Dave
Staff member
By not fighting. It's the only way. But we all know how realistic that is.
Wikileaks Publishes Videos of US Soliders Killing Journalists and Civilians
- Status
C
Chazwozel
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?[/QUOTE]
You can't.
C
callistarya
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?[/QUOTE]
Well said. I have been keeping up with this thread but have a hard time with my emotions on this one. I feel the soldiers did what was necessary and I do not believe they were acting as if they were in any game. They have to wrap their heads around the things they do AND live with WHAT they do. I am behind them 100%. When people are in a war zone and they are with people with guns...they take their lives into their own hands.
A
Andromache
Classify everyone as an enemy, regardless of combat status, and nuke them repeatedly.
Or maybe we can agree that the easiest solution is sometimes the worst.
I don't like war. I don't support it. But god damn me to hell if I don't support our troops, especially when they are at war. Its short sighted to think that you can fight a war and only kill the verified bad guys. That's not war. That's fucking Hollywood story telling. Don't ask people to fight a war if you dont want people to kill people, right or wrong. I dont like the war. I wish weren't in it. I wish we could get out of it. But my unicorn horn of wishes done got used up wishing people would pay attention to reality, and look how well that worked out.
OT
in light of the new stories, I'm saddened by the results, but don't find much wrong with the intent behind the actions. If this upsets or insults you, boofucking hoo, assholes, go over there and fix everything yourself, your way.
Or maybe we can agree that the easiest solution is sometimes the worst.
I don't like war. I don't support it. But god damn me to hell if I don't support our troops, especially when they are at war. Its short sighted to think that you can fight a war and only kill the verified bad guys. That's not war. That's fucking Hollywood story telling. Don't ask people to fight a war if you dont want people to kill people, right or wrong. I dont like the war. I wish weren't in it. I wish we could get out of it. But my unicorn horn of wishes done got used up wishing people would pay attention to reality, and look how well that worked out.
OT
in light of the new stories, I'm saddened by the results, but don't find much wrong with the intent behind the actions. If this upsets or insults you, boofucking hoo, assholes, go over there and fix everything yourself, your way.
S
Steven Soderburgin
While practically, fighting a war with zero civilian casualties would be nearly impossible, civilian casualties should never be acceptable. We should work to avoid them as much as possible, and when they do happen, they should NOT be covered up, the military should not be allowed to lie about them, and they should be hammered from all sides about them.
What makes this worse is that these people were killed in an unjust war that was started to take out our own rogue puppet leader.
What makes this worse is that these people were killed in an unjust war that was started to take out our own rogue puppet leader.
Dave
Staff member
Fine. This I agree with. But the soldiers themselves did nothing wrong in this instance and should not be taken to task.
C
Chibibar
Fine. This I agree with. But the soldiers themselves did nothing wrong in this instance and should not be taken to task.[/QUOTE]
I agree. The people who cover it up are the higher up anyways. The soldiers did within the rules of engagement and their commanding officer. Usually the higher up are the one covering up the story.
Now - Should the public know everything about who kill who? That is a tricky question. It is hard to keep information from the enemy (especially news) with the world is connected to the internet. What is broadcast on the internet, is known by all INCLUDING the enemy.
In the past war, such information is harder to come by and possible to pass information back home and have a less change of being leak to the enemy. Now-a-days, any news publish on the internet are viewed and known in less than a minute from being posted around the world.
Z
zero
Well, my 2 cents:
- Dave is of course right... Those were soldiers following orders. They should not be punished.
- That being said, to me guy who goats about the windshield is a fucking sociopath, and I would feel a lot safer if he was just locked and the key thrown away... Was that the result of his conditioning and the conflict environment? Oh, I'm sure it was. Doesn't make him any bit more sane... Don't punish him, fine, but get him the hell away from anything that even remotely resembles a gun. For the rest of his life. please.
- Rules of engagement need to be revised? Perhaps... I wouldn't dare to judge the complexities of such environment. In fact, I am still not convinced there are no guns visible on the video (The only think I am certain of is that the crew of the helicopter had a much better view of the scene than what's possible with the video).
- Don't make me laugh about the bravery of being out of range... The ground troops could be in danger, but that helicopter crew? You gotta be a damn marksman to hit an apache with an RPG shoot (if ever was an RPG) from that range. I'm not saying they should enter enemy firing range to make an "honourable engagement" (that would be just plainly dumb), but in my book, shooting people who can't fight back doesn't earn you a "brave" title (smart bastard maybe).
- Chaz is also right. Anyone who things about "good" and "evil" on such scenario is just deluding himself.
- The fact that the military tried to cover this up is more scandalous than the fact that there are civilian causalities during a war. The argument that important intelligence is leaked on that video is just ridiculous.
- Congratulations to whoever inside the military leaked the video. You sir, are a brave man.
