I just found this on youtube today...

According to the OP:

"Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik

*Update* Just realized that you need to sign in to youtube in order to see the video above. For anybody who does not have a Youtube account, click on the link below...

http://press.take88.com/wikileaks-video-of...ilians-in-iraq/

I watched this video early. I find it disturbing that the people in the helicopter are talking like I talk when playing MW2.

Yes disturbing indeed!!! Who are the real terrorists??????????????

I too saw this vid and thought that the soldiers acted accordingly. The RPG was visibly armed early on, and that alone would trigger weapons free. The characters surrounding the RPG gunman were creating a wall around him, giving him the opportunity to aim and fire. Funny thing about guys in helo's...They don't really appreciate Freedom to carry Rocket Propelled Grenade Launchers.

according to the video beside this one where there is a guy talking over the vid these guys were innocent reporters from reuters and civis murdered and they were not cartying rpg,s or ak,s but cameras across there shoulders.

There's nothing, absolutely nothing and I mean absolutely nothing funny here, mate.

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released 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.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

Anyway IMHO the video shows clearly that "some" American soldiers in Iraq are thinking this is all a big game.

So, on the morning of July 12th 2007, two Apache helicopters using 30mm canon fire killed about a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Bagdad.

Allthough some of the men appear to have been armed, the behaviour of nearly everyone was relaxed.

The US military initially claimed that all the dead were "anti-Iraqi forces" or "insurgents".

The stories of most of those who were killed are unknown. But among the dead were two Reuters reporters.

The US military claimed the victims died in a battle that took place between U.S. forces an insurgents.

Quote "There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force"

You can watch the short or/and the long version on WikiLeaks, and you be the judge that's one hell of a big lie by the US military.

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

I saw this on MSN news yesterday, it is sad when accidents happen and I really hate the way the Bush Administration dealt with these incidents, the fact they tried to bury stuff like this puts a suspicious light on what happened.

That being said, in my opinion the video should be viewed in context, the troops involved were engaged with the enemy a short distance from that spot, if it was your life or the life of your fellow troops seeing what happens between 2:00 and 2:45 time frame would you have taken that as any thing but hostile. You see multiple men cross center frame that appear to be armed and then the "camera man" peeks from around the corner down the street to where insurgents are engaging troops. At the end of the full version they do take small arms fire from 300 meters of the spot in frame after firing upon an abandoned building that a clearly armed man just entered.

The van, they drove into the middle of a fire fight and started aiding the people believed to be insurgents.

Throughout the later part of the dialog (which with all the breaks and dead air is suspect, wikileaks isn't exactly unbiased) you hear the troops on the ground saying they have found an RPG.

This area is adjacent to Sadr City and the article on MSN states that Helicopters had been shot down in this area in the previous days by RPGs.

Feel free to dislike the war or America for that matter but I find it highly offensive to call these men murderers or terrorists.

I'm not saying that these men shouldn't be held responsible, they should be reprimanded in some way. However, Ph8al is right. This is a warzone, the "Coalition forces" are occupying a territory with a (rightly so) pissed off population . These men had to make snap decisions on who and what were hostiles, they obviously made the wrong decision. It was an unfortunate incident, but it shouldn't come as a shock that women and children were fired upon. Iraq as can be seen in the link, is predominately composed of much younger population, with only around 3% of the population being over 65. Therefore with such a huge number of young kids and women of all ages in Iraq, they will more often than not be caught in gunfights and battles between the opposing forces. In such a developing nation, it is an inevitability that these deaths will occur, an unfortunate consequence of war. I am in no way condoning the actions, I'm just stating the facts as I see them.

And for the record how many of us could look at that video and distinguish between an RPG and a camera slung over a shoulder?

Speaking of viewing the video in context, it was more than mistaking a camera for a RPG... These reporters were traveling with armed insurgents in a combat zone. Those unarmed "civilians" that showed up to transport wounded were attempting to transport wounded and killed armed insurgents. It was a horrible thing to have happen, but it exposed the reality of what may happen to reporters traveling in a warzone.

OK first you'all........this is war...........do the insurgent care if women or childern or civilians are around when they blow people up and kill randomly??
next you never see the childern..........they report they were hurt after the fact
third.......if you where in the helo......and it was job to kill bad guys.........wouldn't you relate it to something you already know.........like a video game

simply people say we are so bad

I say we could be like the actual terrorist.........and just kill anyone close.......innocent or not

what would you call us then??

our people are over there fighting people who hide with innocents and then complain when innocents get killed

common sense tells me if I know I'm on a hit list........don't hide with my loved ones and put them in danger!!!!

and if you do .........then blame your self...........you brought the bomb to their door by hiding there...............your fault........don't blame us!!!

I have to agree with Haskins here....Knowing innocent (Non Combatants) people are around does`nt stop the fanatics Blowing themselves up in public places...I wonder in reality if the suicide bombers that cause these atrocities are called murderers too when they kill innocents (Non combatants) or are they too Martyrs? And if that is the case is the distinguishing factor the nationality or religion of the person causing the deaths? I only Bring this up because in war if a soldier who's religion is Christianity Kills a Islamic fundamentalist who is trying to kill many people,He is called a murderer...if its a Islamic fundamentalist causing Death and destruction they are deemed warriors of Allah and when Killed Martyrs...Wether we agree with the war or Not innocent people will be killed, I think its just depends on what side of the fence you stand on the REASON our troops are there in the first place.

This video is disturbing. Those killed were innocent. The soldiers involved in this gruesome act need to be brought to justice. Another big cover up. When does it end? Some of the soldiers were even laughing on the audio. Pray for the victims and their families. God Bless.

I'll pray for them as soon as they quit killing my people..........

I watched the shorter of the two videos and was struck by the following;

1. The two helicopters weren't fired upon by the group on the ground.
2. The US forces had no reason to classify the group on the ground as hostiles, they weren't displaying any threat toward the helicopters.
3. The US forces lied about the weapons they had seen being carried by the group on the ground (AK47 and an RPG) in order to get permission to engage with lethal force.
4. The fact that both helicopters were circling at close range means they were not worried about an RPG threat, they weren't being evasive or cautious in the slightest.
5. There was no graduated measures of force as required by their own rules of engagement. No verbal warnings or warning shots.
6. The minivan and its occupants also displayed no hostility toward the two helicopters. It was blatantly obvious he was aiding the wounded and he was unarmed.

I think the US forces were guilty or unnecessarily killing the group on the ground and those in the minivan. They didn't adhere to their own rules of engagement and their apparent delight at the deaths of the victims shows lack of discipline and professionalism.

I understand your thinking here too Badog,but as you and I both Know Rules of engagement are rarely followed in Guerrilla warfare .When have we seen any of the fanatical insurgants follow the geneva convention or rules of engagement?..I did see one of the guys on the corner of the street raise a RPG7 to his shoulder and again we Both know that can be deemed as a threat to life..I`m not trying to stick up for or give reasons for actions that I had no involvement in,However we see on a almost weekly basis troops killed by the insurgent killing teams.. It does`nt make it right that the troops did`nt follow SOP's(Standard Operating Proceedures) and this again could be seen as unprofessional,But I would assume that with the way the chopper pilots were talking to the ground crews that they had been hit by insurgents very recently and had lost some men so Pay back was definately on the agenda,But as you rightly say that is not the way that wars are fought by Professional soldiers that are supposed to be Highly Trained and their actions need to be very closely scruitinized in order to get to their reasoning for that particualar attack,and ulimately ensure that civilian Deaths are minimized,Also as stated before by another poster,why are NEWS teams allowed to embed so closely with the Ground troops? ..it is a War Zone and accidents will happen and indeed so will attacks purposely on civilian targets (Soft targets) to get the insurgent/Terrorists' point accross...

I'd like to say just a couple of things here...Some of you say "This is war..." No, mates, this isn't war, this is brutal murder of innocent people, not to mention perverted laughing of soldiers responsible for this crime against humanity. Sorry if I may sound little bit rude, but you don't have a clue what is war, I do, especially what is NATO justice... Then, my mate Knightron says "When have we seen any of the fanatical insurgants follow the geneva convention or rules of engagement?" That doesn't approve or justifies murder, mate, the fact that some Iraqi (or Afghan or...) fanatics are killing our (or your, there's no difference at all) innocent people doesn't give us right to strike back against innocent people whose only guilt is they're Iraqis. Then, what's the difference between us, so called civilized western citizens and them? That's all, mates, please, don't justify war when it can't be justified...Unfortunately, it cannot be stopped too.

