Talk:Namir Noor-Eldeen

This Page

Is terrible. I don't know what type of notices need to be added to it. For now I'm changing 'shot to dead' to 'killed '.

• I've added some reliable sources, fixed some of the poor wording and expanded the information a bit. — Hunter Kahn 02:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Location

Location given as "Mike Bravo five-four-five-eight eight-six-one-seven" (MB 5458 8617 abbreviated form) in the Military grid reference system (MGRS: 38S MB54580 86170) or (UTM: 38S 454580E 3686170N), or 33.3137°N 44.512°E / 33.3137; 44.512 using the conversion available at [1]. —Sladen (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources

The following would potentially be a very good source, but is inconsistent with names (if is possibly just badly worded):

• Mujahid Yousef; Nordland, Rod (2010-04-06). "Family Weeps at Video of Son's Killing in U.S. Strike". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-04-06.

—Sladen (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretext

The article in its current state reads: 'it has also been noted that they seem to be looking for a pretext, with one pilot stating "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon."' I realize this statement is properly sourced, and I am not changing it on the basis of my own opinion... but for what it's worth, I interpreted that statement differently. They could have been looking for a pretext to put him out of his misery, out of sympathy. Yes, the aircrew were obviously quite emotionally desensitized and disconnected (as evidenced by them chuckling at the Humvee running over the bodies)... but they're TRAINED to be that way. They HAVE to be that way to do their job -- which is to kill people -- without going insane. However, it IS possible for a servicemember in that position to still retain some humanitarian values. They are not cold-blooded murderers. They are soldiers who have been trained to do about the most difficult job I can personally imagine. And all that being said, they made a horrible mistake ("they" including the entire chain of command who put in place the rules of engagement and culture that allowed this to happen). But they're still human. (OK, most of what I just wrote has no bearing on, or place in, this article; I just needed an outlet for my thinking... thanks for reading (or not).) 98.212.130.14 (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the term "pretext" needs to be kept out of the article. What happened is horrific, but using the word "pretext" implies that the sources reveal the inner motives of the pilots of the Apache. The sources do not make any statement about that. If someone wants to add 3rd party commentary, for example from human rights groups, that condemn the actions of the soldiers, than that is fine because that is information we can source. But "pretext" implies knowledge of deceptive intent, which at this point we do not know. David Straub (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Information on my edits

Caption for the video

I changed the caption for the video which:

1. Incorrectly stated that "Several minutes after this frame, the AH-64 Apache from which the video originates opens fire" as the still shows the van arriving on the scene after the Apache has already engaged the personnel on the ground.
2. Used the term "civilians" (specifically "killing all 12 civilians present") while it is disputable whether or not there were enemy combatants were among the casualties (the neutral term is "individuals" or "personnel").

The caption I provided states: "Footage from the gun-camera of an AH-64 Apache which had opened fire on individuals on the ground several minutes earlier, resulting in multiple casualties, among them Namir Noor-Eldeen."

--Bruce (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The main article

I removed some content I felt didn't belong in the section and is better discussed (and read) in the main article which is referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucevdk (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Some things I don't understand

Here are some things I don't understand:

• The NY Times article by Elisabeth Bumiller states "[The video] consists of 38 minutes of black-and-white aerial video and conversations between pilots in two Apache helicopters". An article from the Guardian states: "The newly released video of the Baghdad attacks was recorded on one of two Apache helicopters hunting for insurgents on 12 July 2007.". So the statement made in the Wikipedia article that "two American Apache helicopters fired on a group of people milling around on a street in Baghdad" is incorrect. As far as I can tell from watching the video the conversation mentioned in the NY Times article is not between two chopper pilots, but the pilot and gunner of a single Apache.

--Bruce (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In the sworn statements the following is said:

Both CZ18/19 engaged the AIF with approximately 200 rounds of 30mm

And:

CZ18/19 engaged with approximately 70 rounds of 30mm destroying the vehicle and killing the AIF

--Bruce (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content by Brucevdk

I am talking about these edits, where Brucevdk removed a part of the article (diff : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Namir_Noor-Eldeen&diff=354372901&oldid=354369788) saying

However, video footage of the attack showed no hostile action when the shots were fired. In the video, it has been noted that the helicopter pilots may have mistaken Noor-Eldeen's camera for a weapon, although it has also been noted that they seem to be looking for a pretext, with one pilot stating "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon".

