Export thread
Wikileaks Publishes Videos of US Soliders Killing Journalists and Civilians
#1
JONJONAUG
Raw/Full video:
JONJONAUG
Edited video:Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on http://collateralmurder.com
Raw/Full video:
#2
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Thanks for the video link and intro to the site.
#3
Dave
Dave
Wild. Not sure how to respond to this, truthfully. These guys thought that they were seeing people with weapons in a hot zone. In war sometimes you act with the information given or you get people killed.
Not saying what they did was right or wrong. It's too damned easy to second guess years later when they only had moments to act. I would be willing to bet that this fucked with the heads of those who fired the shots.
Not saying what they did was right or wrong. It's too damned easy to second guess years later when they only had moments to act. I would be willing to bet that this fucked with the heads of those who fired the shots.
#4
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Not if you watched the video:
That's what they get for bringing kids to a battle.
#5
Dave
Dave
I didn't see that (or I missed it) in the first one. Was that in the second one?
#6
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Not to mention the bit when they think that one guy has a rifle, and one guy has an RPG, and then all of a sudden, they're reporting "5 or 6 AK-47s" when any idiot can see that's not true.
And when they report that the guys in the van are "picking up weapons" and destroy the van, when you can clearly see that they just picked up the wounded man and they're not carrying any visible weapons.
There's tragic mistakes on a battlefield, and then there's willful disregard for the sanctity of life, and this seems to fall a lot closer to the latter.
It's also more than a bit disturbing that this sounded like an Xbox Live conversation in MWF.
And when they report that the guys in the van are "picking up weapons" and destroy the van, when you can clearly see that they just picked up the wounded man and they're not carrying any visible weapons.
There's tragic mistakes on a battlefield, and then there's willful disregard for the sanctity of life, and this seems to fall a lot closer to the latter.
It's also more than a bit disturbing that this sounded like an Xbox Live conversation in MWF.
#7
Dave
Dave
Okay I heard it. At that point they were still under the assumption that it was a hot engagement. While still in the event you don't break down, you don't analyze, you don't feel. When they get back to the base it's a different story.
Civilians can never know what it's like to have to go into that life & death and then get questioned about it afterward by the media and by yourself. I never had to do it, but I knew plenty of guys who did and they are not cold unfeeling monsters.
Civilians can never know what it's like to have to go into that life & death and then get questioned about it afterward by the media and by yourself. I never had to do it, but I knew plenty of guys who did and they are not cold unfeeling monsters.
#8
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Perhaps Dave, but this video seems to make it only too clear that there should be more questions asked, both in this case and in general, IMO.Civilians can never know what it's like to have to go into that life & death and then get questioned about it afterward by the media and by yourself. I never had to do it, but I knew plenty of guys who did and they are not cold unfeeling monsters.
#9
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Did your friends laugh "Hahaha, right through the windshield!" or "Nice shot! haha Thanks!" as a wounded man was being carried to a van?but I knew plenty of guys who did and they are not cold unfeeling monsters.
#10
Dave
Again, at that point they thought it was a bunch of bad guys trying to evac their wounded. At that point I see nothing wrong with what happened with the sole exception of being wrong about the weaponry. But in that area it was not normal fro people to be carrying around camera equipment, so the weapon theory could have been plausible.
Look, it turned out to be bad but the parts you are talking about now are normal. Sorry, until nearing the end I fail to see the big deal with the actions of the soldiers.
Dave
Did your friends laugh "Hahaha, right through the windshield!" or "Nice shot! haha Thanks!" as a wounded man was being carried to a van?[/QUOTE]but I knew plenty of guys who did and they are not cold unfeeling monsters.
Again, at that point they thought it was a bunch of bad guys trying to evac their wounded. At that point I see nothing wrong with what happened with the sole exception of being wrong about the weaponry. But in that area it was not normal fro people to be carrying around camera equipment, so the weapon theory could have been plausible.
Look, it turned out to be bad but the parts you are talking about now are normal. Sorry, until nearing the end I fail to see the big deal with the actions of the soldiers.
#11
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
I'm talking about their attitude toward the killing, not the mistake they made.
#12
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Exactly. They sounded more like kids on Xbox Live than Soldiers who understand the consequences of each bullet they fire.I'm talking about their attitude toward the killing, not the mistake they made.
#13
Andromache
Andromache
Soldiers, (often very young) in a war have to mentally toughen themselves up against the horrors of war. They kill and they are killed, and it's not sanitized. I don't fault the units for that attitude. Don't want people to act like that, don't put them into a shitty hellhole and expect them to win at any cost.
That said, I do have major issues with the fundamental policies behind the engagement procedures. But thats command structure issues, not on the ground boots and butts troops. That was a bad op because the policies were wrong, and no one verified before engaging multiple people in the hot zone who were clearly not visibly hostile.
That said, I do have major issues with the fundamental policies behind the engagement procedures. But thats command structure issues, not on the ground boots and butts troops. That was a bad op because the policies were wrong, and no one verified before engaging multiple people in the hot zone who were clearly not visibly hostile.
#14
SpecialKO
It's only too obvious that the spotter was fudging what he saw in order to get permission to fire. First, he says that he sees 5-6 AK 47s when the video only shows, at max, 3 people carrying anything at all (one of which is supposed to be the RPG), and then the same guy says that the two from the van were picking up weapons as well as bodies when it's perfectly clear that they just picked up the wounded guy.
There's a disturbing disregard shown for taking the possibility of a mistake into account, combined with a clear desire to engage.
EDIT: To put it another way, mistakes can happen, but the way these guys approached this situation, there's no way the mistake could have been avoided. Whether it was within rules of engagement or not, that's not acceptable.
SpecialKO
Agreed.I'm talking about their attitude toward the killing, not the mistake they made.
It's only too obvious that the spotter was fudging what he saw in order to get permission to fire. First, he says that he sees 5-6 AK 47s when the video only shows, at max, 3 people carrying anything at all (one of which is supposed to be the RPG), and then the same guy says that the two from the van were picking up weapons as well as bodies when it's perfectly clear that they just picked up the wounded guy.
There's a disturbing disregard shown for taking the possibility of a mistake into account, combined with a clear desire to engage.
EDIT: To put it another way, mistakes can happen, but the way these guys approached this situation, there's no way the mistake could have been avoided. Whether it was within rules of engagement or not, that's not acceptable.
#15
Chibibar
Chibibar
hindsight 20/20 always can nitpick what we did wrong or right. The thing about killing the enemy is that, well they are the enemy. You kill them or they kill you. In wartime, that is what is going on. You don't have the luxury to 2nd guess yourself.
#16
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Were they not gleeful enough?I'm talking about their attitude toward the killing, not the mistake they made.
#17
Dave
Dave
Watching that video I can see where they thought there were weapons. That's a pretty big assumption to have to make when lives are on the line, but he made the call. It turned out to be a bad one. But if he had not made it and the guys on the ground had turned out to be something and people got killed the soldier could have been brought up on dereliction of duty charges and it would have been his friends which were killed. This is what we do to people in war - give them 2 bad choices and second guess them when they make the bad call.
Again, not saying they are right or wrong, but the video and those pushing it have an agenda and that agenda does not include war at all, let alone a bad shoot. I agree the brass covering it up did wrong by the victims, but ultimately they are trying to also protect the soldiers. If this goes to trial you think it's the brass who are going to swing from a yardarm? Hell no! It's going to be the boots on the ground that get screwed.
Again, not saying they are right or wrong, but the video and those pushing it have an agenda and that agenda does not include war at all, let alone a bad shoot. I agree the brass covering it up did wrong by the victims, but ultimately they are trying to also protect the soldiers. If this goes to trial you think it's the brass who are going to swing from a yardarm? Hell no! It's going to be the boots on the ground that get screwed.
#18
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Yes. In fact, there is a moral duty to do so. It's why officers file after-action reports, and why there is a UCMJ.hindsight 20/20 always can nitpick what we did wrong or right.
First you need to determine that they're the enemy.The thing about killing the enemy is that, well they are the enemy.
There's a huge difference between "not having the luxury to second guess in combat" and "praying for a dying man to pick up something-which-may-or-may-not-be-a-rifle so you can blow him apart with the 30mm machine gun mounted on your armored attack chopper".You don't have the luxury to 2nd guess yourself.
#19
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Seriously, I think people defending the soldiers here aren't listening.
The question is NOT about their ACTIONS, but their ATTITUDE during said actions. As pointed out by Tekeo, there is a part where the firing soldier is practically asking for the wounded man to go for a gun so he can finish him off, there are multiple "hoorahs" going on during the firing, and you can practically HEAR the "high fives" going around.
The question is NOT about their ACTIONS, but their ATTITUDE during said actions. As pointed out by Tekeo, there is a part where the firing soldier is practically asking for the wounded man to go for a gun so he can finish him off, there are multiple "hoorahs" going on during the firing, and you can practically HEAR the "high fives" going around.
#20
Dave
Dave
That's what soldiers do. They take pride in their jobs, too. It's a coping mechanism. And if they thought he was a bad guy they want him to go for his gun so that they can finish him off instead of spending money and time to house and feed a prisoner of war. Killing them is easier than the headaches associated with a POW. So he showed restraint there, not bloodlust.
You are being shot at and blown up at regular intervals. IEDs are going off, you're watching friends die. And they aren't supposed to be happy when capping bad guys? have you ever been around cops or soldiers before? This is what they do. The call was bad. their actions were not.
You are being shot at and blown up at regular intervals. IEDs are going off, you're watching friends die. And they aren't supposed to be happy when capping bad guys? have you ever been around cops or soldiers before? This is what they do. The call was bad. their actions were not.
#21
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
So a cop should high five another cop when shooting someone, cause they thought it was a threat, then after realizing that they also shot a child, should say "Oh well, shouldn't have had that baby in the car while avoiding arrest?"
Yeah, I think you're reaching.
Yeah, I think you're reaching.
#22
Chibibar
Now, the soldier could have pet up aggression against the enemy. This group of enemies (or the people as a whole) may already have killed his brother in arms in past excursion and want to exact revenge within the rules of war. I don't know. I'm guessing. Of course there are some people who just revel in the destruction of another human being (as long they are the enemy). In War, you need people who are willing to follow order and pull the trigger against another person. some people can mentally adjust and "switch on/off" but some can't. This is why there are psychological help after they come home to "turn off" that "killing mode"
Edit: now I personally don't like war. It is a messy product and just bad for both sides. Even if you win, you still lose a lot of good people, civilians and not to mention property damage. The job dictates you to do certain things, and human beings have ways to "reason" the "rights and wrong" just to get by. I have a friend who I call my brother served 3 tours as Army Ranger. He use to be a real fun guy, always mess around and stuff, but after he came back (now a game tester) you can sense sometime has change in him. He still try to live a normal life, but he has change.
Chibibar
well.... You are train to be a killing machine. I kinda like the line that "Gross pointe blank" pointed out. First you do it, then it become a job, then you might actually like it. Part of the psychological conditioning I guess. Is it wrong? I don't know. People have to be in that state of mind in order to pull the trigger and kill another human being. The convention of war does not allow to shoot an unarmed person (at least that is what I believe)Seriously, I think people defending the soldiers here aren't listening.
The question is NOT about their ACTIONS, but their ATTITUDE during said actions. As pointed out by Tekeo, there is a part where the firing soldier is practically asking for the wounded man to go for a gun so he can finish him off, there are multiple "hoorahs" going on during the firing, and you can practically HEAR the "high fives" going around.
Now, the soldier could have pet up aggression against the enemy. This group of enemies (or the people as a whole) may already have killed his brother in arms in past excursion and want to exact revenge within the rules of war. I don't know. I'm guessing. Of course there are some people who just revel in the destruction of another human being (as long they are the enemy). In War, you need people who are willing to follow order and pull the trigger against another person. some people can mentally adjust and "switch on/off" but some can't. This is why there are psychological help after they come home to "turn off" that "killing mode"
Edit: now I personally don't like war. It is a messy product and just bad for both sides. Even if you win, you still lose a lot of good people, civilians and not to mention property damage. The job dictates you to do certain things, and human beings have ways to "reason" the "rights and wrong" just to get by. I have a friend who I call my brother served 3 tours as Army Ranger. He use to be a real fun guy, always mess around and stuff, but after he came back (now a game tester) you can sense sometime has change in him. He still try to live a normal life, but he has change.
#23
Dave
Dave
I would like to hear from military people here, too. So far as I'm aware, I'm the prior military who has spoken in the thread.