When you have an agenda, the ends always justify the means.

^^^ I think more suitable verb is "explain" instead of "justify", brings whole new meaning. Btw, it is off topic but there's a book written by an ancient Chinese warrior, Sun Tzu, The Art of War, if any of you can find it somewhere, may be an interesting read.

I have to disagree with this. I don't know much about helicopters but I do know firearms. Count the time from when you hear the shots until the bullets hit. Over 2 full seconds elapse. The muzzle velocity of the 30mm rounds used by the M230 chain gun is 2641ft/s wiki which means they are not hovering directly over the scene but are hovering low at a distance circling. It appears the men in the video were not even aware the helicopter was there which also supports that they were at a distance. Then in the full length version you see them switch modes on the camera a few times, you can see the camera refocuses and then zooms in again. The quality of the video is crap so I can't read the range finder, some one were to take the time to clean it up we would be able to see the exact distance.



Notice that the very first thing it says in subsection b. of section 2. "When time permits..."



No they appear to not even know they are there, the hostile action that started this is when the man with the camera crouches down low and peeks around the corner looking down the street where troops were being engaged by insurgents which is the reason why the man was crouched low and using the corner of the building as cover. While this may have been sensible to a civilian not wanting to get shot it is also what an insurgent trying to flank the troops engaging the enemy would do ie it is a hostile action especially when he puts the camera out in front of him.
They were flying a close air support mission for the ground troops which means it doesn't matter whether the helicopter was fired on. They are circling the area looking for insurgents trying to flank the troops that are engaged and do not have to be fired on before engaging hostiles.

This comes back to the camera issue while we are sitting here debating this watching this video on high resolution computer monitors indoors the gunner is seeing this inside the cockpit in full daylight in the desert on an eye peice attached to his helmet and covers one eye. drag your pc outside and see how well you can see this video in glaring sunlight.

Here is a screen capture of a man that appears to be carrying a weapon, I can't distinguish whether it is or isn't can you? They way he is holding it fits with a man holding an assault rifle with a pistol grip stock.
screencap1

This one shows a man holding what could be easily mistaken for this wiki RPG7

screencap2

Here is one of the man peeking out from behind the corner.

Screencap3

This is the exact posture a shooter would take using a corner of a building for cover. Crouched down low and peeking around to present the smallest target. Now when the video is playing you see this object he is holding is along his right side like a shoulder fired weapon. You see him fully extend it out and see the square back side of it which tips the fact it is a camera with a telephoto lens but I had to slow it down and play it a few times to see that and couldn't even get a screencap of that. They do not have the same luxury of replaying, zooming, or slowing the play speed. So Im sure that little blink of clarity of the camera was missed (I didn't see it till the 2nd pass)

To Illustrate how close they are to the ground troops who are taking fire this next screencap is just a few seconds after you see the man peek around the corner, read the subs at the bottom, that is a soldier on the ground confirming he saw the man peek around "negative he was right in front of the Brad" Bradley personnel carrier.
Reporter or not acting in this manner that close to a fire fight is just plainly a bad idea.

Screencap4



As for the man laughing here is a screencap of what is being said, it does not sound like he is laughing out of pleasure or perversion. Put it in context it was a nervous chuckle not hahaha as he was responding to the pilot (his comanding officer) who just swore at him. feel free to listen to it as I have added the time frame in red in each capture for ease of finding the exact spot.

Screencap5

You seem to insist on calling this murder but as these are American troops and they would be tried in American courts this in no way crosses the bar for murder as to be charged with murder the prosecutor must show premeditation. They would have had to planned to go out and look for these exact people and then killed them.

Now if you really want to talk about the MURDER of innocent civilians in Iraq here is a link that will take you to all the reading and videos you could care to see on this.

Bing: Iraq suicide and car bombers