raum wrote:Well here is the thing. Reuters gives these guys GREAT money and incentives to get as close to the shot as they can. They pay extra if your life is in danger. That is how you get promoted, but you never really get out of the area. In my lens, it looks like they are paying, whether they know it or not, for reporters to risk their lives.
I have no idea what story they were convering, but the part of New Baghdad they were in was restricted. Ground units had taken fire and an Apache was responding. So everyone was already hyped for the fact that they were entering combat. But this video, in isolation, makes it look like they were just hunting for an excuse to kill civilians. The guy on the gun was obviously new, as he was being told "ok when we start...." kind of talk you only give a rookie.
I know they get paid a lot of money. But it's a question of how much value you put on your own life. You only live once and life is short enough already.
Funny comment about "looking for an excuse to kill civilians". If they wanted to do that they could have unloaded on the entire block before confirming that the targets were armed.
I found nothing "rookie" in the way that the gunner, pilot and ground troops were communicating. Unless you can speak from experience of being in an Apache gunship in combat, your comments are naive at best.
I have military experience as a gunner. I used to train people for firing weapons up to a 35mike-mike anti ship cannon. I have trained people for manning weapons at general quarters. When you tell someone "wen we come aroudn you just keep shooting, don't stop." or stuff like "I am gonna wait till you swing around, right Kyle?" That is not the kinds of talk on a radio that all speaks to "We are going do this just like in training, huh?" and such. the guy on the gun sounds green, and I say that because I have trained a good 60 people to use rifles, pistols, grenade lauchers, and 50 calibre machine guns and larger.
My main reason for saying he sounds green is he is not observing military protocol on the radio. alot of 'em aren't. We would have gotten calls from the weapons officers to settle down.
Hell, the first time he hears "Roger recieved target fifteen." the 30mm gunner says "k" in response. NO ONE says "K" on a military radio in a possible engagement.
And then when they are getting ready to approach around the building, they tell "kyle" to just "Just fuckin', once you get on 'em just open 'em up. All right?"
Then the youngest sounding gunner one before the gunfire starts says to Kyle... "come on, fire!" prompting him to open fire. The whole time Kyle is told (4 times) to keep shoot'n. It is clear they are also chiding Kyle for being a bad shot when they say "God damn it, Kyle." and he replies "All right, hahaha, I hit em." LAter at about 7:15, he is told "hey, uh, good on the ...."
This vide even more proves the case. That 30 mm gunner was clearly new. Look ahead to min 30. watch when he gets ready to fire the hellfire. he is green!
Most of what he said was between the gunner and pilot. It wasn't over the radio to the ground crew - it was recorded anyway. In the Apache the pilot sits in the rear and the gunner in front. I am sure they are familiar with each other to work as a team.
What was said is debatable, but neither of us have ever been US Army Apache pilots or gunners.
My main disagreement was regarding them "looking for an excuse to kill civilians". You did not respond to that at all. It's a ludicrous claim IMO.
The gunner didn't know why he got an azimuth error on his 30mm, when the damn chopper is pointing almost straight down. The guy didn't know how to manual operate his hellfire when he got clearance. he didn't know about the latency in his weapon system. If you watch the longer uncut video, you see they were already looking for guy on rooftops in the area, where they had been called after a dismounted element (soldiers on foot) were taking fire earlier. They found a RPG round in the wreckage, and they had premission to engage based on these guys had AK-47, which it is clear that they do. And there are four people in the air. They are not all new, but Kyle and the chatty gunner both sound alot greener; and they are lousy shots. That, to me, is a sign they are green. Need direction, check with others that is ok, have to shoot 5 times to actually hit 8 people. Sorry, but you are right, I haven't been on an apache, but I HAVE been on a 30mm, and I have a best friend who was an A-64 gunner. He is a solid shot. He says it takes a while but then you can light a cigarette. That is pretty much the same as the ground and sea mounted 30mm I have fired and trained people on. but seriously, not knowing about azimuth tells me he is new. (Basically, this is the swivel limit of the gun, when it can swing around to aim at the target.) most people who have any real time on a 30mm call it is a "limit"; as in "I got a limit, bear twenty to port to renegage." not "for some reason I got a Azimuth limit."
I was the one who questioned why the video was cut to make it look like they were hunting civilians, even (if you watch the full video) to where the video is re-synced to some of the audio. Of course, I don't think they were out bored shooting civilians. I said I find no fault with what they did - engaged an armed group in a dangerous zone after recieving permission on confirmation of the weapons. I don't think the photographer was careless, and for all we know he was there, where there had been a gun fight earlier, to shoot some photos and had some people with guns to protect him. Teams had been taking fire since 6am. the choppers got out there around 10am. But the gunship called it in., and no one had clearance to be in the area. MEDIA can be cleared for areas... he was not. The military had been embedded in that area since 6am according to an article in the washington post, the next day.
These reporters were not embedded with anyone, they were freelance, and they walked into a hot zone on a hot day - with men carrying weapons. I see they have weapons among their group, but I don't see any press vests, or any other feature they are not insurgents. I don't their intent, but I know if they weren't clear to be in the area, and they were headed to a Reuters assignment, they should have checked the fact no ne was on the street at 10am for signs that it was a hot zone... or else they wanted to be there.
We can argue his experience all we want. My main point was your comment about the US military just looking to take out innocent civilians. THAT was wrong in all accounts.
My point wasn't even about the fact that the military were looking to take out civilians. MY point was the video "Collateral Murder" was an ATTEMPT to take a 39+ minute video and edit it, visual and audio, to make this APPEAR to be military personnel enjoying and exercising the wanton ability to take human life.
The reason I think it was so easy to make it appear so is because the LACK of proper military communications exercised by what sound to be green personnel who are not properly even introduced to their weapons.
I read alot of documents in relation to the military investigation of this situation, the least of which are here: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dange ... gation.pdf. I also know a good bit about military, in general. There has been since the occupation of Bagdhad, a lot of new recruits in helicopter combat roles because of the strategy they afford our security elements in Iraq; also a lot of Texas national guard were offered the change to "man up and go full army" are in Iraq serving with the 1st and 2nd Calvary.
