Home > WikiLeaks Deception > WIKI DECEPTION: Iraq “Collateral Murder” Rebuttal: Scenes Wikileaks edited out!

WIKI DECEPTION: Iraq “Collateral Murder” Rebuttal: Scenes Wikileaks edited out!

The 17-minute version uploaded by Wikileaks goes well beyond responsible journalism and the stated mission of Wikileaks to the point where it is propagandistic and misleading. This video, Wikileaks Deception, includes footage not seen in the Wikileaks version and provides the context and necessary annotations to get the full context of the incident, including discussions of hostile gunfire, the presence of an AK-47 and RPG, and other framing factors. To their credit, Wikileaks did include an unedited 39 minute version, but chose to propagate the 17 minute version with deceptive analysis.

Liveleak links:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1b_1270800204

or

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d05_1270798624

Here is another copy, just in case:

UPDATE 11/4/2010: Wikileaks’ 39 minute “full version” is actually missing roughly 30 minutes of footage. Read article about yet another deception here at gawker and mypetjawa: http://tiny.cc/lqzjl

UPDATE 10/4/2010: Reposted video on Youtube. We will see how long it is up before they remove it.

UPDATE 9/4/2010: This video was removed from YouTube for “graphic or gratuitous violence”, yet they leave other ones defamatory of US soldiers. Will repost later.

Some scenes, Wikileaks conveniently left out of 17-minute version:

0:26 The “Black van” dropping off possible insurgents.

0:46 “We got a target fifteen coming at you, it’s a guy with a weapon.”

1:05 “One of them has a weapon.

1:27 Guy carrying AK-47, and other with RPG (no way it a tripod) that had previously fired on U.S. Troops. WikiLeak video distracts you with letter box about a camera Bag).

3:53 “Roger, be advised, there were some guys popping out with the AKs behind that dirt pile. Break.”

4:25 “Uh, location, I have about 12 to 15 dead bodies. Where else were you taking fire from?”

4:34 They had AK-47s and were to our East. So, where we were taking small arms fire, over.

4:59 “I also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG crouching around the corner, Getting ready to fire on your location. That’s why we requested permission to engage.”

5:17 (IMPORTANT) “Six this is four, I got one individual looks like he’s got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break.” (Note: Four was at the scene of the shooting and found an RPG, of course wikileaks left that out).

5:43 “ I can hear small arms fire from your engagement area…”

6:10 “Right about where we engaged? Yeah, one of them with that RPG or whatever.”

6:19 “He’s got a weapon. Got an RP–, uh AK-47.”

6:34 “Roger, we have another individual with a weapon.

The WikiLeaks transcription is poor in areas, as well. For instance, one part in their version they claim one guy said “F—ing Prick”. It was not “prick, it was “break”. Not sure the word before it, sounded cut off.

HERE IS THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE INCIDENT, PLEASE READ.
2nd Brigade Combat Team 15-6 Investigation

PHOTO TAKEN RIGHT BEFORE ENGAGEMENT WITH CRAZYHORSE 18, SHOWING EXTREMELY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO US FORCES. CRAZYHORSE PERCEIVED THIS TO BE IMMEDIATE RPG THREAT AND ENGAGED.

USE OF CAMERAS: Should also note that a tactic used in battle is to take pictures using high powered lenses to gather intel on troop location, size, and armament. Photos would then be shared with the RPG carrier for more precise target acquisition. Not saying this was the case here, but that does happen. Tragic as it is, one should know better than to aim what looks like a weapon at ground troops with surveilling Apache Copters overhead, especially when standing next to insurgents carrying an RPG and AK-47s.

HERE ARE SOME GREAT POSTS REGARDING PHOTOGRAPHY BEING USED TACTICALLY BY “1Armywife”
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/wikileaks_releases_iraq_chopper_shooting_footage.php#more

I just showed my husband this footage. He was there and had a role in reviewing the investigation on this case. His response below might clarify some things.