This edit was sourced by 2 different sources yet he removed it with the edit caption

Removing a statement I dispute but am not able to improve, if you want to talk about it take it to the discussion page

which does not say why he disputed the information. I would like him to answer these three questions, as I feel they need to be asked in order to understand the edit.

• Why did you dispute this information?
• Did you find another source which contradicts the ones in the article?
• What do you mean by 'not able to improve'? What was the problem which you could not improve?

Thank you for your time. Acebulf (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What dispute? I don't see the need to protect this article except for covering some war criminals' asses. -- Toytoy (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try and answer your questions.

Let's take the paragraph apart:

However, video footage of the attack showed no hostile action when the shots were fired.

This seems accurate (from watching the video) and is mentioned in both Bumiller0405 and McGreal0405.

In the video, it has been noted that the helicopter pilots may have mistaken Noor-Eldeen's camera for a weapon,

This is phrased incorrectly as the source for this statement is Bumiller0405, specifically the statement: "The pilots believe them to be insurgents, and mistake Mr. Noor-Eldeen’s camera for a weapon." and not the video itself.

From viewing the footage from the gun-camera it is clear that the crew of the Air Weapons Team (AWT) does indeed mistake the cameras the journalists are carrying for weapons (in one instance as an RPG launcher). However, let's not forgot that there are clearly other individuals in the group who are carrying weapons (specifically AK-47's and RPG launchers) as is also pointed out in the supporting documents released by the United States Central Command (CENTCOM).

although it has also been noted that they seem to be looking for a pretext, with one pilot stating "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon".

This phrase, which follows the one mentioned above, doesn't even remotely belong there. The source for it is McGreal0405 specifically the statement: "One of the men on the ground, believed to be Chmagh, is seen wounded and trying to crawl to safety. One of the helicopter crew is heard wishing for the man to reach for a gun, even though there is none visible nearby, so he has the pretext for opening fire".

The reason it doesn't belong there is because it has nothing to do with the phrase leading it. Because:

# The leading sentence deals with the initial attack, the statement from the pilot is after they have ceased firing.

# The person crawling was Chmagh, not Namir.

Seriously, the whole paragraph is an absolute mess, it's very misleading (especially the last phrase) and as I mentioned in my edit comment, I wasn't able to improve it (apart from removing it).

I also think the best thing to do is to keep the information regarding the incident in this article to a bare minimum and instead have people read the main article.

--Bruce (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that we've seen everything in this incident: the videos, the pilot chatter, the dead bodies, the dead cameramen, the official military report, the three years the videos were repressed . . . EXCEPT the weapons the military claims they found on the ground. Are the men moving in a way that suggests they're about to shoot at a helicopter? Do they run for cover before the shots are fired? Is it sane to believe anyone would bring kids to a battle? Is it sane to believe this stuff doesn't happen in EVERY war? Magmagoblin2 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The AWT was not so much worried about themselves (as far as I can tell the group was not aware of the attack helicopter's presence) but the U.S. forces who were about 200/300 meters down the street (see map), which in the video Namir is seen taking pictures of when peaking around the corner (some frames are available in the CENTCOM reports). The peaking around the corner is interpreted as hostile action by the AWT because they mistake the, what we know now to be a camera, for an RPG launcher. If you want my personal opinion on the matter however then I would say (based on the available footage and related information) that the personnel on the ground was not visibly undertaking hostile action against U.S. forces in the area and as such did not pose an immediate threat warranting a response by the AWT. But that's just my opinion. --Bruce (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

They seem to have mistaken a camera for a gun, but they didn't mistake it for an RPG. There really was an RPG. At about 0:55 to 1:05 in the video (3:40 here) there is a group of 4 individuals visible, one of whom clearly has an RPG or something that closely resembles it (not a camera) (though not "getting ready to fire" as a voice claimed ~30 seconds later), and another of whom seems to have a rifle (not a camera). (The video would have been improved by arrows showing those things, like the arrow pointing out Namir's camera.)

But that doesn't excuse the rest. E.g., "we had a guy shooting, now he's behind the building." That was plainly a lie, someone on the helicopter lying over the radio to his superiors, to obtain permission to engage. Nobody was shooting. And, later, when unarmed people showed up and tried to rescue the wounded, they were shot, too.

