Wikileaks Publishes Videos of US Soliders Killing Journalists and Civilians

[Andromache]

taking away from that article, I'd say that leaks and video coverage like these are absolute necessary. If this then is the standard operating procedure of war, then more citizens need to see exactly what it is we are putting our soldiers into, and why. I don't see anything good from hiding from the consequences of the decisions we by the fact that we had the choice to vote the decision makers into office. Maybe watching these videos will sway more people not to support policies that rush our soldiers into war if they don't need to be. I'm not judging anyone here, except for those advocating that ignorance of our sins is better than knowing the consequences.

Just to be clear, I'm especially not judging the ground troops. They do what they are trained to do, and put their lives on the line for their country. Mistakes or bad policies doesn't erase the weight of that risk for me.

 

[phil]

The views of the people here and in the press dehumanizing and second-guessing people doing their jobs and their best to protect the country abhor me far more than the actions shown in the video.

And the views of people chalking up human life as acceptable losses because it always happens has forever changed how I'll think about you as well.

 

[SpecialKO]

Now compare that to the insurgents that bomb mosques add markets so they can kill the most civilians possible. Or even when they do target our soldiers, they use IED's that also kill many Iraqis along with our troops.

You keep brining up the insurgents as a comparison, but what the insurgents do has really nothing to do with what is considered acceptable or unacceptable actions by our troops beyond knowing that insurgent groups are legal targets.

 

[sixpackshaker]

It is a free society and knowing what happens there and covering the mistakes made by soldiers, is much different than the blog Boner cited implying that US troops slaughter civilians on purpose every day.

---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------

Now compare that to the insurgents that bomb mosques add markets so they can kill the most civilians possible. Or even when they do target our soldiers, they use IED's that also kill many Iraqis along with our troops.

You keep brining up the insurgents as a comparison, but what the insurgents do has really nothing to do with what is considered acceptable or unacceptable actions by our troops beyond knowing that insurgent groups are legal targets.[/QUOTE]

So civilians are legal targets? That is what an insurgent is, a civilian taking up arms against the Gov't or Occupation forces.

 

[Dave]

The views of the people here and in the press dehumanizing and second-guessing people doing their jobs and their best to protect the country abhor me far more than the actions shown in the video.

And the views of people chalking up human life as acceptable losses because it always happens has forever changed how I'll think about you as well.[/QUOTE]

Whatever. I am all on the side of the soldiers here because they put themselves on the line and did what they thought was right. That shows on the tape no matter what slant you want to put to it. They thought they were taking out bad guys and those who kill people putting themselves on the line. It has nothing to do with the outcome, which I've stated before is terrible. But the actions of the soldiers is not criminal, negligent or wrong based on what they thought they saw.

I'm glad you have the luxury of being able to sit back and ridicule from your easy chair.

 

[SpecialKO]

So civilians are legal targets? That is what an insurgent is, a civilian taking up arms against the Gov't or Occupation forces.

The Pentagon does not agree with you.

According to the leaked rules of engagement, individuals who are part of designated terrorist groups are legal targets. That's why so much of the discussion in this thread is about determining the identity of the individuals.

While I still find the attitude disturbing, stripping that stuff out and looking over the RoE has convinced me that Dave and the others are right about this case, and that this was within acceptable conduct. I personally don't find that especially acceptable, but this makes it a systemic issue as opposed to the actions of individual soldiers, and any inquiry should be adjusted up the chain of command accordingly.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I can't believe you're parroting Jack Nicholson from "A Few Good Men" who is nearly a cartoon character villain.

 

[Dave]

I can't believe you're parroting Jack Nicholson from "A Few Good Men" who is nearly a cartoon character villain.

If you are talking to me you can go do things sexually to yourself. And the equine which you used to get here.

The attitudes of Jack in that movie are pretty much right on in tone. And cartoon villain? Not even close. Nothing you guys say will convince me that these soldiers did anything wrong. We are all watching the same video but I daresay that you are seeing intent where none exists. These guys didn't set out to kill civilians. But you raise your flags and weep and wail and gnash your teeth if it makes you feel better. Again, you have the luxury. Remember to thank these guys before you strip away their rank and try and throw them in jail for doing exactly what they should be doing - trying to kill bad guys.