This footage shows the final engagement of the Reuters field reporters in New Baghdad. Missing is the overwatch video and earlier AH64 footage showing the development of the situation where the two reporters and armed men supported by a van and cars were shadowing a Coalition patrol. These reporters accompanied the armed men who were tracking a Coalition patrol about a city block away. The camera man would peek around corners to shoot a few digital frames of the patrol and then show the pictures to the armed men. If you have all the video footage, you will see this activity happened repeatedly. The operational suspicion was that this was enemy TTP (tactic, technic, or procedure) to help prepare for an attack; the digital photos would be used to quickly evaluate the target — to judge what it looked like, its shape, distance, terrain in between, where to aim, etc. This way, the RPG operator would select the right warhead, he’d preset the mechanical sights (elevation), and fix in his mind a visual picture of the target so he would limit his exposure time when stepping out in the street to fire. The recovered camera showed how the cameral man was aiding the enemy. What you also don’t have is the operational history of RPG attacks in New Baghdad. This was heavy JAM territory. I understand that it is disturbing to see calculated killing, but the engagement was not without cause. The engagement of the van should be understood in the overall context of earlier events. It is obvious the AH64 pilots and the operational commander conferred. This was not a war crime. A Soldier

1ARMYWIFE THEN RESPONDS TO CONSPIRACY THEORISTS

Look, I showed him the video and he had something to say about it that I thought might be of interest and put things in perspective. The most salient facts were that this engagement lasted 40 minutes and not merely eight as is seen here. Footage of the scene was taken from multiple viewpoints, i.e. other helicopters, so you don’t see all of the activity. Finally, whether they were willing partners or not, the cameramen were helping the insurgents by providing them with visual information, and this is on the footage that the leaked film does not include. You can see a bit of this activity when the camera man peeks around the corner, takes some shots and then goes back and all of the other guys gather around him to check out the pictures. Remember, this is a war zone and not a place where sharing photos of the scenery was considered normal. Our soldiers believed this information was going to be used to help aim RPGs, and the camera the cameraman was carrying confirmed this. My husband never said that what happened to the van was right, just that it occurred in a broader context than was shown here. With all the sensationalism in the media, he just thought the extra info might be useful and give a clearer picture of what was happening. These film makers had a story to tell. Unfortunately, they left out the fair and balanced parts.

Happyco, yes, that point was reviewed in the command inquiry. The van, or another like it, was suspected of providing weapon support to the fighters in earlier footage. The van did not display the protected symbols (red crescent or red cross), so the situation depended on a judgment whether the fighter had “fallen out of combat” (as you say per the Law of War and ROE). The command did review the van response to the scene for lessons learned. The gunners reported collection of wounded and weapons and requested authorization to fire. I can’t say the same command authorization based on the information relayed by the gunners would have been made if a commander were personally viewing in real time. It was a terrible consequence that could have been avoided. I understand Reuters subsequently issued a policy to all field reporters to avoid running with armed insurgents.

Model127, There is earlier footage showing armed men going to and from a van and some cars. That conduct produced the suspicion. I’m not aware of any additional evidence like weapons found in the van. It very well could have been – probably(?) – good samaritans reacting to help. No clear way to tell at the time, however. The gunners thought they saw insurgent activity.

Advertisements
  1. zf
    April 13, 2010 at 3:12 am

    1ArmyWife makes many good points, but why does she and others who should know better insist that the van was filled with “Good Samaritans?” There is absolutely no evidence of that but there is quite a bit of evidence showing the opposite: that they aiding and abetting insurgents. An identical black van is seen dropping off insurgents and than later drives recklessly into a war zone and starts picking up bodies? Oh, and the van has none of the protected symbols. Their actions are suspicious, they match the description of a van that up to no good earlier and nearby, and they purposely get involved in a battle. Where can anybody get a van full of doo gooders and not insurgents from that? This “controversy” is lame. If command has said not to engage, I would have thought them insane.

    And to all the former soldiers criticizing their comrades firing on the van. A) You weren’t there to know what the atmosphere or overall context of the fight was that influenced the gunners actions and b) you don’t have all the evidence that command and the gunners had to conclude the van was hostile. So with all due respect, please stop passing judgment on your bothers in arms.