Guys, that's war, that's what U.S. signed for when they decided to invade Iraq. Civilian causalities are unavoidable. Making psychos of your own soldiers is unavoidable. Killing, Rape, Torture, Insanity are unavoidable. Either they are worth it (and are they ever?) or not.
oh, yeah, and...
WTF IS THIS TALK ABOUT TALIBAN?? Wasn't the incident in IRAQ??? Dammit, why not the Nazis. while we're at it...
- Dave is of course right... Those were soldiers following orders. They should not be punished.
- That being said, to me guy who goats about the windshield is a fucking sociopath, and I would feel a lot safer if he was just locked and the key thrown away... Was that the result of his conditioning and the conflict environment? Oh, I'm sure it was. Doesn't make him any bit more sane... Don't punish him, fine, but get him the hell away from anything that even remotely resembles a gun. For the rest of his life. please.
- Rules of engagement need to be revised? Perhaps... I wouldn't dare to judge the complexities of such environment. In fact, I am still not convinced there are no guns visible on the video (The only think I am certain of is that the crew of the helicopter had a much better view of the scene than what's possible with the video).
- Don't make me laugh about the bravery of being out of range... The ground troops could be in danger, but that helicopter crew? You gotta be a damn marksman to hit an apache with an RPG shoot (if ever was an RPG) from that range. I'm not saying they should enter enemy firing range to make an "honourable engagement" (that would be just plainly dumb), but in my book, shooting people who can't fight back doesn't earn you a "brave" title (smart bastard maybe).
- Chaz is also right. Anyone who things about "good" and "evil" on such scenario is just deluding himself.
- The fact that the military tried to cover this up is more scandalous than the fact that there are civilian causalities during a war. The argument that important intelligence is leaked on that video is just ridiculous.
- Congratulations to whoever inside the military leaked the video. You sir, are a brave man.
Guys, that's war, that's what U.S. signed for when they decided to invade Iraq. Civilian causalities are unavoidable. Making psychos of your own soldiers is unavoidable. Killing, Rape, Torture, Insanity are unavoidable. Either they are worth it (and are they ever?) or not.
oh, yeah, and...
WTF IS THIS TALK ABOUT TALIBAN?? Wasn't the incident in IRAQ??? Dammit, why not the Nazis. while we're at it...
Wouldn't the video be exactly what they saw, seeing how that's what they use as an aiming mechanism?!
If that's true they really need better standard for identifying weapons, as in that video you can't tell either way...
QFT...
Wouldn't the video be exactly what they saw, seeing how that's what they use as an aiming mechanism?!
If that's true they really need better standard for identifying weapons, as in that video you can't tell either way...
QFT...[/QUOTE]
The video is of the gunner's camera. The person on the radio saying he sees weapons is the pilot. It's really impossible to say what he saw exactly with his own eyes. But, considering the fact that he said he saw weapons, they shot the shit out of the guys, and then they found weapons, I don't think that what he saw is in question.
Why would his eyes be better then the equipment of the gunner?!
And i didn't see any mention of them finding any weapons, but i haven't been following it closely either.
Why would his eyes be better then the equipment of the gunner?!
And i didn't see any mention of them finding any weapons, but i haven't been following it closely either.[/QUOTE]
Photos from the scene show the 2 RPG's and One AK-47 that were in the video too. Anytime the arrow is pointing at the camera on the shoulder, look at the insurgents/bodyguards. They are "packing." I think the arrows are more of a misdirect to get you to not look at the evidence.
While they're definitely holding something in the video if you can actually tell exactly what it is your eyes must have a zoom function.
The gunner's camera has a narrow focus. while you might be seeing only 3 or 4 guys the gunner is focusing on, the pilot can see everyone that's 'out of frame'. The pilot may see an AK 47 or an RPG that is obscured by a body or behind a building by the time the gunner swings that way. Also, the pilot and the gunner's cameras have different vantage points. The pilot may see something clearly that is partially hidden by a building due to the angle of the gunner's camera. Lastly, the gunner's camera, if you couldn't tell, isn't exactly full color blue-ray quality High Definition. It's actually pretty poor for fine details, but works just fine for targeting people or vehicles. What looks like a smeared black-and-white pixel in the camera may look more like a weapon to an actual set of eyeballs.
Obviously
You might want to go back a couple pages and catch up.If you look at the start of the video you see that the helicopter was pretty far away (or even if you look at the time it takes for the bullets to get to the target), no way they're close enough for eyeballs to enter into it (nor would i think that a good idea when there's the possibility of RPG's).
[STRIKE]Obviously
I did, none of the links seem to lead to any claims of guns being found...[/STRIKE]
Oh, so it was in the previous page right in the middle... i assumed it was further back.
Doesn't look like an AK though... might just be the damage.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]
They are both mainly using their eyeballs. The gun footage follows their eyes. The Apache hits what you look at. Now the Helmet has a small one inch camera display that projects an image over one eye. So they can get some details that way. Also some of the delay could be that they are working in pairs, and the other gunship could be firing.
---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------
I remember this incident when it happened, and the Pentagon asked war correspondents to stop embedding themselves with the insurgency.
---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------
I remember this incident when it happened, and the Pentagon asked war correspondents to stop embedding themselves with the insurgency.
C'mon, no way they're not using some sort of zoom, otherwise the people on the ground would have noticed the chopper, especially since they circle them a couple of times.
And the delay is between the machine gun noise and the impact of the bullets.
---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------
And they would have probably avoided this if they said why, and told those reporter's families what happened.
And the delay is between the machine gun noise and the impact of the bullets.
---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------
And they would have probably avoided this if they said why, and told those reporter's families what happened.
If reporters needed to be told why embedding themselves with the people the US military is going after is a bad idea, and might wind up with them mistaken as the enemy and shot up those reporters have no business covering the news and really should be looked after to ensure they remember to eat and breathe.
If reporters needed to be told why embedding themselves with the people the US military is going after is a bad idea, and might wind up with them mistaken as the enemy and shot up those reporters have no business covering the news and really should be looked after to ensure they remember to eat and breathe.[/QUOTE]
I meant why they felt the need to tell them that at that time. Would have avoided this whole thing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100607/ap_on_re_us/iraq_us_attack_video
The soldier that leaked the video is now in custody of the US Military. I guess Wikileaks leaked his information to the Pentagon.
The soldier that leaked the video is now in custody of the US Military. I guess Wikileaks leaked his information to the Pentagon.
Dave
Staff member
Good. Leaking classified information is a crime.
Dave
Staff member
You and I watched different videos. We've been through this in the thread before. I don't think the soldiers did anything wrong and the release of this video is nothing more than second guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking. It's not up to this guy to decide what is okay to be released and what's not. Just like it's not up to us to say what truth is okay to use in court. His commanding officers told them this was classified and he signed off on his security status and he broke that oath. he committed a crime and should be brought to justice.
Dave
Staff member
It sure the hell isn't an E-4 enlisted man, that's for damned sure.
It's not up to these guys to question shit. And if he wants to it sure isn't the way to go to the press. He needed to go through the military channels. Go to intelligence or whistleblow to internal affairs. Going to the press was beyond his pay grade, his security level and his oaths.
He needs to pay for his crimes, regardless and irrespective of any other supposed crimes by others.
The ROE make our troops second guess their actions. We ask them to go into dangerous conditions; literally surrounded, and not sure who is an insurgent and who is innocent. A place where IED's could be around any corner. On top of that, the troops have to worry if their own government will try and convict them of murder if they shoot the wrong van.
JonJon is nothing but an opposite Invader. Quit posting your b.s. Go serve your country over-seas, in harms way, and then I'll listen to your criticism.
JonJon is nothing but an opposite Invader. Quit posting your b.s. Go serve your country over-seas, in harms way, and then I'll listen to your criticism.
Maybe I could never be a military person simply because of this. I understand the importance of following orders in the military, but I fear that ethics and humanity would suffer from it.
C
Chibibar
I have to agree with this. Soldier's job is to follow the chain of command. If the command is not valid, then that soldier has to take it UP the command no make his/her own rules. A soldier sometimes has to do things for the greater good (so we hope) Sure we can look at thing hindsight 20/20 and say "they should have done this or that"
I have to agree with this. Soldier's job is to follow the chain of command. If the command is not valid, then that soldier has to take it UP the command no make his/her own rules. A soldier sometimes has to do things for the greater good (so we hope) Sure we can look at thing hindsight 20/20 and say "they should have done this or that"[/QUOTE]
See, this I can understand. Thank you for putting it in terms that weren't so... combative.
Necronic
Staff member
Maybe I could never be a military person simply because of this. I understand the importance of following orders in the military, but I fear that ethics and humanity would suffer from it.[/QUOTE]
No, see, you don't understand the importance of following orders. In an active/hot moment like that it isn't just 'follow orders or you may die' it's 'follow orders or your squadmates might die'. Humanity and ethics do not exist in those situations, they can't.
But don't use that as an excuse to Godwin. There is a difference between following orders in a firefight or a hot situation and following orders over the course of months. That's different.
I don't fault those marines for what they said. We send them over there to fight a war we can't even commit to, and even if they do come back alive, they will have lost something they can never get back, or gained something they can never give back. I refuse to judge them in this situation. This isn't the Milai massacre. This wasn't the Haditha murders. This wasn't Dresden or Hiroshima or any other of those things.
This was a mistake. The problem is that when we (civilians) think of mistakes we think 'oh shit I forgot to pay the mortgage!'. When soldiers make mistakes people die.
One could argue that but then you would have to assume that the lives of the average Iraqi or service man aren't like the video something which would be... hard to believe. I mean that is for lack of a better term their lives encapsulated in a little video. fog of war chaos and death which while not happening every day have touched every part of Iraq to say that this video enflamed more than the incident filmed andthe many incidents like it is just... wrong.
It's the truth the truth only hurts if you refuse to accept it and change your actions.
- Status