#24
JONJONAUG
War crimes sure are fun, huh guys?
JONJONAUG
War crimes sure are fun, huh guys?
#25
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
And you don't think your prior military service might be coloring your views of these soldiers?I would like to hear from military people here, too. So far as I'm aware, I'm the prior military who has spoken in the thread.
#26
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Well, at least he wasn't an inconvenience.And if they thought he was a bad guy they want him to go for his gun so that they can finish him off instead of spending money and time to house and feed a prisoner of war.
#27
JONJONAUG
JONJONAUG
The level of importance this has versus the amount of coverage it gets is depressing.
#28
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
It is a shame that we fight in a more dishonorable manner than the insurgency.
No, wait, we don't.
No, wait, we don't.
#29
Chibibar
Chibibar
JonHonaug: you should know that the general public are more "concern" of stuff closer to home than what happen across the ocean (sad but true) like the privacy bill that was pass. No many thought about it as much since most would think "I'm not a terrorist, I'm not going to be monitored"
but Healthcare is hitting the pocketbook. It is much closer to home and thus get more news.
Sad eh?
but Healthcare is hitting the pocketbook. It is much closer to home and thus get more news.
Sad eh?
#30
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I'm sure the civilians who get killed via collateral damage take comfort in that.It is a shame that we fight in a more dishonorable manner than the insurgency.
No, wait, we don't.
#31
JONJONAUG
JONJONAUG
Except both of the articles in the CNN image aren't about taxes or healthcare. One is about Apple's newest iProduct, and the other is about a golfer cheating on his wife (continuing weeks of front page reports about how a golfer has cheated on his wife).JonHonaug: you should know that the general public are more "concern" of stuff closer to home than what happen across the ocean (sad but true) like the privacy bill that was pass. No many thought about it as much since most would think "I'm not a terrorist, I'm not going to be monitored"
but Healthcare is hitting the pocketbook. It is much closer to home and thus get more news.
Sad eh?
#32
SpecialKO
It's not even on the front page of CNN International. But one of the editor's choice videos is about air stewardess' protesting low pay by stripping.
SpecialKO
Except both of the articles in the CNN image aren't about taxes or healthcare. One is about Apple's newest iProduct, and the other is about a golfer cheating on his wife (continuing weeks of front page reports about how a golfer has cheated on his wife).[/QUOTE]JonHonaug: you should know that the general public are more \"concern\" of stuff closer to home than what happen across the ocean (sad but true) like the privacy bill that was pass. No many thought about it as much since most would think \"I'm not a terrorist, I'm not going to be monitored\"
but Healthcare is hitting the pocketbook. It is much closer to home and thus get more news.
Sad eh?
It's not even on the front page of CNN International. But one of the editor's choice videos is about air stewardess' protesting low pay by stripping.
#33
Dave
Dave
Oh give me a fucking break, guys. War crimes? Bullshit. The reason that this isn't getting more coverage is because it's a tragic accident and not news. Yes, POWs are a pain in the ass. There are several rules governing them and (aside from some very public excesses to the contrary) we abide by them.
Do these guys seem to be reveling in the deaths? Yes. Are there verbal high fives? Yes. Is this what we trained them to do? Fuck yes! Is this something that you would do if trained the same way? Yes. Is my prior military experience coloring my views? Of course. Is your LACK of military experience coloring yours? Hell yes!
But you guys sit back and second guess people putting their lives on the line so you don't have to. That's what these soldiers allow you to do.
These men did not fight dishonorably. They didn't do anything wrong on purpose. They were doing what they thought was their jobs. Did they end up being wrong? Yes. But that doesn't make them evil people or war criminals. It makes them soldiers who had to make a call in a tense situation and turned out to be wrong. That's it.
Do these guys seem to be reveling in the deaths? Yes. Are there verbal high fives? Yes. Is this what we trained them to do? Fuck yes! Is this something that you would do if trained the same way? Yes. Is my prior military experience coloring my views? Of course. Is your LACK of military experience coloring yours? Hell yes!
But you guys sit back and second guess people putting their lives on the line so you don't have to. That's what these soldiers allow you to do.
These men did not fight dishonorably. They didn't do anything wrong on purpose. They were doing what they thought was their jobs. Did they end up being wrong? Yes. But that doesn't make them evil people or war criminals. It makes them soldiers who had to make a call in a tense situation and turned out to be wrong. That's it.
#34
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
I like Dave's philosphy on this:
Kill em all and let God sort em out. :slywink:
Kill em all and let God sort em out. :slywink:
#35
Espy
It's not even on the front page of CNN International. But one of the editor's choice videos is about air stewardess' protesting low pay by stripping.[/QUOTE]
Frontpage Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/
Espy
Except both of the articles in the CNN image aren't about taxes or healthcare. One is about Apple's newest iProduct, and the other is about a golfer cheating on his wife (continuing weeks of front page reports about how a golfer has cheated on his wife).[/QUOTE]JonHonaug: you should know that the general public are more \\"concern\\" of stuff closer to home than what happen across the ocean (sad but true) like the privacy bill that was pass. No many thought about it as much since most would think \\"I'm not a terrorist, I'm not going to be monitored\\"
but Healthcare is hitting the pocketbook. It is much closer to home and thus get more news.
Sad eh?
It's not even on the front page of CNN International. But one of the editor's choice videos is about air stewardess' protesting low pay by stripping.[/QUOTE]
Frontpage Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/
#36
Shegokigo
It's not even on the front page of CNN International. But one of the editor's choice videos is about air stewardess' protesting low pay by stripping.[/QUOTE]
Frontpage Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/[/QUOTE]
Well obviously, since this is Obama's fault.
Shegokigo
Except both of the articles in the CNN image aren't about taxes or healthcare. One is about Apple's newest iProduct, and the other is about a golfer cheating on his wife (continuing weeks of front page reports about how a golfer has cheated on his wife).[/QUOTE]JonHonaug: you should know that the general public are more \\\"concern\\\" of stuff closer to home than what happen across the ocean (sad but true) like the privacy bill that was pass. No many thought about it as much since most would think \\\"I'm not a terrorist, I'm not going to be monitored\\\"
but Healthcare is hitting the pocketbook. It is much closer to home and thus get more news.
Sad eh?
It's not even on the front page of CNN International. But one of the editor's choice videos is about air stewardess' protesting low pay by stripping.[/QUOTE]
Frontpage Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/[/QUOTE]
Well obviously, since this is Obama's fault.
#37
SpecialKO
It's not even on the front page of CNN International. But one of the editor's choice videos is about air stewardess' protesting low pay by stripping.[/QUOTE]
Frontpage Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/[/QUOTE]
Then, in a personal first, I will say, "good for Fox News".
Dave, I genuinely don't want to piss you off, but suggesting that volunteering to be a soldier gives you a total freedom from oversight by the people who you're not only sworn to protect and represent, but who also have a Constitutional right (and not to mention a moral obligation) to do so, just doesn't fly.
By the same token, I'm apparently not allowed to ask questions of police officers. They put their lives on the line in very difficult stressful situations as well. That doesn't exempt them from oversight, and it shouldn't.
SpecialKO
Except both of the articles in the CNN image aren't about taxes or healthcare. One is about Apple's newest iProduct, and the other is about a golfer cheating on his wife (continuing weeks of front page reports about how a golfer has cheated on his wife).[/QUOTE]JonHonaug: you should know that the general public are more \\\"concern\\\" of stuff closer to home than what happen across the ocean (sad but true) like the privacy bill that was pass. No many thought about it as much since most would think \\\"I'm not a terrorist, I'm not going to be monitored\\\"
but Healthcare is hitting the pocketbook. It is much closer to home and thus get more news.
Sad eh?
It's not even on the front page of CNN International. But one of the editor's choice videos is about air stewardess' protesting low pay by stripping.[/QUOTE]
Frontpage Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/[/QUOTE]
Then, in a personal first, I will say, "good for Fox News".
Dave, I genuinely don't want to piss you off, but suggesting that volunteering to be a soldier gives you a total freedom from oversight by the people who you're not only sworn to protect and represent, but who also have a Constitutional right (and not to mention a moral obligation) to do so, just doesn't fly.
By the same token, I'm apparently not allowed to ask questions of police officers. They put their lives on the line in very difficult stressful situations as well. That doesn't exempt them from oversight, and it shouldn't.
#38
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I am trying VERY hard not to Godwin this by pointing out the obvious example of people "doing what they were told was their job".
#39
Andromache
..
Andromache
I am trying VERY hard not to Godwin this by pointing out the obvious example of people "doing what they were told was their job".
..
#40
SpecialKO
Unless I'm drastically misunderstanding him, I really don't think that's what Dave is trying to say, here.
SpecialKO
:wtf: Oh, boy.I am trying VERY hard not to Godwin this by pointing out the obvious example of people "doing what they were told was their job".
Unless I'm drastically misunderstanding him, I really don't think that's what Dave is trying to say, here.
#41
Tinwhistler
The high fives and back-slapping pretty much is a part of any war I've ever heard tell of. My grandfather was in two of them. My next door neighbor was a point man on a riverboat in Vietnam. Me and several of my neighborhood friends joined the military during gulf war I. You don't want wallflowers on the battlefield, and if you can't develop a certain love for the job of shooting the enemy, you won't last long out there doing it.
You are trained to think of the bad guy as the ultimate evil, and you get a certain glee in killing him before he kills one of yours. There's a reason that "soldiers returning from war having to learn to not be killers" is a staple story plot from time immemorial.
I watched the video without sound (and will watch it with sound later), and i saw three instances where I thought I saw weaponry. If I were in the shooter's position, I'd have made the call to shoot as well. Without the commentary here, and without the annotations on the video, I would have never known I was seeing a reporter and his crew being shot.
Tinwhistler
I would like to hear from military people here, too. So far as I'm aware, I'm the prior military who has spoken in the thread.
The high fives and back-slapping pretty much is a part of any war I've ever heard tell of. My grandfather was in two of them. My next door neighbor was a point man on a riverboat in Vietnam. Me and several of my neighborhood friends joined the military during gulf war I. You don't want wallflowers on the battlefield, and if you can't develop a certain love for the job of shooting the enemy, you won't last long out there doing it.
You are trained to think of the bad guy as the ultimate evil, and you get a certain glee in killing him before he kills one of yours. There's a reason that "soldiers returning from war having to learn to not be killers" is a staple story plot from time immemorial.
I watched the video without sound (and will watch it with sound later), and i saw three instances where I thought I saw weaponry. If I were in the shooter's position, I'd have made the call to shoot as well. Without the commentary here, and without the annotations on the video, I would have never known I was seeing a reporter and his crew being shot.
#42
Espy
It's not even on the front page of CNN International. But one of the editor's choice videos is about air stewardess' protesting low pay by stripping.[/QUOTE]
Frontpage Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/[/QUOTE]
Well obviously, since this is Obama's fault.[/QUOTE]
I missed that part of the article I think.
Espy
Except both of the articles in the CNN image aren't about taxes or healthcare. One is about Apple's newest iProduct, and the other is about a golfer cheating on his wife (continuing weeks of front page reports about how a golfer has cheated on his wife).[/QUOTE]JonHonaug: you should know that the general public are more \\\\"concern\\\\" of stuff closer to home than what happen across the ocean (sad but true) like the privacy bill that was pass. No many thought about it as much since most would think \\\\"I'm not a terrorist, I'm not going to be monitored\\\\"
but Healthcare is hitting the pocketbook. It is much closer to home and thus get more news.
Sad eh?
It's not even on the front page of CNN International. But one of the editor's choice videos is about air stewardess' protesting low pay by stripping.[/QUOTE]
Frontpage Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/[/QUOTE]
Well obviously, since this is Obama's fault.
[/QUOTE]I missed that part of the article I think.
#43
AshburnerX
..[/QUOTE]
Good enough for me!
AshburnerX
I am trying VERY hard not to Godwin this by pointing out the obvious example of people "doing what they were told was their job".
..[/QUOTE]
Good enough for me!
#44
Andromache
Andromache
i was wondering how long you were playing DAI like Dave's philosphy on this:
Kill em all and let God sort em out. :slywink:
#45
drawn_inward
You know Dave is right on this. Innocent people have died in every war ever fought. War is a terrible thing. There should not be any outcry about this.
These men and women are brave. If you hesitate or second guess yourself in the war zone then you die.
drawn_inward
They weren't told to kill innocent people. That's a pretty fucking ridiculous statement.I am trying VERY hard not to Godwin this by pointing out the obvious example of people "doing what they were told was their job".
