBER: When I first saw it, I was, you know, kind of shocked that I recognized exactly what it was. And then, as I watched it a second time and then started to read about some of the reactions from it, I guess I was also surprised a little bit by kind of the nature of the conversations, because, you know, again, not to morally justify what happened—and, you know, as a conscientious objector, obviously I disagreed with our tactics—but I think the statements that have been put out by the military and by Secretary Gates yesterday have reaffirmed that what happened was by no means unusual.

    So I guess the nature of the conversation, I think, is the really important thing to focus on here, in that, you know, the easy thing and maybe the natural thing to do would be to instantly judge or criticize the soldiers in this video, and again, not to justify what they did, but militarily speaking, they did exactly what they were trained to do. So I guess the point that I’m trying to make is that if we are shocked by this video—which, again, it is a very shocking video—if we’re shocked by this video, then we need to be asking questions of the larger system, because, again, this is how these soldiers were trained to act.
    ....
    JOSH STIEBER: I guess that is an important thing that I think needs to be considered with that video, is that, again, by no means morally justifying what happened, but I think just the seventeen-minute WikiLeaks clip is taking things a little bit out of context in what was going on that day, was that the troops on the ground were searching house to house, and the helicopters were assigned to keep watch over them, and so part of that is to eliminate any threat that comes up. That was, you know, what we were trained with regularly in the military.

    And again, I would take so much of this just back to the training that we had. And one thing that I think about is one exercise. Some of my leaders would ask the younger soldiers what they would do if somebody were to pull a weapon in a marketplace full of unarmed civilians. And not only did your response have to be that you would return fire, even if you knew it was going to hurt innocent civilians, because you’re trying aim at the person with the weapon, the answer had to be yes, but it had to be an instantaneous yes. So, again, these things are just hammered into you through military training. So that’s, you know, the background of what the people in the helicopter had in their minds, so that they saw this as a threat.

    And actually, looking at the video myself, you know, based on my training, what I saw in the video of what the people on the ground were holding in their hands, whether or not it was a camera, but again, from my military training, I would have, you know, been told that that was a military—militarily justifiable thing. And, you know, top sources have confirmed this. But again, if you watch the forty-minute video, they actually recovered an RPG shell, so I think there’s evidence that there were weapons involved. And I think, you know, the conversation has to be that the people in the helicopter and the people in the military were responding exactly as they had been trained.
    Regards

    Mike

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mendel View Post
    Thank you, Cecil and mfbox, I understand better now where you're coming from.
    Thank you as well. I think I understand better both where you're coming from and my own mind as well, which is one of the happy results of hashing out things like this . . . and it's no sin to agree to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99
    Instead of denying the presence of any armed Iraqis, those witnesses would have been more credible if they admitted the weapons and claimed the armed men were part of the "Neighborhood Watch".
    The problem with that is that two RPGs just doesn't fit. I'm trying to use their statement to poke holes in my own theory, but the only logical conclusion is that there's no good explanation, so they lied about it.

    [IVAW member Josh Steiber]And I think, you know, the conversation has to be that the people in the helicopter and the people in the military were responding exactly as they had been trained.
    I'd note the familiar antiwar meme that tries to run a variant of the Nuremberg defense on every supposed war crime (i.e., to shift the blame from supposed perpetrators to training or higher headquarters). I'd submit this is a logical impossibility: higher headquarters might be guilty, but if there's an atrocity, the shooters cannot be innocent.

    The truly interesting thing about this ongoing effort is the focus on propaganda. From the photogs' apparent command of the initial incident to the leaked video years later, the enemy's view of the schwerpunkt is public opinion. I both think they're right, and that we're helping them entirely too much. (With "we" defined very loosely.) I was also a bit disappointed in Gates's response, because while it's perfectly apropos to point up the flaws in the manipulated video, the blame for the leak of the raw footage has to rest with DoD. And I completely agree with Greyhawk that the vid is far worse than the original incident for propaganda purposes.

  4. #4
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cecil Turner View Post
    The truly interesting thing about this ongoing effort is the focus on propaganda. From the photogs' apparent command of the initial incident to the leaked video years later, the enemy's view of the schwerpunkt is public opinion.
    This video looks more like the inevitable accident of a strategy that attempted to suppress an internal conflict with the military instead of with intelligence and police only (with the military merely in the background to keep the enemy from rising into the conventional battle phase).

