Collateral Murder (Of The Truth)
Apr. 6th, 2010 07:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drewkittyThere is a shocking video floating around today, which you too can view at collateralmurder.com
It is described by its makers as "a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff."
Surface Truth: in two incidents a few minutes apart, apparently unarmed men (and two children, out of sight in a van) are chewed on by remotely directed 30mm cannon fire. If you look very closely, you get glimpses of what appear to be long sticks.
Lie: the men were unarmed, the shooting was baseless, their deaths were murder. Representing the Lie (or Big Lie) I have selected Glenn Greenwald's article, where he says:
"That includes not only the initial killing of a group of men, the vast majority of whom are clearly unarmed, but also the plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men (with their children) carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety -- as though there's something nefarious about human beings in an urban area trying to take an unarmed, wounded photographer to a hospital."
Deeper Truth: the men were armed insurgents, with two RPGs and an AK, and the cameramen were dressed like them engaged in behaviors that made them appear to be supporters. One was taking pictures of a US ground unit less than 100 meters away with a long-barrel camera in such a way as to look like he is firing on them; the other was talking on a cell phone, a common part of both tactical communications and IED (bomb) detonations. All of this took place in a closed military zone which nearby American ground forces were actively sweeping and clearing while under small arms fire.
New facts? Yes, lots. See a recent CNN article for the context the video and its adroit packaging deprives you of. See also here: one of the Army investigations into this matter. This forty-three page report goes into great and graphic detail.
The laws of war are clear: you hang with a group, you take your chance of sharing their fate. This is one purpose behind Red Cross and Red Crescent -- here, let's hang a big red sign on you which makes you less likely to be shot at. This is also why combatants are required by the laws of war to wear uniforms -- here, let's hang something on you that makes it less likely that civilians will be mistaken for you.
But I will not bore you with mere facts. Here is graphic evidence which a man died to bring you:
These three photos were taken from the memory card of a camera belonging to one of the dead journalists. Photos of a nearby American military vehicle.
You take photos like this of combatant forces in active combat operations, you risk sudden and immediate death. As happened.
A veteran comments further here:
"This entire incident is an unbelievably sickening tragedy, and I don't mean for my tone to imply that the loss of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh was anything but. But it was also a tragedy when it happened ... [to] any of the dozens, if not hundreds of Soldiers killed by [friendly fire] in this war so far. 90% of what occurs in that video has been commonplace in Iraq for the last 7 years, and the 10% that differs is entirely based on the fact that two of the gentlemen killed were journalists."
So behind the lie, a deeper truth. This is not atrocity, this is war. This is soldiers doing their job well, a job their country called them out to do. Be sickened by it, please. Don't send our soldiers out to war unless you are willing to own all the consequences. And once you have, don't blame them for what you chose for them to do.
It is described by its makers as "a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff."
Surface Truth: in two incidents a few minutes apart, apparently unarmed men (and two children, out of sight in a van) are chewed on by remotely directed 30mm cannon fire. If you look very closely, you get glimpses of what appear to be long sticks.
Lie: the men were unarmed, the shooting was baseless, their deaths were murder. Representing the Lie (or Big Lie) I have selected Glenn Greenwald's article, where he says:
"That includes not only the initial killing of a group of men, the vast majority of whom are clearly unarmed, but also the plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men (with their children) carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety -- as though there's something nefarious about human beings in an urban area trying to take an unarmed, wounded photographer to a hospital."
Deeper Truth: the men were armed insurgents, with two RPGs and an AK, and the cameramen were dressed like them engaged in behaviors that made them appear to be supporters. One was taking pictures of a US ground unit less than 100 meters away with a long-barrel camera in such a way as to look like he is firing on them; the other was talking on a cell phone, a common part of both tactical communications and IED (bomb) detonations. All of this took place in a closed military zone which nearby American ground forces were actively sweeping and clearing while under small arms fire.
New facts? Yes, lots. See a recent CNN article for the context the video and its adroit packaging deprives you of. See also here: one of the Army investigations into this matter. This forty-three page report goes into great and graphic detail.
The laws of war are clear: you hang with a group, you take your chance of sharing their fate. This is one purpose behind Red Cross and Red Crescent -- here, let's hang a big red sign on you which makes you less likely to be shot at. This is also why combatants are required by the laws of war to wear uniforms -- here, let's hang something on you that makes it less likely that civilians will be mistaken for you.
But I will not bore you with mere facts. Here is graphic evidence which a man died to bring you:
These three photos were taken from the memory card of a camera belonging to one of the dead journalists. Photos of a nearby American military vehicle.
You take photos like this of combatant forces in active combat operations, you risk sudden and immediate death. As happened.
A veteran comments further here:
"This entire incident is an unbelievably sickening tragedy, and I don't mean for my tone to imply that the loss of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh was anything but. But it was also a tragedy when it happened ... [to] any of the dozens, if not hundreds of Soldiers killed by [friendly fire] in this war so far. 90% of what occurs in that video has been commonplace in Iraq for the last 7 years, and the 10% that differs is entirely based on the fact that two of the gentlemen killed were journalists."
So behind the lie, a deeper truth. This is not atrocity, this is war. This is soldiers doing their job well, a job their country called them out to do. Be sickened by it, please. Don't send our soldiers out to war unless you are willing to own all the consequences. And once you have, don't blame them for what you chose for them to do.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
specifics of that morning
Date: 2010-04-07 06:59 pm (UTC)>> Notice that not even the US Army claims that the men in the van were armed at the time they opened fire on it. Flatly legally indefensible.
According to the helicopter gunner's own sworn statement, "Soon after our engagement, a van and 4-5 military aged males arrived at the engagement site and began loading personnel and weapons into the van. Bushmaster cleared us to engage the van and personnel. Crazy Horse 18 initiated fire and I fired approximately 40 rounds at the personnel and the van. We remained above the engagement site while Bushmaster sent ground forces to the site. Bushmaster arrived and reported 11x AIF KIA and found RPGs and RPG rounds at the site. We also witnessed a loaded RPG lying 2-3 blocks south of the engagement site that had been dropped by fleeing AIF."
Policing up weapons and helping other combatants flee.
>> And finally, notice that the Army is still behaving as if they know they've done something wrong: the Army report keeps insisting that an RPG was found at the site. . . . Look at the two photos they say "prove" that there's an RPG on the site. One consists of two blurry white pixels that could be anything. The other is a photograph taken by the first troops to arrive on the site, and is labeled "RPG -->" ... only the arrow points to something that is hidden by a censorship box.
I hope we see some expansion on this. I chased down the original PDF, which is floating out there, and it contains the censorship boxes as well -- I see nothing that could be classified information covered by that box except perhaps some sort of intelligence tag. It's not enough that the Army is convinced that there was an RPG there -- I think these photos should be uncensored. I just don't see them having the gumption to falsify them and then release them publicly.
>> What's the only actual evidence they SHOW that there's an RPG? Troops on the ground say they saw one.
And also the troops in the air, and the drone operators, and you can see it on the video here. The double cone of the shaped charge warhead is very distinctive.
>> The helicopter crew knew, by the end of the engagement, that they were killing civilians to eliminate the witnesses, and Army brass has been helping them cover it up ever since.
Where's the cover up? They admit engaging the van with 30mm cannon fire. I genuinely don't understand this comment.