You know Dave is right on this. Innocent people have died in every war ever fought. War is a terrible thing. There should not be any outcry about this.
These men and women are brave. If you hesitate or second guess yourself in the war zone then you die.
#46
Andromache
Andromache
true but the passers by didnt look to be carrying weapons to me ( i watched the raw) and the fact that the first hellfire and the second caught people walking by seemed... not thought through even in a hot zone situation. Still, i wont judge these guys. They were trained to do this and sent there by their command.Without the commentary here, and without the annotations on the video, I would have never known I was seeing a reporter and his crew being shot.
#47
WolfOfOdin
WolfOfOdin
I'm going to try not to take sides here, but it's tough.
As the relative of several soldiers, and a close friend of many police officers and 2 U.S. Marshals, I can sympathize with the mindset these people place themselves into to avoid madness during combat. You're taught to dehumanize the enemy, make them a 'thing' instead of a person, make them something that's easy to drop and move on from. The enormity of what you've done often doesn't hit you till after the 'battle high' wears off and you've realized you've just gunned down several unarmed civilians. It's a horrific thing, a vile thing and a necessary thing. War is ugly, vicious and brutal and yes, innocents die horribly when mistakes are made.
Does this excuse the actions of the soldiers and their CO's? God no. Someone should be held to count for this fuck-up and yes, it will probably be the grunts instead of the brass getting strung up. Them's the breaks, sadly.
Now, I'm going to put this to the armchair psychs. Have you ever had to kill another human being? Have you ever had to do something that you knew in your heart of hearts, might cause an innocent to die? I interned for the US Attorney's office, I met some frighteningly disturbed individuals and I met some monsters that were being shunted into WITSEC because their testimony would help the feds catch even more horrible monsters. This is the reality of politics and war. Good and evil in a pure black and white setting are impossible. You are often given the choice of killing 500 people or 5,000 and you have to decide who you think deserves to live more. It's a psychologically damning thing that no one should suffer through, but they must. That's why I can actually see that attitude as being a helpful mechanism to maintain one's mind in such a horrible place.
As the relative of several soldiers, and a close friend of many police officers and 2 U.S. Marshals, I can sympathize with the mindset these people place themselves into to avoid madness during combat. You're taught to dehumanize the enemy, make them a 'thing' instead of a person, make them something that's easy to drop and move on from. The enormity of what you've done often doesn't hit you till after the 'battle high' wears off and you've realized you've just gunned down several unarmed civilians. It's a horrific thing, a vile thing and a necessary thing. War is ugly, vicious and brutal and yes, innocents die horribly when mistakes are made.
Does this excuse the actions of the soldiers and their CO's? God no. Someone should be held to count for this fuck-up and yes, it will probably be the grunts instead of the brass getting strung up. Them's the breaks, sadly.
Now, I'm going to put this to the armchair psychs. Have you ever had to kill another human being? Have you ever had to do something that you knew in your heart of hearts, might cause an innocent to die? I interned for the US Attorney's office, I met some frighteningly disturbed individuals and I met some monsters that were being shunted into WITSEC because their testimony would help the feds catch even more horrible monsters. This is the reality of politics and war. Good and evil in a pure black and white setting are impossible. You are often given the choice of killing 500 people or 5,000 and you have to decide who you think deserves to live more. It's a psychologically damning thing that no one should suffer through, but they must. That's why I can actually see that attitude as being a helpful mechanism to maintain one's mind in such a horrible place.
#48
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
Well, Dave, I am not sure if I count, being a tank buster in the reserves (didn't even think enlisting for another 6-12 months, which is mandatory if you want to go career in the FDF). In any case I don't think I'm qualified to give an assessment of how these soldiers handled the situation, as the matter of urban combat was more appropriate for Jägers. The tank busters are in a lucky position that way; there aren't that many BMP-2 or T-90 tanks in civilian use, so there's very little chance of causing civilian casualties when shooting a bazooka or a missile at one.
#49
SpecialKO
I will also point out that the "second guess and you die" argument is simply not true. Otherwise, to avoid the possibility, the Army (or whomever that unit belonged to) would have simply bombed the neighborhood. Apparently, as folks here are saying, it was an active warzone at the time.
So there is clearly a level of acceptable second-guessing allowed in the military.
SpecialKO
That's actually an excellent reason for there to be an outcry.Innocent people have died in every war ever fought. War is a terrible thing. There should not be any outcry about this.
I will also point out that the "second guess and you die" argument is simply not true. Otherwise, to avoid the possibility, the Army (or whomever that unit belonged to) would have simply bombed the neighborhood. Apparently, as folks here are saying, it was an active warzone at the time.
So there is clearly a level of acceptable second-guessing allowed in the military.
#50
Tinwhistler
In the not too distant past, this is exactly what they would've done.
Tinwhistler
Interestingly enough, precision weaponry is a relatively new phenomenon.I will also point out that the "second guess and you die" argument is simply not true. Otherwise, to avoid the possibility, the Army (or whomever that unit belonged to) would have simply bombed the neighborhood.
In the not too distant past, this is exactly what they would've done.
#51
Dave
Dave
Dresden, anyone?
#52
WolfOfOdin
WolfOfOdin
Hell, how about Coventry, Dave? Churchill killed a ton of innocents there.
#53
SpecialKO
In the not too recent past, this is exactly what they would've done.[/QUOTE]
Thank god for technology, then. Seriously, no joke.
SpecialKO
Interestingly enough, precision weaponry is a relatively new phenomenon.I will also point out that the "second guess and you die" argument is simply not true. Otherwise, to avoid the possibility, the Army (or whomever that unit belonged to) would have simply bombed the neighborhood.
In the not too recent past, this is exactly what they would've done.[/QUOTE]
Thank god for technology, then. Seriously, no joke.
#54
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
agreed.
#55
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Wasn't Dresden extensively investigated?
And wasn't Coventry bombed by the Germans? I don't get the Churchill reference.
And wasn't Coventry bombed by the Germans? I don't get the Churchill reference.
#56
WolfOfOdin
WolfOfOdin
Churchill KNEW it was going to be bombed, Tek. He knew that it was going to be destroyed and that a great number of innocent people were going to die horribly as a result. However, doing that would cause the germans to be alerted to the fact that they knew the enigma code was broken.
#57
SpecialKO
I'm not sure how that would protect Churchill from having to answer to the surviving families of the people who didn't make it, though. Wouldn't necessarily make him wrong to have decided in that way, but it definitely doesn't exempt him from questions.
SpecialKO
God. Now there's an awful decision.Churchill KNEW it was going to be bombed, Tek. He knew that it was going to be destroyed and that a great number of innocent people were going to die horribly as a result. However, doing that would cause the germans to be alerted to the fact that they knew the enigma code was broken.
I'm not sure how that would protect Churchill from having to answer to the surviving families of the people who didn't make it, though. Wouldn't necessarily make him wrong to have decided in that way, but it definitely doesn't exempt him from questions.
#58
Jay
Jay
Let's be honest, war will always be war and there will always be causalities. But damn, listening to these guys was like playing Modern Warfare.... they were WHINING they had to ask for permission to shoot unarmed people. "WAAAH WAAAH!* *military code bullshit* *WHINE* *OK GO* *WOOOHOO, IN THE FACE! IN THE FACE!!!!!!!!!!* *EGO STROKE HERE* *NICE*
#59
WolfOfOdin
WolfOfOdin
Exactly. While I don't believe the soldiers in question should not be held to account for their actions, I believe that their attitude is nothing more than a coping mechanism for a particularly horrific situation. Turning the 'enemy' into a fictitious monster to kill is a way to keep sanity. The XBOX live style chatter you heard? That's the sound of someone desperately trying to stay sane in an insane situation. I can thusly excuse that, given the enormity of what they did and how it probably hit them when they got back to base and realized they killed innocents. It's a Churchill choice, Tek. You do what you believe is currently right in a bad situation and you deal with the fallout as it comes, good or ill.
That's the reality of war. There are no black and white decisions to make, especially against insurgents who have used and will use again, children and women as agents of attack. It's utterly horrific, but until we have the tech to analyze a situation with crystal clarity and assure us that someone's not carrying a weapon, this is going to happen. They need to be held accountable, but calling this a war crime is spurious
That's the reality of war. There are no black and white decisions to make, especially against insurgents who have used and will use again, children and women as agents of attack. It's utterly horrific, but until we have the tech to analyze a situation with crystal clarity and assure us that someone's not carrying a weapon, this is going to happen. They need to be held accountable, but calling this a war crime is spurious
#60
AshburnerX
I'm not sure how that would protect Churchill from having to answer to the surviving families of the people who didn't make it, though. Wouldn't necessarily make him wrong to have decided in that way, but it definitely doesn't exempt him from questions.[/QUOTE]
The real tragedy was that he didn't even need to protect the code. By the time the Germans would have had a new code, the required tools to decrypt it, and distributed said code and tools to everyone who needed it, the War would have been over or close to it.
AshburnerX
God. Now there's an awful decision.Churchill KNEW it was going to be bombed, Tek. He knew that it was going to be destroyed and that a great number of innocent people were going to die horribly as a result. However, doing that would cause the germans to be alerted to the fact that they knew the enigma code was broken.
I'm not sure how that would protect Churchill from having to answer to the surviving families of the people who didn't make it, though. Wouldn't necessarily make him wrong to have decided in that way, but it definitely doesn't exempt him from questions.[/QUOTE]
The real tragedy was that he didn't even need to protect the code. By the time the Germans would have had a new code, the required tools to decrypt it, and distributed said code and tools to everyone who needed it, the War would have been over or close to it.
#61
WolfOfOdin
I'm not sure how that would protect Churchill from having to answer to the surviving families of the people who didn't make it, though. Wouldn't necessarily make him wrong to have decided in that way, but it definitely doesn't exempt him from questions.[/QUOTE]
The real tragedy was that he didn't even need to protect the code. By the time the Germans would have had a new code, the required tools to decrypt it, and distributed said code and tools to everyone who needed it, the War would have been over or close to it.[/QUOTE]
Or, they would have bombed someplace else, someplace vitally significant to the allied war effort.
WolfOfOdin
God. Now there's an awful decision.Churchill KNEW it was going to be bombed, Tek. He knew that it was going to be destroyed and that a great number of innocent people were going to die horribly as a result. However, doing that would cause the germans to be alerted to the fact that they knew the enigma code was broken.
I'm not sure how that would protect Churchill from having to answer to the surviving families of the people who didn't make it, though. Wouldn't necessarily make him wrong to have decided in that way, but it definitely doesn't exempt him from questions.[/QUOTE]
The real tragedy was that he didn't even need to protect the code. By the time the Germans would have had a new code, the required tools to decrypt it, and distributed said code and tools to everyone who needed it, the War would have been over or close to it.[/QUOTE]
Or, they would have bombed someplace else, someplace vitally significant to the allied war effort.
#62
AshburnerX
I'm not sure how that would protect Churchill from having to answer to the surviving families of the people who didn't make it, though. Wouldn't necessarily make him wrong to have decided in that way, but it definitely doesn't exempt him from questions.[/QUOTE]
The real tragedy was that he didn't even need to protect the code. By the time the Germans would have had a new code, the required tools to decrypt it, and distributed said code and tools to everyone who needed it, the War would have been over or close to it.[/QUOTE]
Or, they would have bombed someplace else, someplace vitally significant to the allied war effort.[/QUOTE]
If they were in a position to do that, don't you think they WOULD have done that? Coventry was a safe target for Germany, which wasn't exactly fond of losing it's bombers.
AshburnerX
God. Now there's an awful decision.Churchill KNEW it was going to be bombed, Tek. He knew that it was going to be destroyed and that a great number of innocent people were going to die horribly as a result. However, doing that would cause the germans to be alerted to the fact that they knew the enigma code was broken.
I'm not sure how that would protect Churchill from having to answer to the surviving families of the people who didn't make it, though. Wouldn't necessarily make him wrong to have decided in that way, but it definitely doesn't exempt him from questions.[/QUOTE]
The real tragedy was that he didn't even need to protect the code. By the time the Germans would have had a new code, the required tools to decrypt it, and distributed said code and tools to everyone who needed it, the War would have been over or close to it.[/QUOTE]
Or, they would have bombed someplace else, someplace vitally significant to the allied war effort.[/QUOTE]
If they were in a position to do that, don't you think they WOULD have done that? Coventry was a safe target for Germany, which wasn't exactly fond of losing it's bombers.
#63
Shakey
Shakey
Welcome to war. Did anyone really expect anything less? Did you seriously think that every soldier would behave in a way that would get them elected as president? These aren't police officers, these are people that are killing people every day and have to some how reconcile that with their conscience. Added to that the fact that their decisions are most likely going to cause an innocent person their life. If they seem disconnected I can't possibly blame them.
With that said, I see no reason to ask whether we can do something to make the decision process better. I'm not sure leaking a video like this is the best way though. I can't even imagine what the soldiers in this video are thinking right now. Having something that you thought was a private conversation opened up to public scrutiny by people that haven't even seen the blood of the animal they ate that night would kill me.
I've seen what war does to people. I haven't seen it personally, but I go to my grandfathers WW2 reunion every year and see 80 to 90 year old men still cry about what happened. I've seen how my dad clams up when asked about what he did in the army. I've seen my brother in laws brother get paranoid about a cryptic text message that probably meant nothing after he recently came back from Iraq. People deal with this shit in messed up ways, I dare you to have to decide whether or not to kill people on a daily basis and come back with a level head.
With that said, I see no reason to ask whether we can do something to make the decision process better. I'm not sure leaking a video like this is the best way though. I can't even imagine what the soldiers in this video are thinking right now. Having something that you thought was a private conversation opened up to public scrutiny by people that haven't even seen the blood of the animal they ate that night would kill me.
I've seen what war does to people. I haven't seen it personally, but I go to my grandfathers WW2 reunion every year and see 80 to 90 year old men still cry about what happened. I've seen how my dad clams up when asked about what he did in the army. I've seen my brother in laws brother get paranoid about a cryptic text message that probably meant nothing after he recently came back from Iraq. People deal with this shit in messed up ways, I dare you to have to decide whether or not to kill people on a daily basis and come back with a level head.
#64
Shakey
Shakey
I'll add this because I don't think the full story is included here.
My grandpa has always refused to eat rice. We had always thought it was because of fighting in the pacific during WW2. Why would you ever want to eat rice after fight the Japs? It turns out that it wasn't anything close to that. It was because that the rice reminded him too much of the maggots he found on bodies during the war. He was never comfortable telling people that, so it was easier to let people think it was because the Japanese ate a lot of rice.
This is war. Leaking an individual tape without looking at the emotional impact on the person bothers me. I will bet almost anything when the people on this tape sat down and tried to reconcile this with their God they weren't as cocky as they seem on the tape. They are just people in a horrible situation that we forced upon them. I'm glad you can sit back in your chair and judge them though.
My grandpa has always refused to eat rice. We had always thought it was because of fighting in the pacific during WW2. Why would you ever want to eat rice after fight the Japs? It turns out that it wasn't anything close to that. It was because that the rice reminded him too much of the maggots he found on bodies during the war. He was never comfortable telling people that, so it was easier to let people think it was because the Japanese ate a lot of rice.
This is war. Leaking an individual tape without looking at the emotional impact on the person bothers me. I will bet almost anything when the people on this tape sat down and tried to reconcile this with their God they weren't as cocky as they seem on the tape. They are just people in a horrible situation that we forced upon them. I'm glad you can sit back in your chair and judge them though.
#65
JONJONAUG
They were criminally incompetent and showed no respect for themselves, the nation they were supposed to be serving/representing, or unarmed civilians. To add to that, these videos have existed for three years and were unreleased despite the continued classification of these videos being illegal under the Freedom of Information Act.
JONJONAUG
They fired on an unarmed van and killed multiple people who were also unarmed, mistook two cameras for an AK-47 and a RPG, and did all this while laughing about it.I'll add this because I don't think the full story is included here.
My grandpa has always refused to eat rice. We had always thought it was because of fighting in the pacific during WW2. Why would you ever want to eat rice after fight the Japs? It turns out that it wasn't anything close to that. It was because that the rice reminded him too much of the maggots he found on bodies during the war. He was never comfortable telling people that, so it was easier to let people think it was because the Japanese ate a lot of rice.
This is war. Leaking an individual tape without looking at the emotional impact on the person bothers me. I will bet almost anything when the people on this tape sat down and tried to reconcile this with their God they weren't as cocky as they seem on the tape. They are just people in a horrible situation that we forced upon them. I'm glad you can sit back in your chair and judge them though.
They were criminally incompetent and showed no respect for themselves, the nation they were supposed to be serving/representing, or unarmed civilians. To add to that, these videos have existed for three years and were unreleased despite the continued classification of these videos being illegal under the Freedom of Information Act.
#66
Tinwhistler
.
Tinwhistler
#67
Shakey
They were criminally incompetent and showed no respect for themselves, the nation they were supposed to be serving/representing, or unarmed civilians. To add to that, these videos have existed for three years and were unreleased despite the continued classification of these videos being illegal under the Freedom of Information Act.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't watch the whole video. I dare you to watch a video of a soldier of any other war. Wait, you can't, because it doesn't exist. I'm not saying the video isn't horrible. What I am saying is I want you to stand in that persons shoes for one god damn second and try to think about what it would be like to know that there is a possibility that you are about to kill someone and every hope they ever had to make a family and have a good life as you know it. How would you handle it? Not as a one time thing, but a daily occurrence? Do it again and again. Also realize that a friend of yours will die if you make the wrong decision.
All I'm saying is our soldiers are human. Singling out someone like this is wrong. Work on fixing the communication or accuracy of information, but blaming the problems of the war on people who make split second decision is wrong.
---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 PM ----------
Shakey
They fired on an unarmed van and killed multiple people who were also unarmed, mistook two cameras for an AK-47 and a RPG, and did all this while laughing about it.I'll add this because I don't think the full story is included here.
My grandpa has always refused to eat rice. We had always thought it was because of fighting in the pacific during WW2. Why would you ever want to eat rice after fight the Japs? It turns out that it wasn't anything close to that. It was because that the rice reminded him too much of the maggots he found on bodies during the war. He was never comfortable telling people that, so it was easier to let people think it was because the Japanese ate a lot of rice.
This is war. Leaking an individual tape without looking at the emotional impact on the person bothers me. I will bet almost anything when the people on this tape sat down and tried to reconcile this with their God they weren't as cocky as they seem on the tape. They are just people in a horrible situation that we forced upon them. I'm glad you can sit back in your chair and judge them though.
They were criminally incompetent and showed no respect for themselves, the nation they were supposed to be serving/representing, or unarmed civilians. To add to that, these videos have existed for three years and were unreleased despite the continued classification of these videos being illegal under the Freedom of Information Act.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't watch the whole video. I dare you to watch a video of a soldier of any other war. Wait, you can't, because it doesn't exist. I'm not saying the video isn't horrible. What I am saying is I want you to stand in that persons shoes for one god damn second and try to think about what it would be like to know that there is a possibility that you are about to kill someone and every hope they ever had to make a family and have a good life as you know it. How would you handle it? Not as a one time thing, but a daily occurrence? Do it again and again. Also realize that a friend of yours will die if you make the wrong decision.
All I'm saying is our soldiers are human. Singling out someone like this is wrong. Work on fixing the communication or accuracy of information, but blaming the problems of the war on people who make split second decision is wrong.
---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 PM ----------
Fuck yes.
#68
JONJONAUG
"I think I see an AK" turns into "an AK-47 and an RPG" turns into "multiple armed insurgents". No weapons were recovered from the scene. You are defending the murder of innocent civilians by criminally incompetent soldiers.
Starting at about 8 minutes in, a clearly unarmed van pulls up and starts picking up the wounded. Soldiers start asking for permission to open fire, claiming the people are picking up weapons (they aren't and there aren't any weapons around to begin with). After a bit, they get permission to open fire. They open fire on a guy who's clearly unarmed, runs down and lies in a prone position (again he is unarmed and there are no weapons in sight), and he is gunned down. The van is shot up, and almost everyone is killed and two children riding in the van were wounded (the guy driving the van was taking his kids to a tutor).
JONJONAUG
Watch the whole video.I couldn't watch the whole video. I dare you to watch a video of a soldier of any other war. Wait, you can't, because it doesn't exist. I'm not saying the video isn't horrible. What I am saying is I want you to stand in that persons shoes for one god damn second and try to think about what it would be like to know that there is a possibility that you are about to kill someone and every hope they ever had to make a family and have a good life as you know it. How would you handle it? Not as a one time thing, but a daily occurrence? Do it again and again. Also realize that a friend of yours will die if you make the wrong decision.
All I'm saying is our soldiers are human. Singling out someone like this is wrong. Work on fixing the communication or accuracy of information, but blaming the problems of the war on people who make split second decision is wrong.[COLOR=\"Silver\"]
"I think I see an AK" turns into "an AK-47 and an RPG" turns into "multiple armed insurgents". No weapons were recovered from the scene. You are defending the murder of innocent civilians by criminally incompetent soldiers.
Starting at about 8 minutes in, a clearly unarmed van pulls up and starts picking up the wounded. Soldiers start asking for permission to open fire, claiming the people are picking up weapons (they aren't and there aren't any weapons around to begin with). After a bit, they get permission to open fire. They open fire on a guy who's clearly unarmed, runs down and lies in a prone position (again he is unarmed and there are no weapons in sight), and he is gunned down. The van is shot up, and almost everyone is killed and two children riding in the van were wounded (the guy driving the van was taking his kids to a tutor).
#69
Jay
Jay
I completely agree. You can clearly tell that the guy on the radio is a pathological liar as stories are made up on the spot so that his buddies can shoot at unarmed people. At the start of the video, it looked like they were in the right with suspicious folk walking down the street but after the first attack they shot up at an unarmed van without scruples (they sounded completely like xbox brats whining about not being able to shoot). Possibly they didn't want them to take away the wounded guy but they didn't any point or time warning them to leave him well alone. A few stray shots at a bunch of unarmed Samaritans could have done the job well enough. You wonder where Terrorists can get potential recruits for suicide bombing, let me tell you, these type of fuckups do wonders for their recruiting. This was very much: Shoot them all, let God sort them out.
No weapons were found on the scene? What a clusterfuck.
No weapons were found on the scene? What a clusterfuck.
#70
PatrThom
PatrThom
Weighing in.
It is unfortunate that people were killed who in all likelihood did not need to die. It is not the first time this has happened in this conflict, and it is not the only resultant tragic story to make its way to the public eye. The concept of 'acceptable losses' works both ways, and it is why civilians hide in basements, have trouble with bowel control, and tend to have a lousy opinion of soldiers. Fighting a war while trying to avoid civilian casualties is like trying to play (American) football without damaging the grass. It can be minimized, but not avoided, and the more the players concentrate on preserving the field of battle, the less effective they will be as combatants.
I can sympathize with the soldiers, in a way. The elation of 'we got one!' is intoxicating. You've done something good! You're a hero! Euphoria time! Happy hormones for everybody! Wheeee! At the time the soldiers get clearance to engage, the hindbrain takes over...that portion of the brain which speaks in single, unconfusing terms. You know, that part of the brain which barks things like, "Kill!" "Eat!" or "Fuck!" And the reason it gets to drive for a while is because this sort of thing is exactly what that part does really, really well: Engage, neutralize. Reposition, engage, neutralize. It becomes like a game, except that this game is even more thrilling because it is real. And nobody is immune to this sort of gleeful exuberance. Nobody.
That said, I viewed the video. It took two tries before I could watch the whole thing. I had nothing to do with the incident, directly nor indirectly, but I must say...I am sorry. My remorse means nothing; the bodies are still dead, the children still wounded. I agree that the attitude of the soldiers was quite a bit more cavalier/flippant than it needed to be, but though I understand why they likely acted the way they did, I don't believe that excuses the behavior.
And now, if you will excuse me, I am going to go hug my son. A lot.
--Patrick
It is unfortunate that people were killed who in all likelihood did not need to die. It is not the first time this has happened in this conflict, and it is not the only resultant tragic story to make its way to the public eye. The concept of 'acceptable losses' works both ways, and it is why civilians hide in basements, have trouble with bowel control, and tend to have a lousy opinion of soldiers. Fighting a war while trying to avoid civilian casualties is like trying to play (American) football without damaging the grass. It can be minimized, but not avoided, and the more the players concentrate on preserving the field of battle, the less effective they will be as combatants.
I can sympathize with the soldiers, in a way. The elation of 'we got one!' is intoxicating. You've done something good! You're a hero! Euphoria time! Happy hormones for everybody! Wheeee! At the time the soldiers get clearance to engage, the hindbrain takes over...that portion of the brain which speaks in single, unconfusing terms. You know, that part of the brain which barks things like, "Kill!" "Eat!" or "Fuck!" And the reason it gets to drive for a while is because this sort of thing is exactly what that part does really, really well: Engage, neutralize. Reposition, engage, neutralize. It becomes like a game, except that this game is even more thrilling because it is real. And nobody is immune to this sort of gleeful exuberance. Nobody.
That said, I viewed the video. It took two tries before I could watch the whole thing. I had nothing to do with the incident, directly nor indirectly, but I must say...I am sorry. My remorse means nothing; the bodies are still dead, the children still wounded. I agree that the attitude of the soldiers was quite a bit more cavalier/flippant than it needed to be, but though I understand why they likely acted the way they did, I don't believe that excuses the behavior.
And now, if you will excuse me, I am going to go hug my son. A lot.
--Patrick
#71
Jay
Jay
Great post man.
Though I do find one flaw, these guys were relatively safe and had ample opportunity to validate what they are shooting at. I could understand if you're infantry with a limited view of the battlefield but these guys are up there looking down at people (physically and in every sense of that expression) with tech that should be able to show them clearly what they are shooting at and what they are doing. That van they shot up and the people they murdered wasn't a threat. You can clearly see a humanitarian effort trying to save a life which in the end cost them their own. A few stray shots would have sent a clear message as long as they made sure they didn't consequently didn't become a threat. Multiple times during the video they were clearly trying to find a reason to kill them "Go get that gun, give me a reason". Yet at NO point did they zoom at what he was CRAWLING to. Would they have shot him dead if he grabbed a rock on the ground?
Makes you wonder how many more of these Irak videos that are out there, classified. Then you wonder why the terrorists always seem to have a fresh supply of people very willing to kill themselves, just to kill a few Americans or American sympatisers.
Though I do find one flaw, these guys were relatively safe and had ample opportunity to validate what they are shooting at. I could understand if you're infantry with a limited view of the battlefield but these guys are up there looking down at people (physically and in every sense of that expression) with tech that should be able to show them clearly what they are shooting at and what they are doing. That van they shot up and the people they murdered wasn't a threat. You can clearly see a humanitarian effort trying to save a life which in the end cost them their own. A few stray shots would have sent a clear message as long as they made sure they didn't consequently didn't become a threat. Multiple times during the video they were clearly trying to find a reason to kill them "Go get that gun, give me a reason". Yet at NO point did they zoom at what he was CRAWLING to. Would they have shot him dead if he grabbed a rock on the ground?
Makes you wonder how many more of these Irak videos that are out there, classified. Then you wonder why the terrorists always seem to have a fresh supply of people very willing to kill themselves, just to kill a few Americans or American sympatisers.
#72
Chibibar
Chibibar
I have read a couple of war stories from different era (yay history) but this war is quite a bit different than any other war in the past. The enemy is willing to use innocent children, women, young men, old men, and anything else to get their hands on to kill us (the U.S.) You read everyday of suicide bombers (lately of women) killing innocents everyday. Now, with that in mind, can you imagine the "paranoia" going in your head everyday while flying, walking, and searching the streets for the enemy? Anything and everything can be a bomb or ambush.
Yea, these guys were in a chopper. The van looked harmless on our perspective. What if the van actually have one or two rocket launcher? We don't know this (it is possible) until someone goes down there and search the debris. The most innocent looking can the most deadly opponent. If that wasn't true, suicide bombers wouldn't be useful tool would it?
does it justify killing innocents? no. Will it continue to happen? yes. It is war. War is ugly no matter how you slice it. The only way not to kill innocents is not to have war. I do like the football analogies vs the field of grass. You can no damage it by running over it and tackle the "enemy" but there are time when a play "attack" can really damage the field, but only a portion. It happens.
I have never kill another human being. I have beaten one pretty badly, but not kill. I do feel bad at time. I have kill plenty of animals (for food) and sometimes I do feel guilty of doing it. The video does not show the after effect of the soldier's high from killing the enemy. What do you think is going in their head? At the time, I'm sure he is feeling good, but later discover he just kill a bunch of innocent people? I'm sure most normal human being would be torn up inside, but have to push into the back of their mind and continue doing the job. The next attack, he can't second guess if it is civilians. What if he did and thought it was another bunch of innocent and decides to continue to fly over only to discover the van DID have a rocket launcher and shot the chopper down, then what?
With modern technology and portability of weapons, it is VERY hard to spot these things. I can barely do it in a video game (killing zombies, soldiers like company of war etc etc) can you imagine real life with real consequences? I am betting these are tearing some of these people apart inside.
If you want to blame anyone, blame the politicians who brought soldiers to these war zones in the first place.
edit: a true cold hearted killed would have just open fire regardless of intel (but later suffer the consequences) at least these soldiers are still following the rules of war even when the enemy doesn't.
Yea, these guys were in a chopper. The van looked harmless on our perspective. What if the van actually have one or two rocket launcher? We don't know this (it is possible) until someone goes down there and search the debris. The most innocent looking can the most deadly opponent. If that wasn't true, suicide bombers wouldn't be useful tool would it?
does it justify killing innocents? no. Will it continue to happen? yes. It is war. War is ugly no matter how you slice it. The only way not to kill innocents is not to have war. I do like the football analogies vs the field of grass. You can no damage it by running over it and tackle the "enemy" but there are time when a play "attack" can really damage the field, but only a portion. It happens.
I have never kill another human being. I have beaten one pretty badly, but not kill. I do feel bad at time. I have kill plenty of animals (for food) and sometimes I do feel guilty of doing it. The video does not show the after effect of the soldier's high from killing the enemy. What do you think is going in their head? At the time, I'm sure he is feeling good, but later discover he just kill a bunch of innocent people? I'm sure most normal human being would be torn up inside, but have to push into the back of their mind and continue doing the job. The next attack, he can't second guess if it is civilians. What if he did and thought it was another bunch of innocent and decides to continue to fly over only to discover the van DID have a rocket launcher and shot the chopper down, then what?
With modern technology and portability of weapons, it is VERY hard to spot these things. I can barely do it in a video game (killing zombies, soldiers like company of war etc etc) can you imagine real life with real consequences? I am betting these are tearing some of these people apart inside.
If you want to blame anyone, blame the politicians who brought soldiers to these war zones in the first place.
edit: a true cold hearted killed would have just open fire regardless of intel (but later suffer the consequences) at least these soldiers are still following the rules of war even when the enemy doesn't.
#73
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
I just find it funny that people get so shocked when Marines kill people. This is what they're trained to do. They're trained not to think about it or show remorse for what they do. They are trained killers. End of story.
---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 AM ----------
---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 AM ----------
That IS what Marines are pretty much indoctrinated into thinking. They pull the fucking trigger and figure things out afterward.I like Dave's philosphy on this:
Kill em all and let God sort em out. :slywink:
#74
Rob King
Rob King
I can see how this happened. As someone mentioned, if I didn't have the captions and helpful arrows on the video, I wouldn't be able to tell what was going on. The cameras they were using were big honking cameras, and in the few seconds before the choppers started firing one of the journalists knelt down around the corner of a building and started taking pictures. In that instant I could see how someone who was worried about their safety (or the safety of their friends, or other non-combatants on the ground) could see someone lining up a shot with an RPG.
It is a tragedy. The soldiers were flippant, yes, but someone has already acknowledged that as a coping mechanism. I don't like it myself, but then I don't have to march through a foreign capital killing insurgents. Maybe if I did, I would be just like them.
The thing that upsets me about this most is that the military didn't take responsibility at all, and it took three years and more than a dozen people to make this thing public. Again, I understand why it was not made public. This could have been/should have been a PR nightmare. But when you are the most powerful nation in the world playing what amounts to whack-a-mole in the desert in someone else's country and someone else's city, I feel like perhaps you should be able to put your balls on the line to own up for the mistakes that were made.
As it stands, a publicized mistake is grounds for criticism and dissent. Perhaps if they were more open, people would understand that mistakes get made, and instead of just criticizing, we could also share with the Iraqi people in remorse.
But then, probably not.
It is a tragedy. The soldiers were flippant, yes, but someone has already acknowledged that as a coping mechanism. I don't like it myself, but then I don't have to march through a foreign capital killing insurgents. Maybe if I did, I would be just like them.
The thing that upsets me about this most is that the military didn't take responsibility at all, and it took three years and more than a dozen people to make this thing public. Again, I understand why it was not made public. This could have been/should have been a PR nightmare. But when you are the most powerful nation in the world playing what amounts to whack-a-mole in the desert in someone else's country and someone else's city, I feel like perhaps you should be able to put your balls on the line to own up for the mistakes that were made.
As it stands, a publicized mistake is grounds for criticism and dissent. Perhaps if they were more open, people would understand that mistakes get made, and instead of just criticizing, we could also share with the Iraqi people in remorse.
But then, probably not.
#75
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
I was trying to look at it unbiasedly, ignoring the little arrows pointing out the camera's and shit. In several instances it looked like they were carrying RPG's and weapons. My cousin did three tours in Iraq. This is what it is. They're trained to be unsympathetic killers. Period. They get excited over their kills. They are mentally conditioned to want to kill. Welcome to Marines 101.
#76
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Welp. I guess this thread explains why nothing is going to come of this and why it's not any sort of big news story at all. It does that, at least.
#77
Espy
Also wondering: Did anyone else see this show up on any of the major news networks other than Fox?
Espy
Because people have a variety of views from a variety of different life experiences? I fail to see how that explains why it's not a big news story.Welp. I guess this thread explains why nothing is going to come of this and why it's not any sort of big news story at all. It does that, at least.
Also wondering: Did anyone else see this show up on any of the major news networks other than Fox?
#78
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I just mean, it made me realize how still the majority of people are going to write it all off as just what happens in a warzone. Just soldiers doing their job.
#79
Shakey
Shakey
It was on the CBS morning news. I was surprised they actually showed the footage of the reported getting gunned down. Seems rather graphic for the 7am news.
#80
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
It was on the ABC nightly news last night.
#81
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
It was on the CBS nightly news last night too, albeit briefly. The segment after it? About the White House Easter Egg Roll and it was twice as long. I was speechless... it was like being in a fucking parody of a news network.
#82
Espy
Personally I find their action reprehensible but I'd rather see them spend some time with a good therapist than be sent off to jail unless of course they violated the rules of engagement, which I don't know enough to know if they did. If they did, send them off.
Espy
Well sure, war and terrible things happening in wartime is nothing new, most Americans have not been there nor had any experiences even remotely close to what the average soldier experiences, so do you think it's weird that many will just say "I'm not going to judge these guys, I have no idea what they deal with"? I understand not liking it, I doubt most "like" it or even find it "acceptable", rather it's someone saying how do you judge someone dealing with circumstances so far removed from anything you can even begin to comprehend?I just mean, it made me realize how still the majority of people are going to write it all off as just what happens in a warzone. Just soldiers doing their job.
Personally I find their action reprehensible but I'd rather see them spend some time with a good therapist than be sent off to jail unless of course they violated the rules of engagement, which I don't know enough to know if they did. If they did, send them off.
#83
Andromache
Andromache
NYT this morning. Sorry, I dont have cable television.
#84
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I'm obviously not gonna call for the soldiers' heads. It's not their fault. The whole system is terrible, corrupt, and damaging to everyone involved. The suicide rate among soldiers is utterly shameful.Personally I find their action reprehensible but I'd rather see them spend some time with a good therapist than be sent off to jail unless of course they violated the rules of engagement, which I don't know enough to know if they did. If they did, send them off.
#85
Espy
I agree, this is the population my wife is starting to work with and it's very hard to get soldiers to get help. To be fair, as far as mental health and dealing with soldiers go, we are lightyears beyond where we were 20 or 30 years ago.
Espy
I'm obviously not gonna call for the soldiers' heads. It's not their fault. The whole system is terrible, corrupt, and damaging to everyone involved. The suicide rate among soldiers is utterly shameful.[/QUOTE]Personally I find their action reprehensible but I'd rather see them spend some time with a good therapist than be sent off to jail unless of course they violated the rules of engagement, which I don't know enough to know if they did. If they did, send them off.
I agree, this is the population my wife is starting to work with and it's very hard to get soldiers to get help. To be fair, as far as mental health and dealing with soldiers go, we are lightyears beyond where we were 20 or 30 years ago.
#86
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/06/iraq/index.html
I was just on Democracy Now along with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange discussing the Iraq video they released yesterday, and there's one vital point I want to emphasize. Shining light on what our government and military do is so critical precisely because it forces people to see what is really being done and prevents myth and propaganda from distorting those realities. That's why the administration fights so hard to keep torture photos suppressed, why the military fought so hard here to keep this video concealed (and why they did the same with regard to the Afghan massacre), and why whistle-blowers, real journalists, and sites like WikiLeaks are the declared enemy of the government. The discussions many people are having today -- about the brutal reality of what the U.S. does when it engages in war, invasions and occupation -- is exactly the discussion which they most want to avoid.
But there's a serious danger when incidents like this Iraq slaughter are exposed in a piecemeal and unusual fashion: namely, the tendency to talk about it as though it is an aberration. It isn't. It's the opposite: it's par for the course, standard operating procedure, what we do in wars, invasions, and occupation. The only thing that's rare about the Apache helicopter killings is that we know about it and are seeing what happened on video. And we're seeing it on video not because it's rare, but because it just so happened (a) to result in the deaths of two Reuters employees, and thus received more attention than the thousands of other similar incidents where nameless Iraqi civilians are killed, and (b) to end up in the hands of WikiLeaks, which then published it. But what is shown is completely common. That includes not only the initial killing of a group of men, the vast majority of whom are clearly unarmed, but also the plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men (with their children) carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety -- as though there's something nefarious about human beings in an urban area trying to take an unarmed, wounded photographer to a hospital.
A major reason there are hundreds of thousands of dead innocent civilians in Iraq, and thousands more in Afghanistan, is because this is what we do. This is why so many of those civilians are dead. What one sees on that video is how we conduct our wars. That's why it's repulsive to watch people -- including some \"liberals\" -- attack WikiLeaks for slandering The Troops, or complain that objections to these actions unfairly disparage the military because \"our guys are the good guys\" and they act differently \"99.99999999% of the time.\" That is blatantly false. Just as was true of the deceitful attempt to depict the Abu Ghraib abusers as rogue \"bad apples\" once their conduct was exposed with photographs (when the reality was they were acting in complete consistency with authorized government policy), the claim that what was shown on that video is some sort of outrageous departure from U.S. policy is demonstrably false. In a perverse way, the typical morally depraved neocons who are justifying these killings are actually being more honest than those trying to pretend this is some sort of rare and unusual event: those who support having the U.S. invade and wage war on other countries are endorsing precisely this behavior.
As the video demonstrates, the soldiers in the Apache did not take a single step -- including killing those unarmed men who tried to rescue the wounded -- without first receiving formal permission from their superiors. Beyond that, the Pentagon yesterday -- once the video was released -- suddenly embraced the wisdom of transparency by posting online the reports of the so-called \"investigations\" it undertook into this incident (as a result of pressure from Reuters). Those formal investigations not only found that every action taken by those soldiers was completely justified -- including the firing on the unarmed civilian rescuers -- but also found that there's no need for any remedial steps to be taken to prevent future re-occurence. What we see on that video is what the U.S. does on a constant and regular basis in these countries, and it's what we've been doing for years. It's obviously consistent with our policies and practices for how we fight in these countries, which is exactly what those investigative reports concluded.
The WikiLeaks video is not an indictment of the individual soldiers involved -- at least not primarily. Of course those who aren't accustomed to such sentiments are shocked by the callous and sadistic satisfaction those soldiers seem to take in slaughtering those whom they perceive as The Enemy (even when unarmed and crawling on the ground with mortal wounds), but this is what they're taught and trained and told to do. If you take even well-intentioned, young soldiers and stick them in the middle of a dangerous war zone for years and train them to think and act this way, this will inevitably be the result. The video is an indictment of the U.S. government and the war policies it pursues.
All of this is usually kept from us. Unlike those in the Muslim world, who are shown these realities quite frequently by their free press, we don't usually see what is done by us. We stay blissfully insulated from it, so that in those rare instances when we're graphically exposed to it, we can tell ourselves that it's all very unusual and rare. That's how we collectively dismissed the Abu Ghraib photos, and it's why the Obama administration took such extraordinary steps to suppress all the rest of the torture photos: because further disclosure would have revealed that behavior to be standard and common, not at all unusual or extraordinary.
Precisely the same dynamic applies to the Pentagon's admission yesterday that its original claims about the brutal February killing of five civilians in Eastern Afghanistan were totally false. What happened there -- the slaughter of unthreatening civilians, official lies told about the incident, the dissemination of those lies by an uncritical U.S. media -- is what happens constantly (the same deceitful cover-up behavior took place with the Iraq video). The lies about the Afghan killings were exposed in this instance not because they're rare, but because one very intrepid, relentless reporter happened to be able to travel to the remote province and speak to witnesses and investigate the event, forcing the Pentagon to acknowledge the truth.
The value of the Wikileaks/Iraq video and the Afghanistan revelation is not that they exposed unusually horrific events. The value is in realizing that these event are anything but unusual.
#87
Espy
Espy
Really this becomes then, according to some of the points that article makes, a discussion on what is the value of the general public being made aware of the horrors of war?
#88
Fun Size
Fun Size
It's funny. I remember when the Iraq war started all these news outlets talking about how wars were going to be so different from before because they would be televised and your average yahoo would see what it was like first hand. Funny how that went away with news of Brangelina and random internet penises (penii?).
#89
Espy
Espy
I disagree that it went away. There has been much coverage (and dispute) of the war, dead soldiers, battles, etc. Did the news agencies shift their focus? Of course. They want ratings and people don't want to feel depressed 24/7. Doesn't make it right but it's not that suprising.
#90
Jay
Jay
I saw it on CNN internation briefly this morning, It was replaced by this:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/04/06/nicollette.sheridan.assault.ppl/index.html?hpt=C2
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/04/06/nicollette.sheridan.assault.ppl/index.html?hpt=C2
#91
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
It also went away when the US Government started forcefully and adamantly covering up any thing that reflected badly on them.
(Things that include this exact video here)
(Things that include this exact video here)
#92
Fun Size
Fun Size
The guy saying it at the time though talked as if we were going to be seeing footage like the leaked video all the time. He was intimating that we would see, first hand, how wars were fought. While we've had more thorough coverage that ever before, I think that there has still been a good amount of buffering for the delicate sensibilities of the average American.I disagree that it went away. There has been much coverage (and dispute) of the war, dead soldiers, battles, etc. Did the news agencies shift their focus? Of course. They want ratings and people don't want to feel depressed 24/7. Doesn't make it right but it's not that suprising.
#93
Espy
Espy
I don't know if it was buffering of the publics sensibilities or really, what got ratings. Like I said, people don't want to turn on their tv's and see doom and gloom all the time. I agree that they over hyped how things would change though.
#94
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
It's much more likely the Army suppressing or covering up video that makes them look bad (this is most video)
#95
SpecialKO
I'm rambling a bit, did that make sense?
SpecialKO
It may be a knee-jerk reaction on my part, but I feel like the American public should be aware of the consequences of the actions of its military in more than an academic, statistical sense, because unlike previous superpowers (like Nazi Germany and the USSR) and upcoming superpowers (like China), public agency via popular opinion and free expression is a valued mechanism in the policy-making decisions of our government.Really this becomes then, according to some of the points that article makes, a discussion on what is the value of the general public being made aware of the horrors of war?
I'm rambling a bit, did that make sense?
#96
Chazwozel
It's no surprise that we're just as bad as the other guys. It's called war. The whole object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other son of a bitch die for his.
Chazwozel
I give a big hearty, no shit to that statement.http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/06/iraq/index.html
The value of the Wikileaks/Iraq video and the Afghanistan revelation is not that they exposed unusually horrific events. The value is in realizing that these event are anything but unusual.
It's no surprise that we're just as bad as the other guys. It's called war. The whole object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other son of a bitch die for his.
#97
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
fixed itIt's no surprise that we're just as bad as the other guys. It's called war. The whole object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other civilian, woman, child, and embedded reporter die for his.
#98
sixpackshaker
Propagandized it.
sixpackshaker
fixed it[/QUOTE]It's no surprise that we're just as bad as the other guys. It's called war. The whole object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other civilian, woman, child, and embedded reporter die for his.
Propagandized it.
#99
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I'm just replying snark for snark if he's gonna quote WW2 catchphrases
#100
Chazwozel
We're not the good guys. We're not the bad guys either. We're all human and fundamentally the same. I know this and you know this. The U.S. military knows this, but it's not their job or their agenda to promote this to their soldiers.
Chazwozel
Charlie, come on, I know you're not naive enough to think that no civilians suffer during war and that throughout the history of man's warfare the rules of engagement have never been broken? I'm all for preventing this sort of thing and for diplomacy but the fact is you can't create hardened AND compassionate killers. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Marines are taught one thing and it's to kill. That's their purpose.I'm just replying snark for snark if he's gonna quote WW2 catchphrases
We're not the good guys. We're not the bad guys either. We're all human and fundamentally the same. I know this and you know this. The U.S. military knows this, but it's not their job or their agenda to promote this to their soldiers.
#101
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Just because it's been happening forever doesn't make it right. Slavery had been happening for thousands of years, but it is now mostly abolished.
#102
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
Slavery still exists in more places than you can imagine, and that's not including sexual slavery industries or using child labor. And I'm not trying to justify what US soldiers are doing as right. They're doing what ALL warriors have been trained to do since the first monkey picked up a big rock and smashed it against another monkey's head over a banana.Just because it's been happening forever doesn't make it right. Slavery had been happening for thousands of years, but it is now mostly abolished.
#103
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Snarking to make it look like we willfully "slaughtered" unarmed civilians and reporters is a load of crap.
They are making fast decisions from what is likely half a mile away. And they screwed up. What is on that gun camera may not have been what they were seeing. The Apache aims my following the head of the gunner. He is making a Mk I eyeball call on what he sees in that war zone. What they perceived to be 4 armed men out of 6, walking to an intersection with an US column approaching. Turned out to be 2 cameras and 2 AK's of the body guards. From start to finish the guys in the gunships thought they were killing insurgents. At no time did they go, hey look kids! let's open fire!
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.
But of course it is much cooler to see your countrymen as depraved blood-thirsty savages that only want to kill children.
They are making fast decisions from what is likely half a mile away. And they screwed up. What is on that gun camera may not have been what they were seeing. The Apache aims my following the head of the gunner. He is making a Mk I eyeball call on what he sees in that war zone. What they perceived to be 4 armed men out of 6, walking to an intersection with an US column approaching. Turned out to be 2 cameras and 2 AK's of the body guards. From start to finish the guys in the gunships thought they were killing insurgents. At no time did they go, hey look kids! let's open fire!
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.
But of course it is much cooler to see your countrymen as depraved blood-thirsty savages that only want to kill children.
#104
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I have never said or even implied the US is worse than who they're fighting. The two sides are bad and worse.
And snarking it to make it look like some noble war in Patton's era is also a load of crap.
And snarking it to make it look like some noble war in Patton's era is also a load of crap.
#105
Dave
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.
#106
Andromache
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.
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.
#107
phil
phil
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.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.
#108
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
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.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.
#109
sixpackshaker
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 ----------
So civilians are legal targets? That is what an insurgent is, a civilian taking up arms against the Gov't or Occupation forces.
---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------
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]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.
So civilians are legal targets? That is what an insurgent is, a civilian taking up arms against the Gov't or Occupation forces.
#110
Dave
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.
Dave
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]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.
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.
#111
SpecialKO
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.
SpecialKO
The Pentagon does not agree with you.So civilians are legal targets? That is what an insurgent is, a civilian taking up arms against the Gov't or Occupation forces.
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.
#112
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I can't believe you're parroting Jack Nicholson from "A Few Good Men" who is nearly a cartoon character villain.
#113
Dave
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.
Dave
If you are talking to me you can go do things sexually to yourself. And the equine which you used to get here.I can't believe you're parroting Jack Nicholson from "A Few Good Men" who is nearly a cartoon character villain.
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.
#114
Chibibar
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.
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.
#115
phil
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 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.
phil
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]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.
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 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'm glad you have the luxury of being able to sit back and ridicule from your easy chair.
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.
#116
Andromache
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
#117
Jay
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.
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.
#118
Rob King
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?
Rob King
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.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 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?
#119
Dave
Dave
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.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.
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.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 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.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.
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.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 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 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.
#120
phil
[/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 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.
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.
phil
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.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.
[/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.
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 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.
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.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'm afraid you've lost me here.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.
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 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.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.
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.
#121
Dave
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.
#122
phil
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.
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.
#123
SpecialKO
It might only be in the full version of the video.
SpecialKO
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.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.
It might only be in the full version of the video.
#124
Steven Soderburgin
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.
#125
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
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).1) That was clearly a camera
--Patrick
#126
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
some food for thought:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125612657
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?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125612657
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978017,00.htmlBOWMAN: 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.
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?
#127
Chibibar
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.
Chibibar
It is a new disguise camera that make it look like a gun so the newspeople can blend in.. yea!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]
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.
#128
Bowielee
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.
#129
ScytheRexx
No end of innocent life is an "acceptable loss", it is a tragedy, regardless of if the soldiers were only doing military policy.
ScytheRexx
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.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.
No end of innocent life is an "acceptable loss", it is a tragedy, regardless of if the soldiers were only doing military policy.
#130
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
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.
Interesting article written by a soldier on the topic.
#131
bhamv3
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.
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.
#132
Chibibar
Chibibar
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)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.
#133
Iaculus
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.
Iaculus
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]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.
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.
#134
Jay
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.
I'm just shocked they sounded like XBox kiddies while they were doing it.
#135
AshburnerX
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.
AshburnerX
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]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.
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.
#136
Dave
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.
Dave
THANK YOU!!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.
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.
#137
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
Uh, no they didn't.I'm just shocked they sounded like XBox kiddies while they were doing it.
#138
Chazwozel
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.
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.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.
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.
#139
Chibibar
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?
Chibibar
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.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.
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?
#140
ScytheRexx
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?
ScytheRexx
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.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.
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?
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.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.
#141
Dave
Dave
By not fighting. It's the only way. But we all know how realistic that is.How can you fight a war with near zero civilian casualties?
#142
Chazwozel
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.
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.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.
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.
#143
callistarya
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.
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.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.
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.
#144
Andromache
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.
#145
Steven Soderburgin
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.
#146
Dave
Dave
Fine. This I agree with. But the soldiers themselves did nothing wrong in this instance and should not be taken to task.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.
#147
Chibibar
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.
Chibibar
Fine. This I agree with. But the soldiers themselves did nothing wrong in this instance and should not be taken to task.[/QUOTE]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.
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.
#148
zero
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...
#149
@Li3n
If that's true they really need better standard for identifying weapons, as in that video you can't tell either way...
@Li3n
Wouldn't the video be exactly what they saw, seeing how that's what they use as an aiming mechanism?!- 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).
If that's true they really need better standard for identifying weapons, as in that video you can't tell either way...
QFT...- 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.
#150
Tinwhistler
If that's true they really need better standard for identifying weapons, as in that video you can't tell either way...
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.
Tinwhistler
Wouldn't the video be exactly what they saw, seeing how that's what they use as an aiming mechanism?!- 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).
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 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.
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.
#151
Covar
Covar
Hi Guys, just got back from 3 days at Ft Bragg, putting bullets down range. Did I miss anything?
#152
@Li3n
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.
@Li3n
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.
#153
sixpackshaker
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.
sixpackshaker
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.[/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.
#154
@Li3n
@Li3n
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.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.
#155
Tinwhistler
You might want to go back a couple pages and catch up.
Tinwhistler
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.Why would his eyes be better then the equipment of the gunner?!
ObviouslyAnd i didn't see any mention of them finding any weapons, but i haven't been following it closely either.
You might want to go back a couple pages and catch up.
#156
@Li3n
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).
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.
@Li3n
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.Why would his eyes be better then the equipment of the gunner?!
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]
#157
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
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.
#158
@Li3n
@Li3n
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 ----------
I remember this incident when it happened, and the Pentagon asked war correspondents to stop embedding themselves with the insurgency.
And they would have probably avoided this if they said why, and told those reporter's families what happened.
#159
Covar
Covar
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.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 ----------
I remember this incident when it happened, and the Pentagon asked war correspondents to stop embedding themselves with the insurgency.
And they would have probably avoided this if they said why, and told those reporter's families what happened.
#160
@Li3n
I meant why they felt the need to tell them that at that time. Would have avoided this whole thing.
@Li3n
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]And they would have probably avoided this if they said why, and told those reporter's families what happened.
I meant why they felt the need to tell them that at that time. Would have avoided this whole thing.
#161
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
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.
#162
Dave
Dave
Good. Leaking classified information is a crime.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.
#163
Krisken
Krisken
Information should only be classified to protect troops currently in harms way, not to protect the military's reputation. This wasn't about leaking troop positions to the enemy, or giving tactical aid, it was about holding people responsible for their actions.
#164
Troll
Troll
One could argue that releasing a video which portrays the military in a bad light will enflame tensions, damage morale, and/or encourage insurgents. If you accept those arguments, then the video will hurt troops who are currently deployed.
#165
Dave
Dave
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.Information should only be classified to protect troops currently in harms way, not to protect the military's reputation. This wasn't about leaking troop positions to the enemy, or giving tactical aid, it was about holding people responsible for their actions.
#166
Krisken
Krisken
Then who is it up to? Should we never question our actions? The actions of our government or our troops? Would that be ethical?
#167
Troll
Troll
I think Dave is saying that civilians are free to question their military, but soldiers should not be questioning the decisions of their superiors. And I think he's right, otherwise the chain of command breaks down and the military can't function properly.
#168
Dave
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.
Dave
It sure the hell isn't an E-4 enlisted man, that's for damned sure.Then who is it up to? Should we never question our actions? The actions of our government or our troops? Would that be ethical?
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.
#169
drawn_inward
drawn_inward
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.
#170
Krisken
Krisken
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.I think Dave is saying that civilians are free to question their military, but soldiers should not be questioning the decisions of their superiors. And I think he's right, otherwise the chain of command breaks down and the military can't function properly.
#171
Chibibar
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 think Dave is saying that civilians are free to question their military, but soldiers should not be questioning the decisions of their superiors. And I think he's right, otherwise the chain of command breaks down and the military can't function properly.
#172
Krisken
See, this I can understand. Thank you for putting it in terms that weren't so... combative.
Krisken
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]I think Dave is saying that civilians are free to question their military, but soldiers should not be questioning the decisions of their superiors. And I think he's right, otherwise the chain of command breaks down and the military can't function properly.
See, this I can understand. Thank you for putting it in terms that weren't so... combative.
#173
Necronic
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.
Necronic
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]I think Dave is saying that civilians are free to question their military, but soldiers should not be questioning the decisions of their superiors. And I think he's right, otherwise the chain of command breaks down and the military can't function properly.
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.
#174
Krisken
Krisken
See, that's why I said I could never be a military person, Necronic. But go on and rant all you like.
#175
D
Dubyamn
It's the truth the truth only hurts if you refuse to accept it and change your actions.
D
Dubyamn
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.One could argue that releasing a video which portrays the military in a bad light will enflame tensions, damage morale, and/or encourage insurgents. If you accept those arguments, then the video will hurt troops who are currently deployed.
It's the truth the truth only hurts if you refuse to accept it and change your actions.
#176
JONJONAUG
JONJONAUG
#177
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
It's one thing to feel you're doing the right thing, exposing certain videos and such, even if you shouldn't. It's another thing to be talking about releasing 250,000 secure conversations and "worldwide anarchy".
#178
SpecialKO
There is a definite difference of degree.
I think he did the right thing in leaking the video, but the fact of this particular side of the matter is that he leaked classified info. He knew he risked arrest, and the Pentagon can't afford to not arrest him, just for the sake of the chain of command.
SpecialKO
It's one thing to feel you're doing the right thing, exposing certain videos and such, even if you shouldn't. It's another thing to be talking about releasing 250,000 secure conversations and "worldwide anarchy".[/QUOTE]
There is a definite difference of degree.
I think he did the right thing in leaking the video, but the fact of this particular side of the matter is that he leaked classified info. He knew he risked arrest, and the Pentagon can't afford to not arrest him, just for the sake of the chain of command.
#179
Jay
Jay
Wasting one's life at 22... ah the retardation.
#180
Troll
Troll
It's odd. It sounds like the guy meant well, but went about everything in a horrible way. The video is debatable, but the embassy cables are something that probably should not be released.
#181
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
He wouldn't have been caught if he hadn't been bragging about it.
It sounds like he's either making up the level of conversations sent to Wikileaks, or they're not posting them for some reason, either because they're not that juicy, they're still sifting through them, or that Wikileaks also feels that the guy's level of security breach was dangerous.
It sounds like he's either making up the level of conversations sent to Wikileaks, or they're not posting them for some reason, either because they're not that juicy, they're still sifting through them, or that Wikileaks also feels that the guy's level of security breach was dangerous.
#182
Necronic
Necronic
Sorry, didn't mean to come off too much like a prick. I should add that I couldn't understand following orders like that either. It's just not who we are. But because I can draw that line, and say that we are such different people, I have a hard time judging them about certain things.See, that's why I said I could never be a military person, Necronic. But go on and rant all you like.
#183
Norris
Norris
It is a good thing he released this video, although the problem came in how people automatically went to "soldiers are evil murderers" mode. If civilians got better insight into the horrors and uncomfortable choices of war, there would be less of it.
That said, damn straight bring his ass up on charges. The "right" or "good" thing ain't always the lawful thing, as it most certainly wasn't in that case.
That said, damn straight bring his ass up on charges. The "right" or "good" thing ain't always the lawful thing, as it most certainly wasn't in that case.
#184
zero
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.[/QUOTE]
I see where you are coming from, but consider this: Before the video was released, the Military explicitly DENIED any knowledge of the subject. They lied blatantly to the public. And, in a ex post analysis, there's NO REASON to classify the video except to cover up an incident which would put the military under a bad light.
It was above his responsibility to disclose the video to the press? Well, let me tell you something: It was WAY above anyone's pay grade, security level, discretionary, responsibility, oath, rank, manifest destiny, God's appointment, whatever, to classify the footage just to not look bad in the public eye.
Want to go after the kid for not following due procedure? Fine. Just don't forget to go after those who committed the much severe crime (that should carry a much severer punishment) of lying to the public.
zero
It sure the hell isn't an E-4 enlisted man, that's for damned sure.Then who is it up to? Should we never question our actions? The actions of our government or our troops? Would that be ethical?
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.[/QUOTE]
I see where you are coming from, but consider this: Before the video was released, the Military explicitly DENIED any knowledge of the subject. They lied blatantly to the public. And, in a ex post analysis, there's NO REASON to classify the video except to cover up an incident which would put the military under a bad light.
It was above his responsibility to disclose the video to the press? Well, let me tell you something: It was WAY above anyone's pay grade, security level, discretionary, responsibility, oath, rank, manifest destiny, God's appointment, whatever, to classify the footage just to not look bad in the public eye.
Want to go after the kid for not following due procedure? Fine. Just don't forget to go after those who committed the much severe crime (that should carry a much severer punishment) of lying to the public.
#185
Dave
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.[/QUOTE]
I see where you are coming from, but consider this: Before the video was released, the Military explicitly DENIED any knowledge of the subject. They lied blatantly to the public. And, in a ex post analysis, there's NO REASON to classify the video except to cover up an incident which would put the military under a bad light.
It was above his responsibility to disclose the video to the press? Well, let me tell you something: It was WAY above anyone's pay grade, security level, discretionary, responsibility, oath, rank, manifest destiny, God's appointment, whatever, to classify the footage just to not look bad in the public eye.
Want to go after the kid for not following due procedure? Fine. Just don't forget to go after those who committed the much severe crime (that should carry a much severer punishment) of lying to the public.[/QUOTE]
What severe crime? Attacking a group of armed insurgents? They didn't know that journalists were there. All they knew was that intel said there were armed insurgents there, saw the group of guys, requested clearance to engage and then did so. Afterwards, weapons WERE FOUND! So the intel was right, the shoot was good. You guys defending this bozo who broke the law releasing it always seem to ignore or forget the fact that they found weapons and the group of guys they targeted were insurgents. Doesn't fit your world view when the soldiers were right so you conveniently forget it.
Dave
It sure the hell isn't an E-4 enlisted man, that's for damned sure.Then who is it up to? Should we never question our actions? The actions of our government or our troops? Would that be ethical?
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.[/QUOTE]
I see where you are coming from, but consider this: Before the video was released, the Military explicitly DENIED any knowledge of the subject. They lied blatantly to the public. And, in a ex post analysis, there's NO REASON to classify the video except to cover up an incident which would put the military under a bad light.