 

[Chibibar]

I am still surprise that some people here are blaming the soldiers for the action. This is war not a civil issue. If a guy decides to unload his gun in public, that is a criminal offense, but in War, you are told by your Superior (which goes all the way up to the president) and you follow that order or face Court Marshall. The president of the U.S. declare war with the Taliban. The Generals are following that order and issue to their ranks and so forth. The average U.S. citizens do not get to witness many actual war or actually be IN a war to really see what is going on. I am glad to get some military insight of this and some of my friend did serve (as I have stated before)

If you want to blame anyone, blame the administration to keep this war going. Blame the administration who started the war in the first place. War is ugly. In every war, civilians usually take the hardest hit. they lose their homes, family, and some their country. It is plain ugly no matter how you spin it. These soldiers are train to do a job that is horrible under normal condition (i.e. civilian life) but it is a job that allow the rest of us to sit safely behind our monitors and talk about this stuff. Blood have been spilled on all sides so we can enjoy the freedom we have. Is it wrong? I don't know. It is not up to me to judge these soldiers but it is my job as a voter to make sure we vote the right people to make the right decision for us on international level. President Bush use the American's anger of 9/11 to help push us into this war. during that time, anger and hatred was abound, where is that now? I was in school when the Towers fall and some of my fellow student's family WERE in the tower and vowed vengeance (and some of them served and lost their lives in the process) innocent people died in war. We don't have the technology to avoid it. The best way to avoid it is NOT to have a war.

Here is something to think about. The Taliban are known to use women and children as shield and even weapon against civilians and soldiers alike. Normally, U.S. rules of engagement DO try to avoid civilian (at least with new technology) if that was not the case, the U.S. would have carpet bomb the whole country and call it a day. Now the enemy are willing to use human shield to protect themselves. The soldiers are train to protect their fellow soldier and kill the enemy. Would it be wrong to kill an enemy child wired with a bomb that is ready to go off and kill your platoon? What if you can't disarm it? what if it is remote detonate? What if you have like 10 seconds or less before the child reaches the building and kill 100 more people? I have read articles that women are being use as suicide bomber as well.

It is easy for us to sit on our moral high horse and try to pass judgment to these soldiers doing their job and wonder if it was murder, treason or what-have you, but the big question and anger should be directed toward the administration (past and present) that keeping this war going for another year or so. Many of these fine soldiers have serve multiple tours back to back and some hardly get to see their own family (if at all) There is a shortage of soldiers and the generals are trying to figure out a way to keep X number of soldiers there and try to bring some back.

This alone is a big mental mind fuck for many soldiers.

 

[phil]

The views of the people here and in the press dehumanizing and second-guessing people doing their jobs and their best to protect the country abhor me far more than the actions shown in the video.

And the views of people chalking up human life as acceptable losses because it always happens has forever changed how I'll think about you as well.[/QUOTE]

Whatever. I am all on the side of the soldiers here because they put themselves on the line and did what they thought was right. That shows on the tape no matter what slant you want to put to it. They thought they were taking out bad guys and those who kill people putting themselves on the line. It has nothing to do with the outcome, which I've stated before is terrible. But the actions of the soldiers is not criminal, negligent or wrong based on what they thought they saw.

[/quote]

I feel that the idea that because someone has a dangerous job that it puts them above oversight or forethought is somewhat ridiculous. A phrase that has been kicked around in this thread is that "if you think you're dead" or "if you 2nd guess you're dead" and I can't believe that there is a great deal of validity to that. They already need permission to fire upon targets, I'm guessing unless fired upon first. So if there already is a level of thinking and verifying and whatnot why do we then say that there is none?

There are so many aspects of this video that we could go into each of which would open up to different debates all their own, so I just want to comment and question the major points that stood out to me

1) That was clearly a camera. What they said was an RPG was clearly a camera, and I'm not sure how anyone could mistake it for anything else. This makes me question the validity of any claim that they acted on instinct to what they thought they saw. However, I suppose I will simply have to go with the benefit of the doubt that the gunner thought it was a weapon.

2) Firing upon a van that was trying to get the only wounded man out of there. At this point any benefit of the doubt goes out the window for me. They don't finish off the wounded man initially for obvious reasons, so I don't know why destroying those trying to help him suddenly becomes ok. (The short answer is of course that this is war and there are no rules no matter what things like the Geneva convention might say I guess) They said that the van was also getting weapons, but the man they were helping was unarmed (they note that the man is unarmed earlier) and they fired upon the van before anyone reached for any "weapon". If the earlier action does not warrant any disciplinary action, this surly does.

3) As far as a soldier's attitude to their job and the "video game" attitude, I can't really comment on that. However, the "oh well" at the news that a child had been injured shows a clear lack of conscious and I'm tempted to go as far to say a lack of humanity but I admit that might be an emotional response. They go on to say that "this is what you get for brining your kids to a battle" or something to that effect. I believe that this sentiment has been repeated here? I need to go back and check for that as I may be wrong. Regardless, this makes me have to ask if the people knew they were in a battle or a "hot zone". Does the military clearly point out these areas to people? How can they when they can spring up just about anywhere? To blame civilians for their injuries in conflicts that they are not a part of seems callous at best.

4) At 34 minutes in, the chopper is about to fire a missile into what is believed to be a building with targets inside. Ignoring whether or not the people inside were insurgents or not there seems to be a clearly unarmed man strolling down the street who gets caught in the blast. This, again, seems like a tragic mistake that should come under review. That man had no weapon, and did not come out of the building nor was he heading into it at the time. He was a civilian that was killed due to the chopper not wanting to take another pass, or the ground troops not properly clearing the area (or attempting to clear at all) before the shot was taken.

I'm glad you have the luxury of being able to sit back and ridicule from your easy chair.

I see what you're trying to do, and honestly it seems so petty and ludicrous to me that I feel I can only respond by letting you know that it's actually a couch.

I understand that "shit happens" or however people want to play this off, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to learn from our mistakes and take preventative measures so that more shit doesn't just happen. I understand that these people put their lives on the line, while my cousin was on his tour our whole family worried about him even though we knew he was relatively safe. However, this does not make them above scrutiny. I feel to let this incident slide would be terrible and send a message to not only our own troops, and not only to the rest of the world but to our own country that these kind of blunders are acceptable and should be expected from what we proclaim to be our best! If the people we put in charge of defending out liberties from foreigners can't tell the difference between an RPG and a photographer's camera, fire upon civilians trying to help wounded, show no regard for children and can't be bothered to stem the loss of life then what does that say about the rest of us?

And my opinions do not, in any way, reflect upon the armed forces as a whole. I know that for every mistake there are an countless successes.

 

[Andromache]

hmm, at this point i think we've talked this incident to death, and spewed enough "zomfg no u are!" that i can go on to other things. you guys have fun bashing each others opinions as ghastly evil, though

 

[Jay]

Great post. I completely agree.

I'll add this, for every kill they make on wrong targets only creates 3 to 5 new targets as members of their family and friends are deeply affected by these decisions. Will they become insurgents? Or hate them so much that they'll blow themselves up and seek revenge? Chain of events my friend.

 

[Rob King]

3) As far as a soldier's attitude to their job and the "video game" attitude, I can't really comment on that. However, the "oh well" at the news that a child had been injured shows a clear lack of conscious and I'm tempted to go as far to say a lack of humanity but I admit that might be an emotional response. They go on to say that "this is what you get for brining your kids to a battle" or something to that effect. I believe that this sentiment has been repeated here? I need to go back and check for that as I may be wrong. Regardless, this makes me have to ask if the people knew they were in a battle or a "hot zone". Does the military clearly point out these areas to people? How can they when they can spring up just about anywhere? To blame civilians for their injuries in conflicts that they are not a part of seems callous at best.

This is something that struck me as well, although I don't think I mentioned it in my post. I mean, that's a terrifying thought. That driver could very well have not had a clue what had happened to those people. To him, it could have looked like the work of insurgents or anything else. Then, when he gets out to try and make things right, him and his children are caught in it as well.

The most terrifying thing about it, though, is I have no idea how I would act in that situation, even if I knew that the American helicopters were responsible. Would I be able to prevent myself from helping? Could I wave at the helicopters, and somehow identify myself as a 'good guy?' Would my waving be interpreted as defiance, further pissing off the men at the guns?

Now, don't misunderstand my intention. I already posted that I'm not ragging on the soldiers about this. Without any prior info, that video looked like a preemptive strike on what might have been a gathering of militants. But it certainly affects whether or not I'll be traveling to Iraq any time soon.

Another thing I wonder is whether anyone in the military knew that those two reporters were out there? I mean, I'm not a war correspondent so I don't know what the procedure is, but if I were in Baghdad doing my journalism thing I would probably have let somebody know where I was going, or at the very least that I was going. Are they set up for that, does anyone know?

 

[Dave]

1) That was clearly a camera. What they said was an RPG was clearly a camera, and I'm not sure how anyone could mistake it for anything else. This makes me question the validity of any claim that they acted on instinct to what they thought they saw. However, I suppose I will simply have to go with the benefit of the doubt that the gunner thought it was a weapon.

Clearly a camera? Bullshit. The only reason you are saying that is because you know it is. If you didn't know that you might not necessarily think it's a weapon, but to say you knew it was a camera? Whatever. You should get a job with the military analyzing video feeds, then. Experts in the field can't tell the things you do. But you keep looking for reasons to bolster your view.

2) Firing upon a van that was trying to get the only wounded man out of there. At this point any benefit of the doubt goes out the window for me. They don't finish off the wounded man initially for obvious reasons, so I don't know why destroying those trying to help him suddenly becomes ok. (The short answer is of course that this is war and there are no rules no matter what things like the Geneva convention might say I guess) They said that the van was also getting weapons, but the man they were helping was unarmed (they note that the man is unarmed earlier) and they fired upon the van before anyone reached for any "weapon". If the earlier action does not warrant any disciplinary action, this surly does.

The insurgents gather their wounded when they can and evac them so they can be healed and brought back onto the field of battle. Visibly armed or not these guys could have been taking the wounded back to have them fight another day.

3) As far as a soldier's attitude to their job and the "video game" attitude, I can't really comment on that. However, the "oh well" at the news that a child had been injured shows a clear lack of conscious and I'm tempted to go as far to say a lack of humanity but I admit that might be an emotional response. They go on to say that "this is what you get for brining your kids to a battle" or something to that effect. I believe that this sentiment has been repeated here? I need to go back and check for that as I may be wrong. Regardless, this makes me have to ask if the people knew they were in a battle or a "hot zone". Does the military clearly point out these areas to people? How can they when they can spring up just about anywhere? To blame civilians for their injuries in conflicts that they are not a part of seems callous at best.

The hot zones are not designated as "fifth street to Johnson Avenue" or anything like that. The insurgents attack where ever and whenever they want. That's what makes urban warfare so fricking hard. The fact that you ask these questions shows your ignorance about the military in general. "Warn the people they are in a hot zone"? And they don't blame civilians for being in the zones. They thought they were bad guys and then found out there was a child with them. The comment about the perceived insurgents bringing kids to the war was insensitive but at that point he's still in the moment. They never talk to these guys afterward. That would be too much like being fair.

4) At 34 minutes in, the chopper is about to fire a missile into what is believed to be a building with targets inside. Ignoring whether or not the people inside were insurgents or not there seems to be a clearly unarmed man strolling down the street who gets caught in the blast. This, again, seems like a tragic mistake that should come under review. That man had no weapon, and did not come out of the building nor was he heading into it at the time. He was a civilian that was killed due to the chopper not wanting to take another pass, or the ground troops not properly clearing the area (or attempting to clear at all) before the shot was taken.

Did he fire the missile? Why not? I thought he was an inhuman monster with no feelings or humanity. You can't have it both ways.

I see what you're trying to do, and honestly it seems so petty and ludicrous to me that I feel I can only respond by letting you know that it's actually a couch.

I stand corrected. But neither am I wrong. And if you think the military isn't trying to lessen civilian casualties you are insane. Too bad the people we are fighting don't have that sort of view. And the kill or be killed is a real thing. Another statement that totally invalidates anything you have to say in the matter to my eyes. I'd love Doc to join in and see what he thinks of it and the views here. He's one of the few people I would back away from if he said I was wrong.

 

[phil]

1) That was clearly a camera. What they said was an RPG was clearly a camera, and I'm not sure how anyone could mistake it for anything else. This makes me question the validity of any claim that they acted on instinct to what they thought they saw. However, I suppose I will simply have to go with the benefit of the doubt that the gunner thought it was a weapon.

Clearly a camera? Bullshit. The only reason you are saying that is because you know it is. If you didn't know that you might not necessarily think it's a weapon, but to say you knew it was a camera? Whatever. You should get a job with the military analyzing video feeds, then. Experts in the field can't tell the things you do. But you keep looking for reasons to bolster your view.

[/quote]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe because I knew it was a camera I knew what to look for to signal to me that it looked like a camera. Maybe because you knew they THOUGHT it was an RPG you looked for things to make it look NOT like a camera to you.


So perhaps it was, an honest to god mistake. I still feel that it being a mistake does not make it any better. It should still be looked into and appropriate disciplinary action should be taken.

Perhaps this just a wake up call that more needs to be invested into the research and development of better camera equipment for spotting those crucial details that would then avert incidents like this.

The insurgents gather their wounded when they can and evac them so they can be healed and brought back onto the field of battle. Visibly armed or not these guys could have been taking the wounded back to have them fight another day.

They might have been, indeed. I'm still not sure that makes it right. I feel that holding ourselves to higher standards is what separates us from them. It's what keeps us "the good guys" and them "the bad guys".

The hot zones are not designated as "fifth street to Johnson Avenue" or anything like that. The insurgents attack where ever and whenever they want. That's what makes urban warfare so fricking hard. The fact that you ask these questions shows your ignorance about the military in general. "Warn the people they are in a hot zone"? And they don't blame civilians for being in the zones. They thought they were bad guys and then found out there was a child with them. The comment about the perceived insurgents bringing kids to the war was insensitive but at that point he's still in the moment. They never talk to these guys afterward. That would be too much like being fair.

I freely admit to not knowing the inner workings of the military. All I know is what I saw in the video. Also, I don't quite understand what point you're making with the last two sentences. Are you saying that they don't talk to the gunner? Because I'd very much like to hear what he has to say. He deserves every right to defend his actions just as anyone else does.

Did he fire the missile? Why not? I thought he was an inhuman monster with no feelings or humanity. You can't have it both ways.

I'm afraid you've lost me here.

The camera seems to fade out and back in, so I don't know if this happens immediately after the first incident or if this is a separate operation. Maybe this was later and they had intelligence that there was a meeting going down in this building. I don't know. This might be the original guy who made the initial mistake at the start of the video. This might be a new guy in the same chopper. Again, I don't know. All I know is that a missile was fired into a building, and the area around the building was not clear of unarmed people. I view this to be a bad thing.

I stand corrected. But neither am I wrong. And if you think the military isn't trying to lessen civilian casualties you are insane. Too bad the people we are fighting don't have that sort of view. And the kill or be killed is a real thing. Another statement that totally invalidates anything you have to say in the matter to my eyes. I'd love Doc to join in and see what he thinks of it and the views here. He's one of the few people I would back away from if he said I was wrong.

I know the military as a whole is trying to lessen civilian casualties. The person who fired the missile does not represent the entire armed forces, and to me, he did not try to lessen civilian casualties.



If anything, I think that mistakes were made and like any other mistake we need to learn from this and do what we can to prevent something like this from happening again. That's my basic stance on this issue.

 

[Dave]

Wait. I thought the guy DIDN'T fire the missile into the building. I admit I stopped watching before that point but you had said that he was about to but never said he did. If he did fire it I may have to go back and listen to the chatter to determine the rationale behind the shoot.

 

[phil]

My bad!

Yeah if you do the raw footage from about 30 minutes on you'll for sure see the whole thing. The explosion is about 34 minutes in and they go around for a 2nd shot after that which you also see, and I can't tell if they take a 3rd.

 

[SpecialKO]

Wait. I thought the guy DIDN'T fire the missile into the building. I admit I stopped watching before that point but you had said that he was about to but never said he did. If he did fire it I may have to go back and listen to the chatter to determine the rationale behind the shoot.

The chopper fired three missiles, but it was a different operator and the camera isn't on the building when they hit, then goes back after. It sounds like they saw 6 people enter with what they thought were weapons, and got permission to destroy the building.

It might only be in the full version of the video.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

This is really sad, and it is terrible that the structure and culture of the military caused it to have to be covered up and have to be leaked out by concerned members. This is not an unusual sort of occurrence, and the only reason it is a big deal is because of the two journalists killed and the cover up. Otherwise, we never, ever would have heard about it. It disgusts me that this sort of thing is commonplace. Who knows how many incidents like this have occurred with only Iraqi civilians getting killed? I cannot express how sad and angry this makes me at the people who orchestrated the cover up, who set up the policies to allow this to happen, who got us into this war in the first place which has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of American troops. That anyone could defend the actions of the military here is sickening.

 

[PatrThom]

1) That was clearly a camera

Clearly a camera? Bullshit.[/quote]Perhaps, perhaps not.[/QUOTE]People get shot every year during hunting season because some fool mistakes a gun-toting guy in a brightly colored outfit for a deer. It happens. One guy was even mistaken for a turkey, and the most remarkable thing about that story is that it is absolutely nowhere near the only time. I even remember hearing about this sort of thing (people being mistaken for turkeys) happening as far back as the 70's (Readers' Digest had a similar story, though with a significantly less tragic ending).

--Patrick

 

[Tinwhistler]

some food for thought:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125612657

BOWMAN: Right. The investigation writer did find that a couple of guys did have weapons. One had an assault rifle. One had an RPG. And they found RPG rounds at the scene.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978017,00.html

Several hours after WikiLeaks posted the video, the Pentagon fired back with large pieces of its own 2007 investigations into the attack. It concluded that the Reuters employees had joined up with several armed insurgents on a day that had been filled with attacks on U.S. troops in the vicinity.
...
The Apache crews had \\"neither reason nor probability to assume that neutral media personnel were embedded with enemy forces,\\" a probe concluded.

I listened to some of the video with sound. At the 19:26 mark of the unedited video, one of the ground guys says he sees what looks like an rpg round under one of the bodies.


http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php

This looks like an RPG. (image compiled from video by Ryno, a Jawa report commenter)

At the time of the shooting, the helicopter was reportedly covering a humvee, and fired about the time the humvee would have been in danger from these men.

This is reportedly a post firefight pic (redacted to remove a dead body)

I'm not exactly sure...could someone tell me what kind of news camera looks like that?
​

 

[Chibibar]

This is reportedly a post firefight pic (redacted to remove a dead body)
[/COLOR]

I'm not exactly sure...could someone tell me what kind of news camera looks like that?
[/LEFT]

It is a new disguise camera that make it look like a gun so the newspeople can blend in.. yea!

seriously folk. It looks like a gun to me. You know, the sad thing is that people will see what they want to see (kinda like those ink blot test) I saw the video with caption and commentary so I am expose of the knowledge of what is going on (preset in my brains) but at the same time, I feel that if I were the one on the chopper looking, at first, I would think it is a weapon and would have ask permission to fire.

 

[Bowielee]

I'm not going to get into the full on debate, but I will comment on the whole "making people into killing machines" thing. My father is a Vietnam vet and he is f'd up beyond all belief because of it. Remember all that evil shit they talk about American soldiers doing in every Vietnam movie ever made? My dad did all that. There is no way you can convince me that atrocities equal soldiering. I'm not saying that's the case in this instance, but saying that there should be no oversight simply because soldiers are in combat is bullshit.

 

[ScytheRexx]

I'm not saying that's the case in this instance, but saying that there should be no oversight simply because soldiers are in combat is bullshit.

Out of all the things I have read in this thread over the last two days, that is the sentiment I agree with most. I won't get into my opinions of the entire action itself, but the idea that the death of innocents is covered up, and in some cases justified, makes me a little scared for our nation. War is hell, one does not need to be in a war to understand that, but I worry we try to much to dehumanize the people of another nation, whether you are a troop on the front or a guy typing on these message boards.

No end of innocent life is an "acceptable loss", it is a tragedy, regardless of if the soldiers were only doing military policy.

 

[Frank]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/the-lies-of-the-pentagon-ctd-3.html

Interesting article written by a soldier on the topic.

 

[bhamv3]

What would this thread be like if the video had ended with one of the people down there pulling out an RPG and firing a rocket at the helicopter?

Or if the back of the van had opened to reveal an RPG-wielding man, who then fires a rocket at the helicopter?

I do, however, agree that I was horrified by these soldiers sounding like Counter Strike kiddies.

 

[Chibibar]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/the-lies-of-the-pentagon-ctd-3.html

Interesting article written by a soldier on the topic.

Wow. I like this article. It does give an insight that Dave (a vet) and myself (a spectator non military) been trying to say. I don't kid myself what War is "suppose to be" I have live in places where evil and dark stuff happen all the time (you know those stories of Bangkok Thailand? yea... most of the rumors are true)

 

[Iaculus]

2) Firing upon a van that was trying to get the only wounded man out of there. At this point any benefit of the doubt goes out the window for me. They don't finish off the wounded man initially for obvious reasons, so I don't know why destroying those trying to help him suddenly becomes ok. (The short answer is of course that this is war and there are no rules no matter what things like the Geneva convention might say I guess) They said that the van was also getting weapons, but the man they were helping was unarmed (they note that the man is unarmed earlier) and they fired upon the van before anyone reached for any "weapon". If the earlier action does not warrant any disciplinary action, this surly does.

The insurgents gather their wounded when they can and evac them so they can be healed and brought back onto the field of battle. Visibly armed or not these guys could have been taking the wounded back to have them fight another day.[/QUOTE]

I realise the rules of warfare are pretty fluid in this particular conflict, but isn't even attacking uniformed medics evacuating their troops, let alone civilians doing the same thing, generally viewed as a pretty big no-no? I mean, I'm pretty sure Geneva has something to say about it.

 

[Jay]

Urban warfare like this to be frank changes things. You're not fighting another nation anymore. Things are different. You changed things. It's come to the point of kill or to be killed.

I'm just shocked they sounded like XBox kiddies while they were doing it.

 

[AshburnerX]

2) Firing upon a van that was trying to get the only wounded man out of there. At this point any benefit of the doubt goes out the window for me. They don't finish off the wounded man initially for obvious reasons, so I don't know why destroying those trying to help him suddenly becomes ok. (The short answer is of course that this is war and there are no rules no matter what things like the Geneva convention might say I guess) They said that the van was also getting weapons, but the man they were helping was unarmed (they note that the man is unarmed earlier) and they fired upon the van before anyone reached for any \"weapon\". If the earlier action does not warrant any disciplinary action, this surly does.

The insurgents gather their wounded when they can and evac them so they can be healed and brought back onto the field of battle. Visibly armed or not these guys could have been taking the wounded back to have them fight another day.[/QUOTE]

I realise the rules of warfare are pretty fluid in this particular conflict, but isn't even attacking uniformed medics evacuating their troops, let alone civilians doing the same thing, generally viewed as a pretty big no-no? I mean, I'm pretty sure Geneva has something to say about it.[/QUOTE]

The Geneva Conventions only protect Medical people who are uniformed, clearly display the Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, or Red Lion And Sun (though this last one isn't sued anymore) symbols prominently on their uniforms, AND are unarmed. Even then, as the Insurgents we are currently battling out in the Middle East aren't legal recognized as an official standing army, they don't get the same protections as they are Illegal Combatants. Here's a wiki link about the symbols Medics are required to wear.

 

[Dave]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/the-lies-of-the-pentagon-ctd-3.html

Interesting article written by a soldier on the topic.

THANK YOU!!

Great article. Too bad it won't help anyone here change their minds. Obviously the guy doesn't know what he's talking about and it's his military bias taking over.

 

[Tinwhistler]

I'm just shocked they sounded like XBox kiddies while they were doing it.

Uh, no they didn't.

 

[Chazwozel]

I'm not saying that's the case in this instance, but saying that there should be no oversight simply because soldiers are in combat is bullshit.

Out of all the things I have read in this thread over the last two days, that is the sentiment I agree with most. I won't get into my opinions of the entire action itself, but the idea that the death of innocents is covered up, and in some cases justified, makes me a little scared for our nation. War is hell, one does not need to be in a war to understand that, but I worry we try to much to dehumanize the people of another nation, whether you are a troop on the front or a guy typing on these message boards.

No end of innocent life is an "acceptable loss", it is a tragedy, regardless of if the soldiers were only doing military policy.[/QUOTE]

This is great philosophy and I 100% agree with it. But it also will get you killed on a battlefield. The reason the enemy gets 'dehumanized' is so you don't hesitate when you have a chance to blow his head off.

 

[Chibibar]

I'm not saying that's the case in this instance, but saying that there should be no oversight simply because soldiers are in combat is bullshit.

Out of all the things I have read in this thread over the last two days, that is the sentiment I agree with most. I won't get into my opinions of the entire action itself, but the idea that the death of innocents is covered up, and in some cases justified, makes me a little scared for our nation. War is hell, one does not need to be in a war to understand that, but I worry we try to much to dehumanize the people of another nation, whether you are a troop on the front or a guy typing on these message boards.

No end of innocent life is an "acceptable loss", it is a tragedy, regardless of if the soldiers were only doing military policy.[/QUOTE]

This is great philosophy and I 100% agree with it. But it also will get you killed on a battlefield. The reason the enemy gets 'dehumanized' is so you don't hesitate when you have a chance to blow his head off.[/QUOTE]

of course some people on this board doesn't believe that, but think about it.

As a civilian, I do think of my consequences if I want to kill someone (or thinking about it) when I get so mad at someone, I want to hurt them, but then I thought about that person could be someone's son, father, brother, guardians etc etc. Then I stop myself and let that person go cause I recognize him as another human being.

In war, you don't have that luxury, the enemy (in this case the Taliban) are willing to use any means to kill YOU. They have stated this and acted upon this. Roadside bombs, suicide bombers, ambushes and such. Even with care and discipline, our brothers and sisters are being kill on the field. The enemy is willing to use human shields and holy places hoping the U.S. won't attack due to our military regulations.

This war is not like any other war. There is no "capital" to capture. It is war against people who are mobile, armed, and willing to sacrifice themselves to a cause they truly believe in. That is the most terrifying enemy out there. A person you can't reason with,. A person you can't change their religious belief. Our soldiers have to be train to fight this type of enemy.

As for hot zones, the whole country is hot. You have people suicide bomb in Mosque and schools!!! If the U.S. decides not the follow the rules of engagement, it would have been easier to just carpet bomb the city they are in and sort out the rest. The problem is that there are many civilians and insurgents in there. The casulties would be enormous.

Of course we keep arguing on this topic back and forth and neither side will budge. I will stand by our brothers and sisters in the field, but I don't support the administration who continue the war (they are responsible for it) you want to blame, blame the right people.

The main question would be. What method can you do to lessen this and still win the war? How can you fight a war with near zero civilian casualties?

 

[ScytheRexx]

Great article. Too bad it won't help anyone here change their minds. Obviously the guy doesn't know what he's talking about and it's his military bias taking over.

To be fair Dave, he did admit near the beginning of the article that he may be biased. I think in the end a lot of us are, we are biased by our relationships and experiences, or in the case of some people the lack of experience. It is not really fair to ask that people "change their minds" though, since this issue is much more then about "fuck the troops" which seems to be your main problem. This whole thing brings up many other underlying issues.

This video, and the discussion spawned from it, more then anything makes me realize how little we care about others in a conflicting nation. I guess I just dislike the level of separation we have to create to be effective in this war. If we are conditioned to treat them all as inhuman as possible, including the journalists and civilians, why do we then argue that they take inhuman actions? Can no one see the cycle here and why this entire action was not good?

Food for the fire, what action do you think would be taken if they were American Journalists?

This is great philosophy and I 100% agree with it. But it also will get you killed on a battlefield. The reason the enemy gets 'dehumanized' is so you don't hesitate when you have a chance to blow his head off.

That is understandable. I am more sad that we have to dehumanize ourselves because, more then likely, the enemy is just as dehumanized. I also dislike the bias we take towards our own, even though thousands more civilians are being killed in the fire-fights. I respect our troops, but the idea that a family in Iraq getting killed is less deserving then a soldier dying doing what he was trained to do, makes my mind a little troubled.