    • zf
      April 13, 2010 at 3:13 am

      1ArmyWife makes many good points, but why does she and others who should know better insist that the van was filled with “Good Samaritans?” There is absolutely no evidence of that but there is quite a bit of evidence showing the opposite: that they were aiding and abetting insurgents. An identical black van is seen dropping off insurgents and than later drives recklessly into a war zone and starts picking up bodies? Oh, and the van has none of the protected symbols. Their actions are suspicious, they match the description of a van that up to no good earlier and nearby, and they purposely get involved in a battle. Where can anybody get a van full of doo gooders and not insurgents from that? This “controversy” is lame. If command had said not to engage, I would have thought them insane.

      And to all the former soldiers criticizing their comrades firing on the van. A) You weren’t there to know what the atmosphere or overall context of the fight was that influenced the gunners actions and b) you don’t have all the evidence that command and the gunners had to conclude the van was hostile. So with all due respect, please stop passing judgment on your brothers in arms.

  2. wikileakfraud
    April 13, 2010 at 6:46 am

    I agree, well put.

  3. April 13, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Hi guys, great work. You may want to post the video to Blip.TV and Vimeo as the last video that went up was “voted down” by WikiLeaks supporters and ultimately banned by YouTube.

    Keep up the good work.

  4. TSO
    April 13, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    Stay on them guys, this is PHENOMENAL work.

  5. JM
    April 17, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    ZF, where’s the footage showing “dropping off”. I see the van moving but I never see it stop. Your conclusion is pure supposition.

    And I don’t know if you realize it but when you say later drives recklessly into a war zone and starts picking up bodies? you’re being revolting.

    There were children in that van, their father was killed and they were injured. They were already in the area that’s what they were doing. And they were helping an injured man.

    The only way your conclusion makes sense is if it proceeds from the premise that Iraqi’s are subhuman and that a father would plan to subject his children to battlefield danger.

    Pull your head in.

    • wikileakfraud
      April 18, 2010 at 6:04 pm

      The link I gave provides you with the transcript explaining the rationale behind engaging the black van. The black 4-door vehicle was seen picking up and dropping off people all morning long. Unfortunate as it is, the kids were most likely brought along and propped up front as cover to dissuade U.S. Forces from attack. As odd as that may sound, we are dealing with a different mindset. It is clear that U.S. Forces did not know there were children in the van. That was not clear until the ground forces arrived on scene and evacuated the injured.

  6. wikileakfraud
  7. Mud Kips
    May 17, 2010 at 8:45 am

    Worth mentioning:

    The first mass media outlet to pick up the story, DAYS before everybody else, was al-Jazeera. I have this nagging suspicion that they organized the entire thing.

  8. Kasoldier
    May 22, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    I first watched the wikileaks video @ Aljazeera and I second Mud Kips. I think Aljazeera planned it.

  9. RollingDice
    December 31, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    The documents have been tampered and modified by the US Army to justify the shooting over a group of unidentified persons (civilians) including children!
    The van is not the real one but have been replaced and nobody knows by who and why!
    Everything have been hidden from anybody!
    So, even if they have been targeted by enemies, there was no reason to not show the reality.
    The most important thing, especially if you pretend to be believed, is to show the real informations and say that there have been also an accident (a few civilians involved?).

    Sorry, but such USELESS nationalism to explain what should be the event is pity.
    WE are killing people for the interests of a few and you all pretend to have some good reasons to shoot around. 🙂
    If you want to give INFORMATIONS just remove all the patriotical (USA) statements especially because in this case the real patriots are those that are dying FOR their own nation IN their own nation ….. the Afghanistan.

    I doubt that even a single one person know a good reason to be massively there full of weapons. “They” have never threatened us and they would never do such thing because they have been for decades without big problems with the rest of the world… especially for the fact that they have sold us oil (and other resources) and, right now, they don’t want that we are going to steal it.

  10. anon
    May 25, 2011 at 8:21 am

    Wikileaks released two versions of the same video.

    I’ve seen all this footage before, it’s not like they tried covering up details.

    I had a hard time getting people to take interest in even Wikileaks “deception” version, as you call it. Can’t imagine getting anyone else to watch the full vid.

  11. May 11, 2013 at 8:17 am

    Thanks a lot for sharing this with all of us you really recognize what you’re speaking approximately! Bookmarked. Kindly also visit my site =). We could have a hyperlink alternate arrangement among us

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: