Reply #212: This isn't going to be very popular, but...

[beckstcw]

First off, watch the full, unedited one, without the political editorializing:

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

A little background is given in this one that is absent from the edited one. First off, the Apache's mission was to support that infantry platoon. A few minutes before the video starts, that platoon takes RPG and small arms fire in that vicinity, so the Apache is called up to find the guys doing it. Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hsNUgILqRcy2oq1uFmVilJ1iQeAAD9ET6UK01 the 12th paragraph.

Our video starts. They see a large group of people, all adult males, several of whom are armed. You can see 2 AK's and at least one actual RPG around 3:30-3:45 . Next, they see a man peeking around the corner and pointing what looks like an RPG at the infantryman about four blocks away. Armed men? Check. Immediate threat to American lives? Check. They get permission to fire, and as soon as they have a shot, they take it.

(For what it's worth, the actions of this group of people are very suspicious looking, especially in a combat zone mere minutes after US forces have been fired on. Including having the RPG firer simply poke around the corner and fire while everyone else hangs back to avoid backblast. See here for a slightly humorous example: . Obviously one example does not a trend make, but I'm just bringing it to your attention)

Secondly, I have yet to see anyone say that the group of guys with the reporters were NOT insurgents. For extra emphasis, at 30:45 there is more small arms fire. At 31:10 you see guys with AK's and body armor running away from the area. There was DEFINITELY a battle going on in this area, something that Wikileaks biased editing job carefully omits.

It wouldn't be the first time that Reuters stringers were hanging out with insurgents for some good pictures. For instance, this picture:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/14/content_391288.htm

Was taken by none other than Namir Noor-Eldeen, one of the photographers killed in this attack. Wonder how he got that? How about THIS one:

http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/18/losses-in-the-family/

Here, Namir is obviously standing about 10 feet away from insurgents as they commit an act of violence. I'm not passing judgement on him, I actually think it's good to have reporters as close as possible to the conflict, but I'm merely pointing out that hanging out with insurgents is something that Noor-Eldeen had been doing for a few years prior to his death.

Anyways, back to the video.

At 19:20, someone reports finding an RPG round.

At 32:54, someone asks if it's been defused yet, and is told "no, it's still live"

Even if everyone in Iraq has an AK, only the bad guys have RPG rounds. The discovery of an RPG round among the bodies makes me believe that Namir Noor-Eldeen was yet again hanging out with an insurgent group looking for great shots. He and the other photographer were almost certainly innocent of actual wrongdoing, but the armed men they were with were in all likelihood some of the ACTUAL insurgents who fired on US troops before the video started.

As for the van that was attacked, I'll admit that it's slightly sketchier, but I'll clarify that by noting that insurgents often clean up their own wounded, so an black van showing up with three or four adult men who immediately jump out and start aiding wounded insurgents is absolutely suspicious enough to make a case for engaging it. I don't know that I personally would have engaged that van, but I find in totally understandable that they did. Although, again, there's no proof that the men in the van weren't also insurgents, since the video leaves out a lot of context.

Yes, this video is disturbing simply for the sheer violence and immediate destruction. But think about it before mindlessly jumping to conclusions regarding what actually happened that day.