I suggest you turn your scepticism to 11 and go watch it, see if you still feel the same way. https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/

(warning: if watching civilians, journalists and children being killed in cold blood bothers you, maybe don't go watch it, just read about it instead)

  The new bit was the video itself.

  You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page.

  a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the
  incident and write a book about it without seeing the video.

No it isn't because that's not what happened. As to the page, the page about the incident. I'm starting to think you don't really know much about the details and want to debate this from first principles. That's not going to be very fruitful.

  As to the page, the page about the incident.

You've posted:

  The incident had been reported and covered by the press, there was
  no 'government cover up'. The new bit was the video itself.

  you can just read the wikipedia page

  As to the page, the page about the incident.

  You want me to direct you to basic information…you can trivially look up yourself

It would be great for everyone reading this thread, to understand the material on which you're basing these claims.

  You should read the beginning of the thread.
  Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google. 

Googling "collateral murder incident" does give a number of results, which does include a Wikipedia page, but it's not one that has been referenced in this discussion.

It's important for honest, rational discussion, to cite sources - especially those sources you depend upon. Unless you specifically state your sources, it's hard to understand the argument you're presenting, and the basis for your argument. Without a citation, it's essentially arguing that the Emperor's new clothes really are golden, and we have to believe that, because they really are golden.

Further, when I type "Collateral Murder" into the Wikipedia search, it brings me directly to the page about the airstrike that pvg has repeatedly referenced, anchored at the section about the video.

Just what are you trying to pull here?

    which does include a Wikipedia page, but it's not one
    that has been referenced in this discussion.

  it returned the exact Wikipedia page that pvg told you it would return

Perhaps you could post the URL of that Wikipedia page?

Is it so terribly hard to copy and paste the URL of the page which is being cited?

After all, you have referred to this specific Wikipedia page in your comment, but you have still not provided the URL.

This is war. The video clearly shows that soldiers made a decision made on an honest, although tragic, mistake. They have to make this kind of decisions all the time - and I fail to see how anyone can say, from information that was available to them, that the decision was in any way wrong.

The fact that this story had to be covered up says more about idiocy of public and the media that would've (and did) make a baseless witchhunt. I finally 'got it' after watching "Eye in the sky" (spoilers!): if hollywood screenwriters and moviegoers really think that killing one innocent girl to prevent two suicide bombings is some kind of a complicated moral dilemma that's worth more than three seconds of deliberating, then may be this kind of public really shouldn't be trusted with classified information.

Um, they fired on a van despite realizing that it had come to pick up the wounded. Geneva Conventions clearly state that hospitals, both fixed and mobile, ambulances, hospital ships, medical aircraft, and medical personnel are not to be fired upon.

https://youtu.be/5rXPrfnU3G0?t=9m10s

(You'll also note the trigger-happy attitude of the gunner. He kept begging for permission to engage, and at one point got pretty frustrated that he was having to wait. Like the OP said: chilling.)

This van didn't have any markings to indicate that it was a dedicated medical unit. What about enemy combatants that are performing medical tasks at the moment? As far as I understand, they're fair game.

> (You'll also note the trigger-happy attitude of the gunner. He kept begging for permission to engage, and at one point got pretty frustrated that he was having to wait. Like the OP said: chilling.)

He was looking at people, that (in his view, conceived by a completely honest mistake) were there to kill his comrades in arms. His attitude, being eager to kill them, is completely reasonable — war is a constant kill or be killed situation, and allowing your enemy to evacuate the wounded combatants mean that they will later come back and kill you or your comrades in arms.

Once again, your reaction confirms my main point: the general public doesn't bother to think the situation through and judges actions made in war without the necessary context. Which just confirms that this kind of transparency is just as good as determining whether or not climate change is real (or if vaccination is harmful) through general election without any minimal education requirements.

We see a guy carrying what looks like a rocket launcher. (it's a really really long telephoto lens) He is sneaking around with the enemy (sort of an embedded journalist) and peaking out from around corners, appearing to point a rocket launcher at the US military. Unsurprisingly, he gets blown to bits.

We see an enemy hop over a wall while getting shot at. A minivan stops to get him. Note that it was common for the enemy to transport people and weapons in similar vehicles. People who are not involved in the conflict would be nuts to be driving around in the battlefield. The minivan is thus also shot up. It happens to contain kids... so some child abuser brought kids to a battlefield, WTF.

Note that the unedited (long) version of the video shows some of the "victims" carrying weapons. This wasn't an intentional slaughter of innocents, even if a few innocents did stupidly wander into a battlefield and get killed.

If you call this "murder", you might as well call all war murder. That's a very political position to be taking. War sucks; this shouldn't be news to anybody.

So you've never actually watched (or read about) the Collateral Murder video, huh? It's a helicopter crew killing people with guns, not bombs. And they kill exactly who they intend to.

Maybe don't form strong opinions when you don't have the slightest clue what the facts are.

I'm not pro-Irak war, quite the contrary. But the fact that civilians have been killed isn't exactly a hidden secret that was uncovered by the leaks

> Maybe don't form strong opinions when you don't have the slightest clue what the facts are.

This sort of insults has nothing to do on HN