Was anyone court martialed for this? If so, what was the outcome? NCdave (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Presence of illegal weapons

The Washington Post had an interview with David Finkel, the reporter who had been on the ground that day. He clarifies the misinformation from the Wikileaks clip:

What's helpful to understand is that, contrary to some interpretations that this was an attack on some people walking down the street on a nice day, the day was anyting but that. It happened in the midst of a large operation to clear an area where US soldiers had been getting shot at, injured, and killed with increasing frequency. What the Reuters guys walked into was the very worst part, where the morning had been a series of RPG attacks and running gun battles.

...

Vancouver BC: You claim that you're trying to put this attack into context. In that case, why are you ignoring the fact that the helicopter operator lied to ground control?

The helicopter crew has at least 480p resolution video. They can see what we can see. So clearly, he was lying...

He claimed that these people were carrying an RPG and AK47's when anyone with two eyes can see that the so-called RPG was no longer than 18 inches, and no such RPG is manufactured by anyone... are you saying that members of the US armed forces are so poorly educated that they think an 18 inch long camera lens is an RPG?

David Finkel: Thanks for asking about this. If you were to see the full video, you would see a person carrying an RPG launcher as he walkeddown the street as part of the group. Another was armed as well, as I recall. Also, if you had the unfortunate luck to be on site afterwards, you would have seen that one of the dead in the group was lying on top of a launcher. Because of that and some other things, EOD -- the Hurt Locker guys, I guess -- had to come in and secure the site. And again, I'm not trying to excuse what happened. But there was more to it for you to consider than what was in the released video.

So, they definitely saw armed men, and it wasn't just AK-47s. Keep in mind that Wikileaks isn't a neutral source.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To me, it sounds like Finkel is trying to make excuses over why the description of the attack in his book plainly contradicts what is seen in the video. He also admits his account in the book was based on unclassified sources, so ti's likely they were based on reports that have since been questioned at best, or contradicted at worst. (Also, Finkel says there are things we can't see in the edited video, but the unedited video is also available and I haven't seen any rocket launchers in there.) However, this is a reliable source, so it obviously shouldn't be dismissed out of turn. Are there other sources that indicate the presence of AK-47s and rocket launchers among the groups? (There seem to be a lot of sources that indicate they are unarmed, but they may be based solely on watching the video, so I don't want to take them at face value.) It would be helpful if we could find multiple sources that indicate exactly what weapons are possessed, so we can settle the matter once and for all. — Hunter Kahn 00:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith here but....

• Show me where in his book he "plainly contradicts what is seen in the video"
• Show me by whom and what parts of the reports "have since been questioned at best, or contradicted at worst" (there are some parts in the sworn statements I personally dispute but I do not question the overall validity of the investigation itself, though I disagree with the conclusions)

As for the presence of RPG launchers: if you want a source other than the military reports and the video footage itself which Finkel describes then the one I am most familiar with and consider the most reliable is Anthony Martinez, an infantryman who went to Iraq twice with the 3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division and has experience with analyzing aerial footage. In his blog post he states:

At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache.

Also see Reaction on Military Blogs to the WikiLeaks Video, New York Times.

In fact, I now recall that even Assange (the man behind Wikileaks) has since stated that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons." and "based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything ... Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area." (this is mentioned in the main article, source is a Fox News interview)

Let me know if I can help clear things up.

--Bruce (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Finkel is clearly talking about what he saw in the unedited video.

The Java Report pointed to the RPGs and AK-47's first here, and then in animated form of a guy carrying an RPG here. These (naturally) didn't make the Wikileaks edited video.

The second link also has the Army's report, which includes photos taken by the ground troops. The photo of the RPG itself was redacted because it was too close to a body.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, it appears Finkel is talking about the edited video in the article. Since he refers to it being, you know...edited. ("We got to see an edited version yesterday of a disturbing video..." and "...you're seeing an edited version of the video.") The Jawa report image certainly looks like a gun, but I couldn't swear by it, and we can't take that Jawa Report image/report at face value any more than we can the Wikileaks image/report. (Besides, I don't think Jawa Report can be considered a reliable source. Isn't it named after a Star Wars character?) Bruce's sources are a bit more compelling, although the Assange quote only says he "suspects" they are armed, and I'm not sure whether the Anthony Martinez blog can be considered a reliable source, especially as the man seems to have his own point of view on the topic. What I think we ideally need to solve the issue are multiple secondary sources (like news articles, etc.) that specify exactly how many weapons they had. At that point, I think it could be put to rest, since most of what's out there seems to be mostly speculation and guesswork. (Also, Bruce, for the record, what I was referring to with the "plainly contradicts" part is the fact that in his book, he describes them as having four AK-47s and one RPG. That seems to be entirely off base; most sources are indicating one or two of the men may have had AK-47s, at best. What I was referring to about reports being contradicted were that the official U.S. military response at the time said the helicopter were responding to small-arms fire. Even if some of these men were armed, it's clear in the video there was no firing going on when the helicopters themselves opened fire...)
• But, I'm not going to press the matter any more, because personally, I think one or two of the men probably were armed. I'm not sure whether that makes them insurgents, or whether that makes the shooting justified, but I think between what Finkel is saying and some of the other reports out there, plus my own observation of the video, I think it's likely at least one of these guys was carrying a gun. I just wish it were more clear and that multiple sources were saying "there were XX number of AK-47s" so we could make it more clear, is all... — Hunter Kahn 05:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to apologize if my reaction came across a bit blunt (starting off with mentioning bad faith), but I was a bit fired up because I had just read a bunch of news articles which blatantly assumed that all individuals killed were unarmed civilians and used harsh language to condemn the crews behavior (basically a one sided story). As you say yourself: it is likely at least one of these guys was carrying a gun. Now of course that doesn't automatically make him an insurgent and even if he was it doesn't mean the Air Weapons Team response was justified (the military has so far disagreed) . Like Finkel so appropriately says in the chat: "I think it's fair to say that there have been many many bad days for Iraqis and Americans, and this was one of them. "

I also want to respond to what you were saying:

Also, Bruce, for the record, what I was referring to with the "plainly contradicts" part is the fact that in his book, he describes them as having four AK-47s and one RPG. That seems to be entirely off base; most sources are indicating one or two of the men may have had AK-47s, at best. What I was referring to about reports being contradicted were that the official U.S. military response at the time said the helicopter were responding to small-arms fire. Even if some of these men were armed, it's clear in the video there was no firing going on when the helicopters themselves opened fire

Besides the excerpt from Finkel's book so far I've only read the official U.S. military investigation reports, I do not have a clear picture of what military spokespersons said regarding the matter in 2007. So when you say "the official U.S. military response at the time said the helicopter were responding to small-arms fire" I will take this to mean the reports for now. Now, there is absolutely no question that parts of Bravo Company 2-16 (in total some 240 soldiers) came under attack that day. Now, there's a lot of inconsistency in the sworn statements the various individuals: one claims the elements on the ground had been receiving small arms and RPG fire from the east of their position; and another claims to the south. From reading the sworn statements you'll even notice that for various parts the crew members have different accounts of the matter, for example the (I believe) co-pilot/gunner for Crazyhorse 19 goes so far to say that: "The AIF were firing around the corner to the East towards several of Bushmaster M1114 HWWMVs near the gas station." (he's describing what we now know is Namir taking photographs, possibly with a flash which is not visible in the video).

From the video we cannot see any individuals presenting an hostile act (apart from possibly Namir), however we obviously don't see everything in the area when zoomed in etc. but I believe if they had clearly seen somebody from the group firing they would have targeted him with the TADS.

As for the amount of weapons, the military report contains two photographs of weapons of which one is redacted in such a way we cannot see the weapon. However, the military analysis of the footage shows 3-4 likely weapons (I cannot confirm at this time by independent analysis). I can't recall from the top of my head what the sworn statements of the ground personnel said regarding weapons present at the scene, though I do remember they said multiple RPG launchers (at least 2) were found in the area.

I have a lot of unanswered questions that would need to be answered to fully understand the situation. Such as:

• How big was the unit located 100-150 meters away from the group?
• Was that group at that time taking specific fire from hostile elements?
• Why did the Air Weapons Team not let the ground elements handle the situation?

--Bruce (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Finkel is really talking about the fact that there is an unedited video.

But I made a mistake, and perhaps Finkel is, too. The Jawa Report (which does like Star Wars metaphors) is showing pictures from the edited version. The first link I gave shows the times at the images, and they're consistent with the edited one. It's just that Wikileaks decided not to highlight the weapons.

BTW: The Jawa Report is a notable blog, although I wouldn't use it as an RS here. I'm giving you those links so that you can see where the weapons are on the video.

Jawa has another image here that shows the guy with the RPG just above a picture of one. It's not a camera. The guy holding it is not one of the two Reuters reporters. Besides, if Reuters actually had photographers running around with cameras that had profiles so similar to AK-47s or RGPs then I think that would be a major scandal on Reuters's part.

Add in the fact that these weapons were found on the scene, and it's about as certain as these things can get.

Keep in mind that the troops who came in later and photographed everything were from a different unit. They had at least one reporter with them (Finkel). And there was no hint at that time that this event would later hit the news in this way. Contrast that to Wikileaks's sad history, and there's no question which side has more integrity.

The military definitely says they were responding to small arms fire. The fact that the insurgents weren't shown firing at the moment doesn't mean much. I'm guessing here, but I would think the soldiers would take a secure position they called the helicopters. The insurgents would then have stopped firing, and begin looking for another spot.

After the shooting has already started, the ROE wouldn't require the helicopter to wait until they were shot at themselves. That would be asking for the war to continue forever.

I've heard that the unit nearby would have been about 240 men, but I don't recall if that was an educated guess at unit size based on what type of unit it was, or specific knowledge of that unit at that time. Regardless, there's no reason to risk any of its troops if a helicopter can handle it more safely. Don't forget that, no matter what you may think of the pilots' actions, it is the enemy chose that not to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. As such, these aircrews were legally and morally in the right as far as the law of armed conflict is concerned.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh Randy...

You say: "if Reuters actually had photographers running around with cameras that had profiles so similar to AK-47s or RGPs then I think that would be a major scandal on Reuters's part.".

As I have no military experience what so ever I refrain from commenting on several aspects of this incident. However, as mentioned earlier, Anthony Martinez, who both has military experience and actual hands-on experience with analyzing aerial footage also commented that:

Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment . This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18.

And:

At 4:08 to 4:18 another misidentification is made by Crazyhorse 18, where what appears to clearly be a man with a telephoto lens (edit to add: one of the Canon EF 70-200mm offerings) on an SLR is identified as wielding an RPG. The actual case is not threatening at all, though the misidentified case presents a major perceived threat to the aircraft and any coalition forces in the direction of its orientation.

Moving on: "I'm guessing here, but I would think the soldiers would take a secure position they called the helicopters. The insurgents would then have stopped firing, and begin looking for another spot."

Your description of the events here is way off base.

First of all saying "the soldiers would take a secure position they called the helicopters" makes it seem as if the unit nearby was under fire and then called in the helicopters, that's false. I added some context to the main article based on information from the military reports:

The Air Weapons Team (AWT) of two Apache AH-64s (part of the 1st Cavalry Division) had been requested by the Army's 2-16 Infantry Battalion before July 12 to support Operation Ilaaj. Tasked to conduct escort, armed reconnaissance patrols, counter-IED and counter-mortar operations, the two helicopters left Camp Taji at 9.24am. They arrived on station in New Baghdad at 9.53am, where sporadic attacks on coalition forces continued.''

Notice how they were on station at 9.53am while they first spotted the group around 10:18am.

To be precise they were requested either on the 7th of July (the date of request on the relevant Attack Mission Request released by CENTCOM) or the 10th (the date which the 2nd military investigation mentions).

Also note how when they arrived it says "sporadic attacks" continued. I'd also like to point out that apart from Finkel's account we have absolutely no insight into precise what kind of resistance the company (and specifically the unit in the neighborhood) encountered. AFAIK the report doesn't go into this. However, the pilot for Crazyhorse 19 mentions the following in his sworn statement:

"When I checked in with the ground unit, they reported small arms and RPG fire. We'd been in the area for probably 10-15 minutes an they were still taking small arms fire, which is very unlikely for that area. Once the apaches are on station, everything kind of dies down, but as we were there, they still continued to take sporadic small arms fire at the HMMWVs and the friendly units that were in the neighborhood. They gave us a report that they heard small arms fire coming, I think, from the South. They say the fire was coming from vicinity of the Mosque that was there, so that's how we started to focus our search and look at the street corners."

Judging by the radio communication captured in the video it doesn't seem like, at the time, there was anything immediately threatening to ground forces (at the very least nothing they couldn't handle).