    I personally believe that the approach (I know I simplified it here) was wrong and it's important to learn the lesson that internal conflicts ("insurgencies") should be handled with intelligence and police methods, not with attack helicopters circling over a city and firing with autocannons at mere suspects.


    Another lesson is that an army tasked to provide security in some place must not value the life and health of its soldiers (much) higher than life and health of the normal inhabitants of that place.

  5. #5
    Council Member BayonetBrant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    261

    Default

    one can't help but wonder how much the conversation of the crew on the recording colors the interpretation of it. would we appraise it any differently if they had shown greater remorse over the children being shot? would there be a different argument if there had been less banter and a more workmanlike discussion of the ongoing attack?

    sorry - just a stray thought I had based on a conversation here at work...
    Brant
    Wargaming and Strategy Gaming at Armchair Dragoons
    Military news and views at GrogNews

    “their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of ‘rights’… and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure.” Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers 1959

    Play more wargames!

  6. #6
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I'm inclined to agree with the first point.

    However,
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Another lesson is that an army tasked to provide security in some place must not value the life and health of its soldiers (much) higher than life and health of the normal inhabitants of that place.
    this one is highly unlikely to happen. Ever. Nor do I think it should.

    No point in having a military force that believes that, even with your "(much)" qualifier, it will be pretty (much) worthless...

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    66

    Default I Apologise to The Army.

    If you watch the unedited video, at between 2 minutes Ten seconds and Two minutes Eleven seconds, you can see that the second man from the top of the screen is carrying a loaded RPG7. The round is pointing to the top Right of the screen.

    That makes this an insurgent group. The photographers have chosen to "embed" with an insurgent group, without distinctive vests that would draw attention to their status.

    This is speculation, but the photo one of them took and then "shared" with the insurgents was, in my opinion going to be followed by an RPG7 attack on the Bradley AFV in the photo.

    I apologise to the helicopter crew. They did exactly the right thing. The following incident with the van was unfortunate, nothing more.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Al-Amin al-Thaniyah & Weapons

    Briefly, from the Al-Amin al-Thaniyah Wiki:

    Al-Amin al-Thaniyah is a neighborhood in New Baghdad, a district on the east side of Baghdad.

    It was named after the Caliph al-Amin[citation needed]. In 2003, Shiites renamed it to "Al-Murthadha District", after Ali Murthadha, the first Shiite imam.[1]
    ....
    [1] citing this Fox News story:

    Shiites Renaming Baghdad Streets
    Monday , August 04, 2003
    BAGHDAD, Iraq

    There's no Yasser Arafat Street in Baghdad anymore, and a main thoroughfare along the Tigris River once named for an 8th century poet has a new name as well.

    Both have been renamed for Shiite Muslim (search) imams whose memory had no place in Saddam Hussein's rule, when Sunni Muslims dominated despite being a minority in Iraq.

    In midnight operations underlining the newfound strength of Iraq's long-oppressed religious majority, Shiite leaders are whitewashing the names of many of Baghdad's bridges, streets and neighborhoods, replacing the hallmarks of the old regime with scrawled titles rich in symbolism for Shiites.
    ......
    Among other Baghdad sites renamed:
    ......
    Al-Ameen District. It's now known as Al-Murthadha District, after Ali Murthadha, the first Shiite imam.
    The Wiki references several Baghdad maps, including a street map and an ethnic map. Here is a composite snip:

    Al-Amin Composite.jpg

    Al-Amin is in far southeast Baghdad, south of the major Shia area (green) around Sadr City. Al-Amin is a mixed neighborhood (brown), with a Christian belt (violet) nearby. Al-Amin main streets run east-west. The 2007 clear operation ran from south to north (5th St. thru 8th St.).

    Based on the mission order and the investigative reports (link by Schmedlap here), Al-Amin was not an unarmed, peaceful neighborhood; but was the site of current sniper and IED activity. The area of 7th St. was the hub of hostile actions. That picture of active hostilities is supported by the Finkel book excerpt from the Wash Post, BOOK EXCERPT: David Finkel, The Good Soldiers (also previously mentioned in this thread).