It was above his responsibility to disclose the video to the press? Well, let me tell you something: It was WAY above anyone's pay grade, security level, discretionary, responsibility, oath, rank, manifest destiny, God's appointment, whatever, to classify the footage just to not look bad in the public eye.
Want to go after the kid for not following due procedure? Fine. Just don't forget to go after those who committed the much severe crime (that should carry a much severer punishment) of lying to the public.[/QUOTE]
What severe crime? Attacking a group of armed insurgents? They didn't know that journalists were there. All they knew was that intel said there were armed insurgents there, saw the group of guys, requested clearance to engage and then did so. Afterwards, weapons WERE FOUND! So the intel was right, the shoot was good. You guys defending this bozo who broke the law releasing it always seem to ignore or forget the fact that they found weapons and the group of guys they targeted were insurgents. Doesn't fit your world view when the soldiers were right so you conveniently forget it.
#186
zero
The "severe crime" I'm talking about is the blatant lying of the military about the incident before the video came to public. It should not be forgotten that the military was inquired about the incident and explicitly stated it had absolutely no knowledge of it. Those involved in this cover up committed a far more serious crime than anyone who released the video (and I dare even to say, than any soldiers involved in the firing).
I don't believe soldiers are inherently right or wrong. What I do believe is that no member of the government, Military or not, should NEVER lie to the public, under no circumstances (yes, even when the lying protects supposedly "strategic" information - absolutely NOT the case of the released footage). Trust me, in that path lies Tyranny...
zero
Wait, you're misunderstanding me... I have so far refrained myself from judging the acts of the soldiers involved in the incident (please, go and check my original post:http://www.halforums.com/forum/t12779-5/#post368091 ).What severe crime? Attacking a group of armed insurgents? They didn't know that journalists were there. All they knew was that intel said there were armed insurgents there, saw the group of guys, requested clearance to engage and then did so. Afterwards, weapons WERE FOUND! So the intel was right, the shoot was good. You guys defending this bozo who broke the law releasing it always seem to ignore or forget the fact that they found weapons and the group of guys they targeted were insurgents. Doesn't fit your world view when the soldiers were right so you conveniently forget it.
The "severe crime" I'm talking about is the blatant lying of the military about the incident before the video came to public. It should not be forgotten that the military was inquired about the incident and explicitly stated it had absolutely no knowledge of it. Those involved in this cover up committed a far more serious crime than anyone who released the video (and I dare even to say, than any soldiers involved in the firing).
I don't believe soldiers are inherently right or wrong. What I do believe is that no member of the government, Military or not, should NEVER lie to the public, under no circumstances (yes, even when the lying protects supposedly "strategic" information - absolutely NOT the case of the released footage). Trust me, in that path lies Tyranny...
#187
Dave
Dave
Okay, this I understand. But maybe there's a reason that they did. Look what happened when it WAS released. Maybe they didn't release it because people won't take, "It's classified." as an answer. Easier to deny it happened than to try and explain to people like Jon what was going on.The "severe crime" I'm talking about is the blatant lying of the military about the incident before the video came to public.
#188
zero
One last thing: Had the military been fully open about it from the beginning (as it is required by law to be) by releasing the footage, explaining the situation and defending their men, the public image of the soldiers involved in that sad incident would be a lot better than it is now. Yes, there were still some people who would call it a coward massacre by trigger happy soldiers, but at least they wouldn't be looking like someone caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
zero
Oh, sure... I would go even further and say that the majority of the public won't be able to fairly judge what happened in the footage (in part due to the "war without collateral damage" that has been sold by politicians and the media). Even so, it wasn't the military call to classify the information just to protect their image (that was, from a public administrative point of view, a much severe infraction than the whistblower's). The military, as any branch of the government, should always be subject to public scrutiny (as bad as that scrutiny can be), and NEVER withdraw information just to protect their image.Okay, this I understand. But maybe there's a reason that they did. Look what happened when it WAS released. Maybe they didn't release it because people won't take, "It's classified." as an answer. Easier to deny it happened than to try and explain to people like Jon what was going on.
One last thing: Had the military been fully open about it from the beginning (as it is required by law to be) by releasing the footage, explaining the situation and defending their men, the public image of the soldiers involved in that sad incident would be a lot better than it is now. Yes, there were still some people who would call it a coward massacre by trigger happy soldiers, but at least they wouldn't be looking like someone caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
#189
AshburnerX
You know what they say... "The Act of Covering something up is far worse than whatever was covered up." and all that. If they had admitted it, there would have been a few days/weeks of people calling them out on it (rightly or not, as we can't seem to agree) and it would have died, with the strong possibility that it never would have left the newspapers or blogs. Instead, they buried a landmine that was eventually going to go off and piss off a whole lot of powerful people.
It's sort of like the Lewinsky Scandal: Most Americans really wouldn't have cared if Clinton had had an affair, but once he lied about it...
AshburnerX
Okay, this I understand. But maybe there's a reason that they did. Look what happened when it WAS released. Maybe they didn't release it because people won't take, "It's classified." as an answer. Easier to deny it happened than to try and explain to people like Jon what was going on.[/QUOTE]The "severe crime" I'm talking about is the blatant lying of the military about the incident before the video came to public.
You know what they say... "The Act of Covering something up is far worse than whatever was covered up." and all that. If they had admitted it, there would have been a few days/weeks of people calling them out on it (rightly or not, as we can't seem to agree) and it would have died, with the strong possibility that it never would have left the newspapers or blogs. Instead, they buried a landmine that was eventually going to go off and piss off a whole lot of powerful people.
It's sort of like the Lewinsky Scandal: Most Americans really wouldn't have cared if Clinton had had an affair, but once he lied about it...
#190
Krisken
Cover it up, you fucking hippie.
Krisken
Cover it up, you fucking hippie.
#192
Tinwhistler
I keep finding things like "the military withheld key evidence on the grounds that it was classified", which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
(see Military's Killing of 2 Journalists in Iraq Detailed in New Book - washingtonpost.com )
Tinwhistler
citation please? I have not found any reports of "blatant lying".The "severe crime" I'm talking about is the blatant lying of the military about the incident before the video came to public.
I keep finding things like "the military withheld key evidence on the grounds that it was classified", which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
(see Military's Killing of 2 Journalists in Iraq Detailed in New Book - washingtonpost.com )
Where's the blatant lying?Soon after the shootings, Reuters submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act for all documents and materials about the incident, Kim said. In April, the U.S. Central Command, which oversees the U.S. military in Iraq, said it had identified eight documents but was withholding two because they were classified and released six others in redacted form, with classified portions blacked out.
Reuters appealed in June, saying the information the military released was incomplete, challenging the decision to classify it and asking for an expedited decision. In July, the Pentagon rejected the request to expedite the appeal, Kim said. He said one of the documents released contains grainy photographs that appear to be captured from a helicopter video, which Reuters is seeking to obtain.
#193
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
It's threads like this that piss me off about getting declined Military service.
Almost as much as when I was declined passage on the Pirate Hunting cruise.
Almost as much as when I was declined passage on the Pirate Hunting cruise.
#194
Krisken
Krisken
I knew a guy who failed his psych exam 3 times. Of course, he's the only guy who can start a story like "Three guys jumped me but I was the one who went to jail because I pulled a sword out of my trunk."
#195
zero
But there's clear intentionally vague statements such as "''There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force"
2 Iraqi Journalists Killed as U.S. Forces Clash With Militias - New York Times
and "continuation of hostile activity"
FOXNews.com - Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video
I mean, what is a "hostile force" anyway? Would a party of Osama Bin Laden, Aldolf Hitler and Genghis Khan walking in the street constitute "hostile force"? And "continuation of hostile activity" is also deliberately vague... Everything from 2003 can fit under that description...
This is obvious weasel talk meant to mislead the public into thinking the shooters were fired upon first.
Of course, the mere fact that the information was classified for no strategic purpose whatsoever, but just to hide the military acts from public scrutiny, is scandalous and should not be tolerated.
zero
Hmm... nowhere, you appear to be right...citation please? I have not found any reports of "blatant lying".
I keep finding things like "the military withheld key evidence on the grounds that it was classified", which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Where's the blatant lying?
But there's clear intentionally vague statements such as "''There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force"
2 Iraqi Journalists Killed as U.S. Forces Clash With Militias - New York Times
and "continuation of hostile activity"
FOXNews.com - Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video
I mean, what is a "hostile force" anyway? Would a party of Osama Bin Laden, Aldolf Hitler and Genghis Khan walking in the street constitute "hostile force"? And "continuation of hostile activity" is also deliberately vague... Everything from 2003 can fit under that description...
This is obvious weasel talk meant to mislead the public into thinking the shooters were fired upon first.
Of course, the mere fact that the information was classified for no strategic purpose whatsoever, but just to hide the military acts from public scrutiny, is scandalous and should not be tolerated.
#196
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
Thank you.Hmm... nowhere, you appear to be right...
I think men with RPGs and AK47s peeking around corners at a humvee that's a block and a half away qualifies, your fanciful exaggerations notwithstanding. Especially since the humvee had taken some fire in that area earlier. This is ground we covered months ago.I mean, what is a "hostile force" anyway?
#197
Espy
Espy
Well now wait, did those guys with RPG's and AK47's have cake? Because then it might just be a birthday party.I think men with RPGs and AK47s peeking around corners at a humvee that's a block and a half away qualifies, your fanciful exaggerations notwithstanding. This is ground we covered months ago.I mean, what is a "hostile force" anyway?
#198
zero
It Certainly qualifies... as would my "fanciful exaggeration" and so would a firing AA missile battery... As I said, "hostile forces" and "hostile action" is a deliberately vague speech that would lead a careless reader (such as myself) to believe they were actively firing on USA forces... I was wrong in qualifying that as "deliberate lying", but you have to agree that it (along with the attempts to classify the information) is not exactly the most forthcoming and honest way to present the event to the public.
zero
I think men with RPGs and AK47s peeking around corners at a humvee that's a block and a half away qualifies, your fanciful exaggerations notwithstanding.[/QUOTE]I mean, what is a "hostile force" anyway?
It Certainly qualifies... as would my "fanciful exaggeration" and so would a firing AA missile battery... As I said, "hostile forces" and "hostile action" is a deliberately vague speech that would lead a careless reader (such as myself) to believe they were actively firing on USA forces... I was wrong in qualifying that as "deliberate lying", but you have to agree that it (along with the attempts to classify the information) is not exactly the most forthcoming and honest way to present the event to the public.
#199
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
Actually, I think it more than accurately describes the situation without going into detail. I don't consider it "weasel words" at all. When I read "hostile forces", I don't immediately assume a firefight was raging. I do immediately assume a group of armed insurgents was targeted, which this apparently was (regardless of whether or not there were unidentified Reuters employees among them).
#200
Covar
It Certainly qualifies... as would my "fanciful exaggeration" and so would a firing AA missile battery... As I said, "hostile forces" and "hostile action" is a deliberately vague speech that would lead a careless reader (such as myself) to believe they were actively firing on USA forces... I was wrong in qualifying that as "deliberate lying", but you have to agree that it (along with the attempts to classify the information) is not exactly the most forthcoming and honest way to present the event to the public.[/QUOTE]
The military has a hard enough time making sure everything it does is infantry proof. Your ignorance is of no responsibility of theirs.
Covar
I think men with RPGs and AK47s peeking around corners at a humvee that's a block and a half away qualifies, your fanciful exaggerations notwithstanding.[/QUOTE]I mean, what is a "hostile force" anyway?
It Certainly qualifies... as would my "fanciful exaggeration" and so would a firing AA missile battery... As I said, "hostile forces" and "hostile action" is a deliberately vague speech that would lead a careless reader (such as myself) to believe they were actively firing on USA forces... I was wrong in qualifying that as "deliberate lying", but you have to agree that it (along with the attempts to classify the information) is not exactly the most forthcoming and honest way to present the event to the public.[/QUOTE]
The military has a hard enough time making sure everything it does is infantry proof. Your ignorance is of no responsibility of theirs.
#201
zero
zero
When they attempt to classify material, it certainly is!The military has a hard enough time making sure everything it does is infantry proof. Your ignorance is of no responsibility of theirs.
#202
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
They're deliberately taking responsibility, in fact.
#203
zero
zero
Well, that is very commendable of them, but again, they were being a lot less open about the incident than before the leak of the video.They're deliberately taking responsibility, in fact.