This...this is just wrong. >_>

[Wolfy]

Collateral Murder

...I mean..seriously wrong.

http://collateralmurder.com/en/resources.html <- new information.

[Wolfy]

The Video: American soldiers killed a bunch of unarmed civilians including two Reuters reporters as well as injuring a couple of children.

The military tried to cover this up by saying they were Iraqi Insurgents, when they were just civilians.

[September]

(Fair disclosure: my boyfriend is currently serving in Afghanistan.)

I watched all the footage and didn't think there was anything wrong with it.  The unarmed civilians are palling around with a group of heavily armed insurgents as they set up an ambush on a street corner.  The helicopter pilots fire a short burst into the ambush site.  A short while later a vehicle arrives on the scene and starts evacuating the wounded, and the pilots shoot it.

I can't believe this is at all controversial.  I don't know what the makers of this film think the pilots should have done.  Landed, got out, and made some arrests maybe.

[HairyHeretic]

How about verifying those weapons were actually weapons? They identified one of the cameramen as holding an RPG.

[Silk]

How about verifying those weapons were actually weapons? They identified one of the cameramen as holding an RPG.

Yeah because flying in closer for a better look when someone is suspected of having a weapon that can blow you out of the sky is the best idea

[Wolfy]

There are plenty of things wrong with it. Rather clearly, there is no aggression at all, simply men walking down the streets. The soldiers shot at a perceived threat, not an actual one. Second, they shot someone already injured and out of commission again just to make sure he was dead, and they shot at medical personnel, which, shooting medical personnel is against the Geneva convention, something we're supposed to be upholding...then they laugh about driving over a body and managing to get one of the medical personnel "Through the windshield", as if it's some game. >_> They also managed to wound two children. Granted, they probably didn't know children were down there, and the reason why children would be in the same place as two journalists with "AK-47" Cameras and supposed 'insurgents', I don't know. They at least decide to take the children to get medical care, but are ordered to take give them to the Iraqi police and take them to an Iraqi hospital rather than letting them be treated at the American one..which confuses me as to why treating them at the American hospital, which is where they were going to be brought to would be a problem...the kids are already injured.

And now that I watch the video again, I see something worse. O_o The children were in the van that they shot up. Of course, I doubt the pilot could see them from the air, granted, but still...the van is quite clearly a medical van rather than some kind of terrorist scavenger...thing, so why did they shoot it?

Lastly, and I think perhaps one of the worst things about this video, is that the government/military tried to cover it up and keep their mistake(Killing at least two or more known innocents) a secret, which can clearly be seen by the quotes said video gives from Actual Military personnel and higher-ups to newspapers. >_>

[Wolfy]

Yeah because flying in closer for a better look when someone is suspected of having a weapon that can blow you out of the sky is the best idea

No, it's not the best Idea..the best Idea is to keep a gun trained on him, but not fire, and only fire if he shows aggression, rather than just firing 'on a hunch'.

[MasterMischief]

This video seems suspicious to me.  I was in the Army and I did not know anyone who would commit such an atrocity.  I have a hard time believing a gunship gunner would so easily mistake a camera for an RPG.  Maybe I am naïve.

[Wolfy]

This video seems suspicious to me.  I was in the Army and I did not know anyone who would commit such an atrocity.  I have a hard time believing a gunship gunner would so easily mistake a camera for an RPG.  Maybe I am naïve.

Well Llama, to be fair, this mistake has to be attributed to the individual rather than make a grand sweep of the entire military...but still.

I'm betting that the people who did this only got maybe a slap on the wrists and an eye-exam, though. >_>

[HairyHeretic]

I never said get closer. But if you want to talk weapons ranges, how does the range of a gunships cannon measure up to ground based small arms? Were they already in range of that RPG?

According to wikipedia, the M230 chain gun the Apache mounts has
Effective range    1,500 m (1,640 yd)
Maximum range    4,500 m (4,920 yd)

The RPG might be effective against a helicopter that is taking off, landing or hovering. Against one flying at any kind of speed, I wouldn't think the odds were great of a hit. Without knowing just what kind of RPG was supposed to have been seen, I can't tell the range, but the RPG-7 is the most common one. That has a max range of under 1000 meters. And to get a hit on a target the size of a chopper, moving, a kilometer away ... you'd have to be a good shot.

They had the people on the ground under observation. They thought the cameras the reporters had were weapons. Maybe taking a little longer to observe, and verify that was the case, rather than just killing them all might have been an idea? They had the ability to stay out of the maximum range of ground based fire, whilst still being in an effective range of their own weaponry.

[Vekseid]

How about verifying those weapons were actually weapons? They identified one of the cameramen as holding an RPG.

"How" would be the appropriate question. I would not be surprised if going up the chain of command involved in this would not find a single unreasonable decision, given the information and timing constraints available to each individual. "War is hell" - good people, who were doing nothing but trying to live their lives and often even make the world a better place - die.