    The 2007 clear operation did not result in Al-Amin being a "weapons-free zone". At some time before Jul 2008 (date might be useful), the Iraqi government ordered Al-Amin to be a "weapons-free zone" - not even AKs allowed. That order was enforced in Jul 2008, Iraqi National Police Takes the Lead, Enforces Weapons-free Zone:

    Sunday, July 20, 2008 21:11
    By Spc. Grant Okubo
    4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division

    FORWARD OPERATING BASE RUSTAMIYAH - National Policeman and their U.S. National Police Transition Team partners took to the streets of eastern Baghdad to enforce a weapons-free zone in and around Al Amin, July 13. ....
    Some weapons seized were these (snip from article):

    Al-Amin Weapons - 2008.jpg

    The picture of Al-Amin as a peaceful, unarmed suburb is contrary to the evidence.

    Regards

    Mike

    PS: I don't have the video clips on this computer; but I recall, in the long video near start where the Apache was panning the neighborhood, a van appears on the right moving left. Someone might want to look for that.
    Last edited by jmm99; 04-16-2010 at 03:01 AM.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    7

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    However,
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Another lesson is that an army tasked to provide security in some place must not value the life and health of its soldiers (much) higher than life and health of the normal inhabitants of that place.
    this one is highly unlikely to happen. Ever. Nor do I think it should.
    Yet, "all men are created equal" is at the heart of every democracy.

    (I know it is hard to identify with a group as large as humanity; smaller groups (such as family, or a somewhat larger social clique, e.g. a band of soldiers) are easier to feel a part of and to defend against "the outside".)


    Mike, I had a close look at that van, because the "rebuttal" video made much of it; but the van that was shot had what looks like white paint on the roof (to keep off the heat, I presume), and the one that appears earlier doesn't.

    (Oh, and I'd love to see the result of a weapon seizure like that carried out on any suburb of a Texas town. )
    Last edited by mendel; 04-16-2010 at 07:50 AM. Reason: adding postscript

  10. #10
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default That is also one one of the more stupid myths about.

    Quote Originally Posted by mendel View Post
    Yet, "all men are created equal" is at the heart of every democracy.
    If they were, I could play basketball as well as Uwe Blab. I can't. However, he probably can't navigate cross country at night as well as I can. That ridiculous myth is responsible for a great deal of harm in the world.
    (I know it is hard to identify with a group as large as humanity; smaller groups (such as family, or a somewhat larger social clique, e.g. a band of soldiers) are easier to feel a part of and to defend against "the outside".)
    Everyone pretty intuitively knows that, yet they listen to some dipwad academics and even dumber politicians selling that ridiculous 'equality' myth and allow said politicians to pass stupid laws trying to dictate an unnatural outcome while said academics bemoan that only if they were in charge would all be well.
    (Oh, and I'd love to see the result of a weapon seizure like that carried out on any suburb of a Texas town. )
    Last time that occurred was probably in 1864 or thereabouts.

    Why would you love to see wartime actions in a state not at war? Yet again, someone attempts to apply peacetime civilian 'rules' or law to a combat situation. Doesn't work. Never has. No matter how hard a lot of people try...

  11. #11
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Yet again, someone attempts to apply peacetime civilian 'rules' or law to a combat situation. Doesn't work. Never has. No matter how hard a lot of people try...
    Well, SWAT teams would disagree.
    They're not allowed, not supposed and not used to go killing people at the next block because there was a shooting incident.

    A force of roughly 130,000 personnel taking only about two KIA on an average day cannot claim to be in a war that justifies the treatment of 30,000,000 people like "sentenced to immediate death on mere suspicion" because of maybe 50,000 insurgents and at the same time fulfill a mission that IIRC required providing "security".

Similar Threads

  1. "Processing Intelligence Collection: Learning or Not?"
    By Tracker275 in forum Intelligence
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-21-2011, 12:46 AM
  2. New to S2, need FM 34-20 and collection management info
    By schmoe in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 11:03 PM
  3. Efing Wikileaks
    By SWJED in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 02:12 PM
  4. Relationship between the political system and causes of war (questions)
    By AmericanPride in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 03-30-2008, 09:16 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •