U.S. Helicopters filmed firing into crowd of civilians

[hot_pastrami]

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:

None of the three heard the helicopters until it was too late. As Tumeizi spoke into the camera, the first gunship opened fire. Within seconds, all three men had been hit.

The footage released by al-Arabiya shows him pointing to the smoke billowing out of the Bradley moments before the helicopters began firing.

"It gave no warning," Khalil said. "Everything happened so quickly. We fell to the ground. I heard Mazen shout 'I'm going to die! I'm going to die!'

"I crawled across to him. I could see it was bad. He was on his front and his back was open. He couldn't breathe properly. 'It's all right,' I said. 'Don't be afraid. Help is coming.' I don't know if he heard me. He couldn't speak. He was moaning quietly."

With a broken leg, shrapnel injuries to his stomach and head wounds, Khalil could do little to help his friend. Fouad too was badly hurt while, further away, Guardian and Getty Images reporter Ghaith Abdul Ahad was nursing a head wound. "Around us were others dead or injured. People ran away but then some came back to help."

As they did, the helicopters made another pass again opening fire, Khalil said. "People trying to help us were wounded or ran away. After a minute, the helicopters came back and fired again. They came three or four times."

Within 10 minutes of their arrival at hospital, Tumeizi was dead. An 11-year-old girl brought in at the same time also died, one of 13 killed in the incident, according to health ministry officials.

From Another article:

"I am a journalist. I'm dying, I'm dying," screamed Mazen al-Tumeizi, a correspondent for the Arabic television channel al-Arabiya, after shrapnel from a rocket fired by an American helicopter interrupted his live broadcast and slammed into his back.

Twelve others were killed and 61 wounded by rockets from two US helicopters on Haifa Street in central Baghdad. They had fired into a crowd milling around a burning Bradley fighting vehicle that had been hit by a rocket or bomb hours before.

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.

[warch]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[tw]

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.

[lookout123]

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.

[Elspode]

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.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

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.

[Pi]

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...

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[Pi]

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

[404Error]

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.

[lookout123]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

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.

[tw]

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:

On Friday Turkey's foreign ministry urged the US to halt the offensive.

"What is being done there is harming the civilian population, that it is wrong," Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said on Monday.

He added that if the operation continues in Talafar, "Turkey's cooperation on issues regarding Iraq will come to a total stop".

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.

[lookout123]

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

In the meantime, more spin - an outright lie - that they put women and children out front in every confrontation. outlook123 could only post that spin if George Jr propaganda is his entire information source.

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.

Even if Iraqis were only looting the Bradley, still is no reason to missile those people.

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.

That is what lookout123 does. He is very good at twisting the truth.

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".