Everyone picking up the bodies and from the van was clearly UNARMED. Unarmed non-combatants were picking up the body of an unarmed non-combatant who never held a weapon.
In the moment of the firefight it was unclear whether the van was armed or not. Was was clear to the soldiers was that the van responded very quickly to a group of wounded people who had several confirmed weapons among them. Also, as others have mentioned, the soldiers knew the insurgency has used similar tactics in the past to salvage weapons and ammo.
Or my theory: The van COULD have been driven by aliens from Orion 3. Or the van COULD have been driven by the guy from the future who wanted to stop the LHC again by fighting in Iraq. COULD be, you must admit!
I have it on good authority from people who were actually on the ground that soldiers regularly keep RPG's and AK-47's in the Humvees such that if they do kill an innocent civilian, they just place the AK-47 or RPG on or near the victim to make them look like an insurgent. I don't know if that's what happened in this particular instance, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was.
Edit: I guess I'm being down voted for hearsay? Well, I worked with a number of soldiers and have a few friends who are infantry. This does happen, whether people want to accept it or not. Again, it could be that there was someone, or multiple people, were armed in this particular instance. I don't know. I haven't, to my knowledge, met anyone that was involved in this incident to ask. I have, however, talked to a number of people that were on the ground, that did have to take the lives of other people, and did have to cover things up when they made a mistake.
I feel if this was readily admitted to yourself it would have been admitted to others too and, by now, made it to the mainstream news. Where it would have been a massive, massive story.
I also feel all we have is your word and really that's not enough for such a huge claim!
Finally statements such as whether people want to accept it or not sound a lot like "typical" internet style rhetoric used to attach credence to a story.
There's a difference in what some people are willing to say to a friend and what people are willing to say to a reporter. Honestly, it's surprising to me that more things like this incident and other like it haven't made it to the mainstream media. Ask any soldier that was on the ground (especially around 2007), and they'll tell you that, maybe, 10% of what is going on in Iraq is actually being reported. There's a bunch of stuff that goes on that you will never hear about.
From what I can tell, most people that were over there would rather leave most of it behind them. I haven't met anyone that's come back better for it, and very few of them are willing to go into any detail about the incidents unless it's with someone they're extremely comfortable with. When they do open up, it seems to come with an understanding that it won't be shared, and if it is, no names or specifics will be brought up.
Even after leaving Iraq, these guys can still face penalties if it's found that they were covering things up. I'm not sure what, if anything, they'd be charged with, but most of them are still within the Statutes of Limitations of the UCMJ for Court Marshal, and there are worse punishments beyond that that have no Statutes of Limitations.
I trust the stories that were told to me because they came from multiple people that weren't connected save for being in the military and having been stationed in Iraq at some point in time. If my word isn't enough for you (and I don't blame you if it isn't) then feel free to pass it off as another random person on the internet repeating a possible fabrication.
If this is true it is more than a step beyond what we have seen here. In the video we see a tragically mistaken engagement (which I understand) and then a terrible, idiotic, but I feel not malicious, attack on unarmed civilians. Even the restriction of information released by the army, whilst something I don't agree with, is understandable.
However; finding a mistake on the ground then covering it up by planting weapons? That's fraud and a war crime. It's morally and legally reprehensible.
This is why I feel it is probably not true (or a one off you have heard about); if it is a prevalent thing then it surely would have been reported by now (I cannot believe there is not one person in the US army that would be morally outraged by this).
If it is true; it needs to be outed, stopped and prosecuted.
Of everything posted on this subject this idea is the one that sickens me the most :(
Now, imagine these guys come back and are generally able to continue to carry on some sort of a normal life at home. There's a lot of training involved here, and part of it is that you were simply ordered to do it. The chain of command is a real force, something the average soldier respects enough to go into a situation that very well could end their life. They also fear it. It's a force that's almost worse than death. Would you want to admit mistakes, or would you feel better about simply covering them up? This hypothetical soldier is already hardened enough to take the life of another person without feeling intense amounts of guilt. What is covering up a mistake compared to that?
There's also an insane amount of camaraderie amongst soldiers. These guys are willing to go into the line of fire to get back a piece of their buddy to send back home, because no soldier gets left behind. Would you risk your hide to get back part of your friend's dead body in order to have a proper burial? I don't know if I would, but that's a fairly ubiquitous feeling amongst soldiers. These guys will fight and die for their fellow soldiers, dead or alive. If you would already put your life on the line for someone, why wouldn't you help them cover something up?
Finally, the perception of people (civilians or combatants) from the view of a soldier is horribly skewed from what it is at home. They aren't really humans when they're on the battlefield. They're targets. The guilt doesn't really hit until after these guys get home. When you're in the midst of it, you're worried about your own survival, and the survival of those you care about. They don't seem to be particularly worried about the collateral damage. If they make a few mistakes, oh well. It's better than not pulling the trigger and finding out they were actually the enemy.