Next up: "I've heard that the unit nearby would have been about 240 men"

All we know, according to accounts by David Finkel, is that the entire company (Bravo Company 2-16) consisted out of: 240 soldiers, 65 Humvees, several Bradley Fighting Vehicles. That makes me suspect the unit nearby, to whom the identified personnel was a potential threat, was considerably smaller.

And last but not least: "Regardless, there's no reason to risk any of its troops if a helicopter can handle it more safely. Don't forget that, no matter what you may think of the pilots' actions, it is the enemy chose that not to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. As such, these aircrews were legally and morally in the right as far as the law of armed conflict is concerned."

As you've offered your personal opinion, let me offer mine.

There is a reason ground forces are deployed and we don't just carpet bomb the entire neighborhood: we want to minimize civilian casualties (the only way to really win this war is to win the hearts and minds off the local population). I personally see no reason the ground troops present couldn't have handled this situation, after all that is what they were there for. As Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer commented: we have to be better than good, we have to be great. I personally think the Apache team responded with a disproportionate amount of force, most likely led by their wish to minimize risk. To me this is exemplified in particular by the decision to engage the personnel from the van.

--Bruce (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As Martinez is an infantryman and a photographer, it's not surprising that he'd spot the camera more easily. But that's not the only report of weapons.

When the aviator says "he's got a weapon too" then that definitely is an AK-47. If you track their movement, it's a different guy than one of the men with the cameras. The complete profile of an AK-47 is visible. Interestingly, it is at that point that the real RPG identified by the Jawa Report also becomes visible to the camera. This is also a different guy than the ones holding cameras.

This alone doesn't excuse the mistaken report of an RPG, but the report of AK-47s being there was still true. If all the men had only cameras then the crew might have caught their mistake before firing.

My own knowledge here is also limited. I was an aircrewman in the Navy, but not on helicopters. The display looks familiar, and that's about it.

I'm not sure that your timeline conflicts with my statement as much as you think it does. The request for the Apaches was by 2-16 Infantry Battalion, but it was Bravo Company (of 2-16) that arrived on the scene. This could mean the Apaches were providing general support to the battalion, but not specifically to the company as it was under fire. So, my statement that "the soldiers would take a secure position they called the helicopters" would still make sense. I could still be wrong, of course, but I don't see it being certain that the request for looking into that specific location was the same thing as their general assignment to the operation.

I surely agree that we shouldn't carpet bomb neighborhoods but that's not what happened here. They identified several men with weapons before striking. Infantrymen on the ground could have made the same errors. Had the Iraqis all been innocent reporters then it could still be a stupid but innocent mistake. There's no comparison to carpet bombing. Moreover, several of them had weapons. The men with the AK-47s were still legitimate targets even after a more careful examination with the benefit of time.

A "disproportionate amount of force" generally means something like destroying a building when you intend to kill a few people inside. But in this case, they honestly thought everyone in that group was affiliated with the Mahdi Army. So, killing everyone in the group would have been the appropriate amount of force.

I agree with the sentiment that "we have to be better than good" but I never said the Apache crew's misjudgment was great. It's merely legal, and understandable under the circumstances. You need to understand that the other side also needs to be held to account. The reporters were in a war zone beside armed men without distinguishing themselves. The Army can demand "great" from its pilots but reporters need to prepare for an occasional imperfection.

As for children in a war zone, the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions would put the blame on those who allowed the kids to be there. The Mahdi Army isn't some faceless group. They have friends and supporters in the peace movement itself. Someone should have confronted them about this years ago.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wait a minute... "As for children in a war zone, the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions would put the blame on those who allowed the kids to be there. The Mahdi Army isn't some faceless group." Has it been confirmed these are members of the Mahdi Army? Even if they were armed, I was under the impression it was unclear whether they were insurgents at all? — Hunter Kahn 20:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Scratch that, I said I was not going to press the matter anymore, and I'm going to keep to that. Besides, this is turning into a discussion and an exchange of points of view, which is not what a talk page is meant to be... — Hunter Kahn 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

... it is a warzone obviously they had some kind of weapon eithera gun or there mind which clearly the Americans werent using i am watching the unedited video NO WEAPONS VISIBLE it clearly look slike a camera 207.6.168.201 (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)