Apache shoot Iraqian farmers with 30 mm

Pretty poor statement, Airway.
You know who M. v. Ritchthofen is, don't you ?
I don't think it's hard to understand that the quote is exclusively related with the fighter combat context.

 

I saw the video at least 10 times, 1st thing i noticed is how, after the first person get killed, the "farmer" is extracting something from a bag with much haste, maybe the RPG? maybe not, it can explain why pilot shot at him.
The 3th and last one after he got wounded, probably deadly wounded got hit again when he wasn't anymore able to react...above all to fight and he got a 2nd burst of shells.
I would remember you that shot to an already wounded person, civilian or soldier, IN ANY WAR is a War crime, nothing more than a omicide.
The pilot executed an horder as it's well sayd in the video "hit him!", imo he is not guilty, can't say the same for all the advanced officials who give such orders.

 

I haven't yet seen the video (and i don't want to see it; i don't need to see such images to know war sucks), so i'll talk by what i've read from all of you, guys:

a) Unarmed// Those farmers where working their land, and they were unarmed
b) Not guilty of any crimes except to be a Jew// Until it's shown the opposite, their only crime was to be iraquians
c) No immediate threat to the guards// if they were on an helicopter and iraquians were working, where's the threat?

Sorry, but i can't understand it.

 

I dont know about that. I read his book (Der Rotte Kampfliger), he seemed pretty much 'balls out' about everything - he even fortold his own death in combat & went right out to prove himself correct (this was after a head injury)

 

@ all: I still cant watch the video so I dont see what is actually happening. Alot is made of the wounded guy tho. But how wounded was he? How wounded would you have to be before you were unable to pick up an RPG and fire it?

If he was still alive, he remained a threat.

@ Odi: Is it a war crime to shoot someone who is injured if he is pointing a gun at you at the time? There was no way they could tell how badly injured the guy was, and whether he was still able to act by firing an RPG. One shot is all it would have taken him to bring the chopper down and kill all in it.

@ Broz:

a) How do you know this for sure? All you see is a grainy infra-red camera footage. In this thread alone there has been suggestions of them being farmers, civilians, terrorists, gun-runners, etc. Can you be 100% sure those guys were unarmed, as much as the warders in the death camps were 100% sure the Jews were unarmed?

b) They werent killed because they were Iraqis, they were killed because the pilots, etc felt they were under immediate threat of weapons fire, a situation which has become commonplace in Iraq.

c) An RPG can be fired in seconds from a great distance. Should they have waited for the trail of smoke from the rocket before deciding 'shit, I knew they were up to no good'. Those pilots were effectively placed in what they felt was a 'kill or be killed' scenario imo. There is no gung-ho attitude at all, unlike the previous guncam we seen at the mosque in Afghanistan. IMO those situations are nowhere near comparable.

Hope that clears up my train of thought in my previous post

-glas-

 

I beg to differ. We have only seen a minute of film where some guys bite the big one. That sucks. Death is never fair or just, more so when inflicted by a gunship some km's away and (perhaps) for no real reason. BUT: we just don't KNOW whether these guys were farmers. Personally, I think the chopper-crew knew what they were doing. The US army is very well-trained and has a good record when it comes to the way they treat their enemies (especially the chopper-riders!). I seriously doubt these Iraqi's were "just peasants".

War IS a series of "deliberate executions" in subsequent order. I never hear anyone saying that the British and American soldiers that "deliberately executed" Wehrmacht-soldiers in Normandy should've been court-martialed. I never even heard about British commanders responsible for civilian deaths in Hamburg receiving any kind of official criticism.

Once more, I beg to differ. Only when the South Vietnamese started to loose the war did US public opinion turn against that war. Up to 1968, almost everyone in the USA was pro-Vietnam. And why did the Southerners loose? Because the US government was sick of fighting a war for them while they did nothing but gather riches and - in general - be a bunch of corrupt bastards. The US started moving back towards Saigon after the Tet-offensive and the NVA followed in their wake. That is when the South Vietnamese forces were overwhelmed.

Public opinion followed the official opinion in this particular case.

Not true, Promet.

Once more, I think that war is evil, always! If all the people were thinking like me, there'd be no war at all. I'd rather live in a world without war then in a world with loads of "humane" wars were everyone abides to the "rules of engagement".

Therefor I'd say that if everyone thought the way I do, that would be more progressive then when everyone thought the way you do!

 

Wounded guy is on the road, dragging himself with his arms in panic.
Possible RPG is at left some 30meters away from him hidden in field, the road is fully clear. He crawls away to the right. Tower orders gunner to kill him.

Execution couldnt be much more clear.

This guy didn't. He was wounded badly dragging himself for his life.
Propably even in worse shape than POW executed in that another video.

He obiviously isn't pointing a gun at anyone.

From footage i can tell that guy was pretty badly wounded.
Probably shaprnells in his spine because he is unable to move his lower body and drags himself forward with hands.

There was no RPG near this guy.

From watching this footage about 10 times in now. It seems to me that farmer harvesting with tractor is outsider or a contact personnel.

Two guys on the road are propably weapons dealers. At start they throw some tube out of car to the field. No one acts offensively and its most likely they arent even aware of helicopter.

I guess US Army got mission to execute these weapon dealers and carried it out.

Thats not true watching from film these guys even ducked to cover wrong side when Apache opened fire. Only the last man knew where he was being shot from and tried to hide under truck.

You claim quite much without actually seeing the film.

To me it seems like apache stalked at weapons dealers and finished them off.
Crew followed their orders.

 

Maybe you're right, Glas, but maybe not. And what's about the innocence presumption? You can't kill someone because "maybe" he has a gun. What would our lives become then? If i see a guy carrying a gun-like-thing, i have the right to shoot at him "just in case"?
And children in Palestina explode themselves. If i go there and i see a child carrying, let's say, a deodorant tube (which from far can look like a grenade), do i have the right to shoot at him?

I think they should have been sure of whether they had guns or not before opening fire. However, i can understand the insecurity ambiance there must be, and maybe i would have acted like that myself, but they are professionals, and so, must see, and then, only when they are sure, open fire.

 

@ illo: Thanks for the description of the events. From what you said, then yes I agree the third guy killed was effectively murdered in cold blood. The only thing that struck me was:

then:

Wouldnt them having 'thrown a tube from the car in to a field' constitute an offensive action, or at least show they were aware of the presence of the helicopter and didnt want to be caught with whatever they were carrying?

Sorry, I know im surmising alot considering I havent seen the footage. But even from the sound, it didnt appear that these guys were just having a duck-shoot. Possibly you are right that there was intelligence about them being arms dealers or something. The only thing I could say about this is that, had they identified themselves to the 'victims' and, for example, told them to 'put their hands up' or whatever, there is still the chance they could have come under fire themselves.

Had they had an RPG and managed to fire it, we would probably all be sitting here saying 'stupid Yanks, shoulda took them out while they had the chance. Serves them right'.

Probably why im 'defending' their actions is that, to be honest, if I was in the exact same situation I would probably react the same way. And by all accounts, the crew was under orders from a third party who was obviously watching the footage from elsewhere. If anyone is to blame, then it should be him.

@ Broz: I appreciate what you are saying also mate

If im being honest, then I would have to agree that whether it happens in war or simply on the streets, police/army etc should always be sure they are in danger before firing themselves. I cant say whether that applies in this situation since I cant see the footage.

The only thing that sways me in this whole episode is the reactions of the crew, who as I said a couple of times before, just dont seem to have a gung-ho attitude to what they are doing. It all sounds very professional, with someone shouting targets/orders, someone firing, then someone reporting back on the outcome. The guncam at the mosque in Afghanistan had guys shouting things like 'baaaaaaaaaang' and then 'boooooooooom' when they hit someone and shit like that, as if it was a game of cowboys and indians in the school playground. The sound in this video has none of those characteristics whatsoever (at least I can be sure of my comments re the sound footage ).

-glas-

 

Isn't that what the whole war is about ? (apart from economical objectives)

 

I explain you the history, there are a jeep and a truk stopped on a little way, seems in the middle of a "agricultural field" (dunno if it's the right name).
There are 2 peaple after some seconds one of the 2 ppl run 30/40 meters from truck with something on his hand wich could be a RPG covering (pretty hard say exactly what it was since it's all on infra red visual) and he launch it on the ground, then he cam back to the truck and the second ppl, the guy is not sure on what make, he walk to his "RPG" but all times at half way he retourn back. Then a tractor come to the scene, the "farmer" was plowing the field and since he saw the "RPG" he stopped his tractor just infront of it.
It follow that the 1st guy (the one who launched the "RPG") join the farmer, both are hide behind the tractor then the guy walk back to the truck.
Here the first bursth of 30mm imbound on that guy who get hit and quite ripped getting killed. Therefore happens something who nobody saw, the farmer who's half hide behind the tractor is extracting something with much haste from one bag, maybe it was the RPG, maybe not, he shouldn't anyway move in such way. The second bursth of 30mm destroy the tractor killing the farmer too.
The camera now get on the truck and the 3th guy who seems disappeared is instead hidden under the truck (you can see a part of his body and his head checking around). The 30mm imb again and destroy the truck, after the explosion the zone is full of flames and smoke and it appear again the guy who strip with difficulty outside, he turns shoulders to the ground and when maybe already dead he get a 2nd bursth.

Imho after you get a truck exploding in face and to escape from flames you can only strip for some meters you aren't a danger anymore.

Nobody had any weapon pointed on the chopter when it opened the fire.

We aren't 100% sure, as the pilot wasn't and less than anyone else the superior who is leading the action via radio.

Those iraqui did a lot of mistakes, if they wasn't guilty they acted like stupids since they all got killed, but even if they was guilty, the first one who got killed was only walking and the 3th one got killed when already wounded.

As sayd, there was no direct danger for the helicop, if i was the pilot maybe i would do the same but i wouldn't fire to a person who's only walking and to a second who is wounded on ground.

sorry for my bad english

 

@ fla: There has been an interesting development in the UK about this in the past few days. Much of the UK's action hinged on a report by a defence specialist called Dr Kelly. Some time ago he was supposed to have leaked information to the BBC that the threat described by the British Govt at the time was exagerrated (he subsequently commited suicide when it was leaked to the press that he was the source of the BBCs info).

However, yesterday the BBC was to screen a documentary which had an interview with Dr Kelly some time before he died. In this interview, he is adamant that Iraq did pose a threat with WMDs, although the threat was probably not as immediate as it was made out to be (he reckoned Iraq could deploy in a couple of days, the Government published a figure of 45 minutes).

Thought it was kinda relevant to your comment

-glas-

 

This might be a justifiable (though tasteless) action:

- If these guys were trafficing armaments they are seen as soldiers.
- They might not be wearing a uniform. This makes them spies/guerrillas.
- The Geneva convention doesn't apply to spies, guerrillas or other combatants not wearing a proper uniform. Worse still, the GC clearly states that people pretending to be non-combatants while actively engaging in military action (not just fighting, also moving and trafficing arms) can be executed on sight. The USA ROE states the same thing.

Morally, this doesn't change a thing, but I think such a train of tought forces all of us not to jump to conclusions. We don't know the exact "chain of events". If these chopper-drivers broke the rules they will pay. If they didn't, the guys who did already paid for it.

 

is there any control wether apache attacked right target or civilians?
is there some control against war crimes?
or it's just videogame vacation: "join usaf to shoot any guy you want without responsibility"?
imho that's the point question: what was after that attack.

 

that dr. kelly story is a big one in germany - also heard what you posted before on radio - but now his suicide sounds more confusing too me

 

@ exec: Your right, it woould be good to know wht happened and whether the Yanks seen it as a successful operation or a f*ck-up.

@ Airway: I think the only reason he commited suicide was because his name was being dragged through the mud. I wouldnt believe a word Andrew Gilligan (the BBC reporter he spoke to) says, he has already been caught, along with his bosses at the BBC, for telling a pack of lie over the affair.

IMO he did speak to Gilligan about the WMDs (possibly told him he thought it would be 2 days to deploy?) but then Gilligan employed some 'journalistic license' to the story. In the end, he would still have had to admit that he leaked something to the press and it would have been his word against a so-called trusted reporter. But I admit, it was still confusing that he should leave such a cloud over his involvement, rather than try to clear his name.

Btw for those who dont know, Dr Kelly was the most senior Govt advisor on the Iraqi/WMD situation, and was an extremely experienced and well-respected member of his field.

-glas-

 

I like Apache from Shadows.

 

Or /civilians...

AFAIK the situation as it stands is that Americans who serve in another country can not be charged with warcrimes .....Why america has this right and not other countrys seems wrong to me...

 

@odi

you mixed two guys at tractor.

if you look carefully farmer stops his tractor, jumps off and starts to walk towards the "tube" as to see what it is ("what those guys threw on my field?")

It's another guy from the road who covers behind tractor (at the wrong side) when farmer is wasted with 30mm rounds.

 

@glas, I read about it in the newspaper.

The thing is if you do have the right to do the so-called pre-emptive attack. Is like imagine you are walking, let's say in a dangerous neighborhood. You happen to have a gun and shot damn well with it.
Now you see a guy, with his hands on his coat's pockets, you can see a volume in his pocket, he go his hand there. He comes to you, staring at you. What would you do ? Pull your gun and shot him while he is 3meters from you ? Just because he might be carrying a gun and might use it against you ?