I'm not saying it's okay. It's certainly deplorable behavior. I'm just saying it's understandable, from where I sit. If I were put in a similar situation, I'm not sure how I would react. No one does, but the only way to prevent is to simply not go to war.
In 2001 one policeman killed 3 unarmed guys in a gas station. Then he took the bodies to the street and put a knife near one body. He claimed that it was an assault, but later he was found guilty and sentence to prison.
Article in spanish: http://www.clarin.com/diario/2002/01/07/o-02001.htm
Google translation: http://translate.google.com.ar/translate?js=y&prev=_t...
If you were an USAA general, would you promote to commander someone who would gave permission to kill based on faint suspicions and their definition of "very quickly"? Because that doesn't sound like an official. That sounds like a God.
That's like using a medical vehicle to transport combatants and then come back and pick up the wounded from the same vehicle.
There is no indication it was the same black vehicle at the start of the video. No one on the ground or air claimed it was. Furthermore, even if it was, no one claimed the black vehicle at the start was a target or contained suspects! The air merely stated it passed under their targetting crosshair.
The suspect as reported by the ground was ONE MAN, who had appeared in front of their Bradley.
A man covered in blood is crawling along the side of the road as you drive by. You say, "My god! This man is injured! We need to help him!" You and your friend jump out to help an injured man, not really sure what's going on, and tell your children to wait in the car. Suddenly you're dead, because a helicopter flying high overhead killed you instantly because you were moving an injured man.
That isn't a hypothetical, that's what happend. And if you ignore the chatter of a few pilots eager to score more kills, it's very clear that these people had no connection to any activity on the scene. The Van is nowhere in sight until the very end of the engagement.
What's more, it's clear the pilot is eager to kill. He reports it in the most biased of terms: mentioning they were "possibly recovering weapons" despite seeing NO such action. How do we know he knew such a thing, you might ask? Because just moments before he was literally begging them to pick up a gun so he could kill them, and in the end he got a fire order anyways because of a biased report.
The actions of the pilots in that video were reprehensible and it is unfortunate that they will most likely be shielded from prosecution. On that day they ceased to be revered servicemen for the united states and became a representation of every flaw in our military system that Americans revile. They teetered on the edge of becoming war criminals. At the very least they should be dishonorably discharged.
> Suddenly you're dead, because a helicopter flying high overhead killed you instantly because you were moving an injured man.
Im not sure if it was just your wording but it was several minutes before they fired on them.
> it's very clear that these people had no connection to any activity on the scene. The Van is nowhere in sight until the very end of the engagement.
Have you watched the full 39 minute video? I've only had time to watch it once (so am withholding my full analysis of the engagement) but the same van is visible near the start of the video. It may not have been the same van but it seems a natural and fair assumption that it might be.
Saying things like "it is clear" based on the single perspective of the Apache gunship seems a little clear cut...
(not that I disagree entirely with your point)
It didn't take “several minutes”. They hadn't even moved the injured man to the car before they were dead. And it's unlikely that they understood they were in a combat zone. Those helicopters fly high above the scene.
> Have you watched the full 39 minute video?
I've watched the full video once and then after that the shortened one.
> I've only had time to watch it once (so am withholding my full analysis of the engagement) but the same van is visible near the start of the video.
You can't tell if it's the same van on IR. They don't have a color, and I didn't see enough detail on the vehicles we swept over initially to resolve it without color information.
But even if that were the case, would it be so unusual? That wasn't a combat zone, it was an inhabited residential area. People live there.
> It may not have been the same van but it seems a natural and fair assumption that it might be.
Even if you allow for that, the people in the video never take any clear action constituting engagement. They were addressing a wounded man, and showed 0 evidence of retrieving weapons.
> Saying things like "it is clear" based on the single perspective of the Apache gunship seems a little clear cut...
I'm only speaking from the perspective of the pilot's actions. They massacred a family and innocent journalists. And I have to tell you, if they think a tulip hood on a 200mm lens looks like an RPG, then someone is in dire need of a refresher course. That shape couldn't be a more distinct signal of photographic equipment.
The entire engagement and the series of decisions that lead up to it stink.
It was one minute; were both wrong I guess.
> But even if that were the case, would it be so unusual?
According to all of the material (the video and released statements) a van was identified as ferrying combatants around. In the 39 minute video this is actually touched on and in the statements it is explained this was known by the pilots
(don't forget we have one gun cam video from one of the apaches during the latter stages of the operation - previously more action with other gunships had occurred. Without all of that material I dont think we can make a fully accurate assessment)
> Even if you allow for that, the people in the video never take any clear action constituting engagement. They were addressing a wounded man, and showed 0 evidence of retrieving weapons.
Absolutely; I'd not dispute that, and I agree. This was not what I was disagreeing with :)
Im not going to comment on the rest of what your saying because though I disagree in part it's not what I was disputing.