U.S. Helicopters filmed firing into crowd of civilians
 

A Reuters reporter and cameraman were filming a report in front of a crowd which had gathered around a Bradley fighting vehicle which had been damaged several hours previous. While filming, U.S. helicopters showed up and fired into the crowd.

From a Telegraph article:
From Another article:

This story, and the others like it, makes me ill. I think it's a safe bet that Bush is responsible for far more innocent civilian deaths in Iraq than Saddam ever was. Meanwhile, Osama sits comfortably in a cave somewhere while Bush is busy using his military for a personal agenda.

I know this topic has been beaten to death, but once in a while something truly appalling happens that reminds me how misguided and unspeakable our president's actions have been. God, I hope he isn't re-elected.

Sounds like a retaliation strike. If I read correctly, one piece says that 2 US soldiers were killed in the initial ambush, the other says no death, only "slight" injuries to the soldiers. Either way, the official US line was to destroy the vehicle for the safety of civilians, the reality was probably to get back in there and strike hard where the insurgents live and work. The result is perhaps some insurgents hit and some"collateral damage". And more escalation fuel for Iraqi terrorist/insurgent recruiters. I'm not sure if this war has claimed the lives of as many civilians or political opponents yet as Saddam, but these strategies suggest we're not close to being done.

I want strong, SMART leadership now. Change will not jeopardize this mission any more than it is already in jeopardy. I think changing leadership would give us a chance. A new shot at rebuilding our alliances, our global support, strengthening our national resolve and implementing more sensitive (yes!), smart, and effective approaches to this complex crisis.
Note to Toby Keith: The liberating boot in their ass policy isnt working as planned.

The report I heard said it’s standard policy to destroy any abandoned property to deny the enemy use of anything that’s still viable. You can’t tell civilians without a program.

The report demonstrates that US soldiers cannot even recover equipment from Baghdad streets. But we are winning this 'war on terror'? Begs a question: who are the terrorists? Reporters? Baghdad civilians? Streets even in Baghdad are too unsafe for US or Iraqi troops? Yet reporters have been saying this. Every month, Iraqi cities have become more unfriendly to Americans. Most every town north and west of Baghdad is now outside of US control. Only those echoing administration spin have not heard this.

it is standard procedure to scatter any crowds away from damaged military equipment using whatever means necessary. the equipment has to be destroyed so that no hardware falls into unfriendly hands. the moral of the story is stay the hell away from US military equipment.

The chopper pilots should have been able to easily see that there were news crews on site; if not on the initial run, then on subsequent runs.

Arrogance is being demonstrated. I'm not sure that is smart. Arrogant little pricks usually get their clocks cleaned by someone meaner and dumber sooner or later.

They intentionally fired missiles into a crowd of innocent civilians without warning, under orders. That is fucked up. Labeling something "standard procedure" does not make it ok. There are many ways the pilots might have tried to disperse the crowd before opening fire, but they didn't... they went in, guns blazing.

Shortly after Bush was elected, the Onion published a "humorous" article about the sweeping changes Bush was going to bring for the U.S., entitled "Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over.'" Well, they recently updated the article by adding relevant links to certain phrases in the original text... makes it less funny, but more striking. It is disturnbing to consider how much of it's over-the-top mockery has come true.

So first retaliations are forbidden. The Geneva Conventions forbit retaliation attacks againt civilians. And a retaliation against military force is no retaliation but normal combat action.
As HP said already, even standard procedures have to be ok. You just can't fire on any target if you can injure or kill civilians, except, if your target is a legal military target. And it seems to me that an own, broke down tank isn't really a military target...

Telling the difference between combatants and civilians is a little difficult in Iraq. :confused:

I agree, but hten you have to presume that they are civilians... That are the rules.

Like Bruce said, telling the difference between combatants and civilians is difficult, if not impossible. They don't wear uniforms like our troops do and it's well known that these insurgents, or whatever you want to call them, will hide behind civilians and pop up just long enough to fire off an RPG or fire a few rounds at our troops. They don't play by the same rules as we are suppose to. Besides, the war has been going on long enough now that any civilian journalist should know by now what the US tactics are. Being near a recently damaged military vehicle is sure to draw fire to destroy it so stay the fuck away, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

BS - who is saying these were all innocent civilians? why would innocent civilians who want nothing to do with a fight be milling about a disabled US bradley? those we are fighting wear the same clothes as the civilians and have shown a willingness to put women and children in front of them in the hopes that the US wouldn't fire on women and children. in a guerilla warfare situation like what is going on over there, it might be fair to say that the folks messing around with a disabled bradley aren't trying to give it a jumpstart so they can deliver it to the US forces.

Well written spin. Standard procedure is to destroy or remove equipment before abandoning it. But when soldiers cannot stay to destroy equipment, only then is airpower used. Therein lies the problem. Even the streets of Baghdad are so unsafe. Soldiers could not stay to remove or destroy the Bradley. If George Jr told us the truth, then the Army had plenty of time to wait for a wrecker; to tow that Bradley out. But even in Baghdad, the streets are so unsafe that air power was required.

Standard procedure to spin facts when the truth is painful. lookout123 has demonstrated how to spin something into "It was their fault for being there". Reality: all of Iraq is slowly becoming unsafe for Americans. We cannot even provide electricity. Thousands of reconstruction projects - something over 90% - have been abandoned due to safety problems. This Bradely vehicle only demonstrates that even the Army could not even stick around to destroy or remove their equipment. It is not standard procedure to attack damaged equipment with helicopters. Is it also standard procedure to blame the victims for their own death? lookout123 did just that.

Even the Turkmen are now being called the enemy. US is now attacking the town of Talafar in northern Iraq - because even the north of Iraq has become fertile ground for insurgency. Last Friday (and little reported in the US) is this from Turkey as reported by the BBC: So why attack the Turkmen? Just another example of how things in Iraq are slowly moving just as VietNam some 30+ years ago when the United States also attacked a sovereign nation for no good or honest reason.

tw, i think we can agree that the only thing we can agree upon is that we cannot agree upon anything else.


now let's look at my real words. i didn't say that they put women and children in front of them in EVERY battle - i pointed out that they have shown a willingness to do it in some battles. my information is not from GWB or any neo-con press, i get a lot of my info from - as you like to say, from people "where the work gets done" - those that are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. I know people on the ground there right now. some rotated back stateside this weekend. I speak with these people about what they are encountering over there. Every one of them are pretty pissed about what they see on the news, because according to them, it isn't an accurate representation of what is really happening over there.


yes it would be. you absolutely do not let vital equipment, especially communications equipment fall into enemy hands. end of story. these people have been living in a warzone for more than a year now. before that they were under saddam's regime. the innocents know there are dire consequences involved in messing around with military equipment. this is not the first piece of equipment that was disabled, left behind, and then detroyed from above.
no one has stated how they know that these were innocent civilians just milling around the neighborhood, and not someone with less innocent intentions. does the media have anything to gain by presenting it the way it does? yes. if it bleeds it leads. US gunships killing innocent civilians minding their own business is a story. US gunships killing people trying to strip equipment from a Bradley is not a story. was there another way to destroy the bradley without risking the lives of US soldiers? i don't know, i wasn't on the ground. is it uncommon for equipment to be destroyed with airborne delvery? not at all. it is often the most effective and efficient means. but please, tell me how this is neo-con spin.

twisting the truth? who's truth, yours? your truth begins and ends with george jr lied. anything that is positive is ignored, anything negative is a devious plot by the neocons. you frequently take my quotes out of context and add words in, then accuse me of twisting the truth. tw, you obviously have an incredibly analytical mind and have a passion for self education but you have such hatred for gwb that you cannot see that there isn't a neocon behind every bush.
edit: (unintentional play on words) read "bush" as "wall".