The view from America

[expat]

This is the the killing of the unarmed Iraqi photographers, as described by the New York Times. It has a gentle but persistent slant in favour of the US troops, and is actually quite biased without actually telling identifiable lies.

... the chatter among the air crews shows they are convinced that the people on the ground have both AK-47s and a rocket-propelled-grenade launcher. An American Army ground unit nearby was receiving fire from insurgents at the time.

On the video, there is at least one of the group of victims who appears to be carrying a rifle, but it is dangling at his side in a relaxed manner, and he does not appear to deploy it. In another scene, a large camera lens poking around the corner of a building is interpreted as a rocket-propelled-grenade launcher. The view of the men is obscured by a building as the attacking helicopter circles around it. The helicopter opens fire almost immediately after they come into view again.

“Look at those dead bastards,” one of the cockpit voices says. “Nice.”

When a vehicle arrives at the scene to help the wounded, the helicopters fire into it. United States troops call for a child who had been in the vehicle to be taken to the hospital.

Notice the nice extra touches, like

An American Army ground unit nearby was receiving fire from insurgents at the time

and

United States troops call for a child who had been in the vehicle to be taken to the hospital

I especially like

there is at least one of the group of victims who appears to be carrying a rifle, but it is dangling at his side in a relaxed manner, and he does not appear to deploy it

Nobody else seems to think that anyone in the video "appears to be carryibg a rifle". And a clever use of the word "deploy" as in he does not appear to deploy his long lens. "Deploy" subtly smuggles in the feel of a weapon, not a camera.

The whole piece works hard to give the impression that shooting them wasn't such a bad idea, and is really quite a devious piece of journalism.

[TimberWolf]

Can't really see British professional soldiers opening up on civilians like that. Or owning helicopters.

[Ravello]

Or owning helicopters.

[realityhack]

This piece (which was buried on the Beeb 3 levels deep) also has an interesting slant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8603938.stm

[NickFitz]

This piece (which was buried on the Beeb 3 levels deep) also has an interesting slant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8603938.stm

It was on the front page yesterday.

[d000hg]

“Look at those dead bastards,” one of the cockpit voices says. “Nice.”

I think that's taken out of context. The "nice" sounded to me (especially in light of the next bit of dialogue) to be a professional mark of respect for the shooter's skill, not a joyous exclamation at the deaths.

[realityhack]

It was on the front page yesterday.

Fairynuff.

[Paddy]

... the chatter among the air crews shows they are convinced that the people on the ground have both AK-47s and a rocket-propelled-grenade launcher. An American Army ground unit nearby was receiving fire from insurgents at the time.


If you analyze what was said on the video, the excuse to fire starts off with “an AK-47”. Even if there was (fact = there was not) an AK47; it would not be possible to identify the type of weapon. The only reason for saying “AK-47” is to make-believe it was the enemy. Without any change in scene, an AK-47 becomes AK-47s and then for no apparent reason “RPGs” are added to the commentary.

When the minibus carrying children arrives; before even the driver gets out, the voice says “they are picking up the weapons, when in fact they are clearly not.

The US is not at war with Iraq but they are occupying the country and thus they have a duty of care to the population.

The problem as I see it is that the US Army recruits boys who like playing computer war games and then puts them in battlefield conditions. Killing remotely is fun for them but down on the ground they are tulip scared.

[d000hg]

If you analyze what was said on the video, the excuse to fire starts off with “an AK-47”. Even if there was (fact = there was not) an AK47; it would not be possible to identify the type of weapon. The only reason for saying “AK-47” is to make-believe it was the enemy. Without any change in scene, an AK-47 becomes AK-47s and then for no apparent reason “RPGs” are added to the commentary.

He specifically saw something he thought was an RPG, or at least I did in the video. The fact he was wrong is one thing, but personally the moment I in a helicopter thought an RPG was around I'd be VERY nervous.

[Ravello]

Watched the vid and IMO it's quite easy to interpret in different ways depending on your mindset:

1) Gun happy yank soldiers excitedly shoot down innocent civilians and children
2) Army gunship on high alert mistakenly engages reporters

I guess I'd like to believe that it's the second option, but having never been in a warzone I have no idea what emotions are experienced by those in active service - something for which I'm exceedingly grateful.

Given the strength of public opinion about the US (and Our) continued involvement in Iraq however, it comes as no surprise that the incident was initially 'covered-up'/mis-reported by the US armed forces.

As an observation, and again, with absolutely no experience in a warzone (PS3 games aside), the cameras that the guys were carrying are easy to mistake for weapons if that's what you're expecting to see. Equally, knowing in advance (from the video's intro) that they are cameras puts a different slant on it entirely...

Personally if I *was* in a war zone, I'd probably be looking/expecting to see weapons as opposed to cameras. I may also not be inclined to wait until a gun was pointed at me before I started shooting...