Any info to go with the footage? . was this going on in the middle of some kind of operation ? i mean what were Bradleys and Apaches doing in the area? and what were they gathering and photographing , i have a feeling something was going on and theses people got caught up in the middle of it. On the surface it looks like an unprovoked attack ( i did clearly see a weapon) but i want to know the context. All civilian deaths are a tragedy and this is no exception.
I want to know the context as well.
I wonder whether this was some sort of routine patrol, or whether it was a mission with a specific objective. I think it changes things quite a bit if the helicopter crew was told "patrol this area and make sure there's no trouble" versus "go find the insurgents who just shot up a convoy and fled to this area".
What you "clearly saw" was one guy with a camera slung over his shoulder and another guy with a tripod in his hand and about half a dozen unarmed guys mowed down. There were no guns. Maybe you should have another look?
I saw two men off to the side that I believe were carrying some sort of rifles. Not the two journalists with the cameras that the video pointed out; two guys off to the side just standing there watching things.
This by itself doesn't mean bad intent - I'd think that if I were a journalist in that sort of environment, I'd see the appeal of having some armed guards with me. However, I can understand why it would alarm the helicopter crew. An AK-47 is powerful enough to do real damage to a helicopter, and as the video indicates, there were other soldiers in the area.
Sick and disgusting, and tragic. Shocking. No doubt about it. Even if the guy ducking behind a corner with a camera tripod was mistaken for an RPG and the camera over the shoulder mistaken for an AK47, it seems impossible to excuse the massacre of all three unarmed men at the end of the attack, simply because two of them arrived to pick up the wounded man.
I make the same distinction.
I think it's possible that, depending on what was going on that wasn't shown in the video, the first part might be excusable. I think it's certainly unfortunate, but I'm not sure I pin the blame on the helicopter crew. It seems to be a product of the circumstance; IMO, the way to avoid it in future would be to either train soldiers to not have as much regard for their own safety, or to simply not be there in the first place.
I do have some questions. Before 3:40 two men are identified as the AP reporters with cameras and/or tripods over their shoulders. I'm not a military expert, but the one reporter peeked around the corner with his tripod and it did look like a heavy weapon of some sort, and this was exactly the way the US vehicles approached, so it did look like an ambush.
I agree. The crew had a matter of seconds to decide whether the person was a threat or not. I think it's somewhat unfair for us to now base our assessments of what the crew "should have" done on a slow-motion review of the video and extended reflection.
They did not have "PRESS" in big white letters on their shirts which I thought they are supposed to do for their own safety.
Given what happened to Daniel Pearl and others, I can see why a reporter would, for safety, choose NOT to put "PRESS" in big white letters on their shirt.
But around 3:40 there are two more men holding what appear to be guns. They are not identified by the video editing as reporters, like the other guys were. Who were they and what were they holding?
I saw that, too. I think they
were armed. However, I can think of several legitimate reasons for them being armed.
Secondly, what were the soldiers and helicopters doing in this area? What were the war photographers trying to photograph? It seems plausible that they were all there because a battle was going on in that area between US military and insurgents. At the end of the video, the text mentions that another reporter's car was delayed by the "chaos". What chaos? The chaos of a battle with insurgents?
That's what I wonder about as well. The video doesn't give us the whole story.
Anyway like I said, even if they were insurgents and there were weapons, the men in the van at the end of the engagement were clearly unarmed. All they were doing was picking up a wounded man, even if they had been Nazi soldiers that would be a war crime. In this case I suppose it's even worse than a war crime, it's murder.
I think I agree. In the radio voice-over, either the pilot or the gunner says that they're picking up "wounded and weapons", but the video never shows them going near the "weapons" at all. I get the sense that it's said as an excuse or justification.