http://contagiousloveexperiment.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/collateral-murder-wikileaks-soldiers-speak/

See what you can do with this..............

Dear StG,

I have had a chance to review the footage and the reports.

My impression is the evidence is strong that this group were not the ones engaging the US soldiers.

They were to the south and not firing their weapons.

It seems the incoming fire was from the East.

“We have not personnel east of our position” 2:17

“They had AK47s and were to our East, so, where we were taking small arms fire. Over.” 15:37

But after the US personnel realised what had occurred there was some 'butt-covering' going on immediately.

“Roger, we are at the location where Crazy Horse engaged the RPG fire break” 17:49
But there was no RPG fire from this location.

“Well it is their fault for bringing their kids into the battle” 18:12
No they brought their kids into a rescue mission of a badly injured man as did the men entering the building hit by a Hellfire missile. Two more missiles followed but before they struck you could see bystanders entering the building to help its occupants.

My other impression was of the helicopter crew hyping up the situation to ensure permission to engage.

“I noticed guys moving to where the bodies were and where the weapons were. That is why I immediately called the ground guys and said we had guys extracting personnel and weapons”

But from the footage they were not collecting weapons but only interested in helping the wounded man. He was a Reuters reporter.

By the number of armoured carriers that attended there were considerable numbers in the area. Do the rules of engagement allow for any Iraqi civilian who is carrying a weapon within 300mts of US forces to be dealt with in this way? Even if they are not seen to fire at them?

And if someone is seen to be carrying a weapon does this tar the rest of those around him as legitimate targets?

Surely this is not the way to conduct an occupation.

Please stop assuming I agree with the actions of the American forces. I have never said I did.

I have a problem with how WikiLeaks brought the video across. They left vital information out of the debate which allows everyone to make up their own mind on the subject.

Well done Csteel for doing your bit to make up your own mind. That's what WikiLeaks should've given everyone the ability to do. I'm absolutely sure you didn't get all your info off just the video. Unfortunately most people have.

How responsible should authorities, in this case the US military, be for journalists who like the (late) Richard Carlton, put themselves in dangerous company doing something really dumb-ass as well? Wouldn't they, or shouldn't they, have been aware of the risks they were taking in a high risk environment, with armed men and flashing a camera that resembled a rocket launcher?

The media likes to present itself as filming 'reality' and they choose the environment (a 'hot' zone where people wisely clear the streets, props (men with guns are handy) and stage film shots to suit. Unfortunately in the case it was the helicopter gun crew who were bluffed not viewers, with a predictable result.

The journos could easily have chosen a different situation and had easily recognisable 'Press' signs and logos displayed. Doubtless the media has directions to do just that but they chose not to comply. The 'other' side shoots journos being silly buggers too.

In a war zone - not talking about the above incident specifically - EVERYONE is a potential threat to your life. Imagine - for example - that wandering around your neighbourhood were ACTUAL threats to your existence. Your decisions will be based totally on self preservation first and foremost, then moral judgement second.

There's footage of a camera crew being blow to s*&t by a tank somewhere around Israel on YouTube. There was outrage. Imagine sitting on top of a hill in a large metal potential target for anti-tank weapons and you see three men hovering behind a bank and looking through a dark, apparently shoulder mounted object. What would you do?. Morally judge, or self preserve, based on the information you have at hand?.

No one deserves to die at work, but you and me make decisions every day that minimise the chances of dying. Not one of those is running around a war zone carrying stuff on our shoulders. Reporters don't deserve it, but they are TOTALLY aware of the risks, and many decisions made by reporters are influenced by financial and professional reward.

Thanks for the linx, Ginx.

This is the sort of information that will eventually force the world to come to grips with the essentially dehumanising effects of what is happening in these "theatres of war".

With luck, we will follow the out-of-Vietnam script.

We slowly come to the realization that the damage we are doing to ourselves is far greater than the damage the "enemy" is able to inflict upon us, and this leads eventually to disengagement.

I'm still puzzled at your attitude towards Wikileaks, StG.

>>They left vital information out of the debate which allows everyone to make up their own mind on the subject<<

What vital information was that?