Organizations murder people, not through the willful decision of any one person, but

(Fair disclosure: my boyfriend is currently serving in Afghanistan.)

I watched all the footage and didn't think there was anything wrong with it.  The unarmed civilians are palling around with a group of heavily armed insurgents as they set up an ambush on a street corner.  The helicopter pilots fire a short burst into the ambush site.  A short while later a vehicle arrives on the scene and starts evacuating the wounded, and the pilots shoot it.

I can't believe this is at all controversial.  I don't know what the makers of this film think the pilots should have done.  Landed, got out, and made some arrests maybe.

It can be a good thing, in the long run, if it can be looked at from the perspective of "How can we reduce the chances of this happening in the future?"

I think, in general, American society needs to take a look at how to handle the sociopathy inherent in its bureaucracies.

[HairyHeretic]

How about sending in a UAV or one of these other military drones we hear about? No human life at risk there in taking a closer look. If it takes fire, then you have the people still under observation and weapons, and can respond effectively immediately. If on the other hand you confirm no weapons, then the gunships are free to move elsewhere.

[Wolfy]

Another interesting thing in the video is of the soldier who sees the man trying to crawl to Safety...and taunts him, saying "Go on, pick up a weapon, all you need to do is pick up a weapon." Before the other Apache helicopter kills him anyway.

...I mean, really...that's just disgusting. >_>

[Schrödinger]

How about sending in a UAV or one of these other military drones we hear about? No human life at risk there in taking a closer look. If it takes fire, then you have the people still under observation and weapons, and can respond effectively immediately. If on the other hand you confirm no weapons, then the gunships are free to move elsewhere.

Drones are awesome. More civilian deaths, more ways to stave off responsibility.

This is also about the time where I had to stop the video. I knew what'd happen. Looked up SomethingAwful's active Wikileak thread and the discussion of the 40-minute footage that's been leaked, as well as their cover thread on a right-wing forum featuring gems as 'good kills' and FreeRepublic forumgoers celebrating every single life lost there, including the civilians.

I need to lie down  :-(

EDIT: Boy howdy am I curious how the hell this is going to be spinned. This is a fucking war crime. You do not shoot unarmed people taking away wounded. Geneva conventions. Then again, the Iraq war wasn't a sanctioned one through the Senate either.

[Wolfy]

Drones are awesome. More civilian deaths, more ways to stave off responsibility.

This is also about the time where I had to stop the video. I knew what'd happen. Looked up SomethingAwful's active Wikileak thread and the discussion of the 40-minute footage that's been leaked, as well as their cover thread on a right-wing forum featuring gems as 'good kills' and FreeRepublic forumgoers celebrating every single life lost there, including the civilians.

I need to lie down  :-(

EDIT: Boy howdy am I curious how the hell this is going to be spinned. This is a fucking war crime. You do not shoot unarmed people taking away wounded. Geneva conventions. Then again, the Iraq war wasn't a sanctioned one through the Senate either.

That's the bad thing. It's all being covered up, and most likely the people that committed the act aren't going to have a damn thing done to them...hell, they'll probably be congratulated on doing a "Good Job".

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Assumptions are amazing things.

[Schrödinger]

Assumptions are amazing things.

There were no assumptions. We see unarmed people picking up wounded. We hear the gunman actually hoping for the guy to get a weapon.

Hell, while I can understand the need to decide immediately in a war zone, actually celebrating children dying and blaming them to be in that situation ("Shouldn't have taken kids there," what the Christ? These people live here, it's not like that they could hear the guncraft, or decide to move out of their own city).

Things even started with a camera being mistaken for an RPG tube.

[HairyHeretic]

I'm not talking about Predators firing air to ground missiles. There are, I believe, smaller UAVs available to ground forces for reconnaissance. Something like these

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-151.html

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app2/q-11.html

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/wasp.html

Man portable flying cameras.

[Schrödinger]

I'm not talking about Predators firing air to ground missiles. There are, I believe, smaller UAVs available to ground forces for reconnaissance. Something like these

Fair enough. UAV's still have their obvious downsides, they're not the military holy grail, is all I was saying with my link.

[HairyHeretic]

Of course they do. There's no such thing as a perfect solution, and people, especially in stressful situations, can and do make mistakes. It's happened before, it will happen again. Avoiding the repetition of those mistakes, and other needless deaths, would be the best that could come out of an incident like this.

Technology isn't a magic wand, but maybe it could have made the difference here.

If there were no ground troops in the area, no imminent danger of ground attack, then perhaps more time could have been taken before triggers were pulled.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The problem here is that assumptions are being made about the consequences those soldiers received due to their actions.  There is no evidence to support there were reprimanded or not reprimanded.  No evidence to suggest that those who gave them the freedom to engage faced consequences or not.  People are simply assuming that they were not reprimanded and that they were even encouraged to do so by their peers.  An amazing thing to demand truth but also make accusations and statements without any truth behind them.  Obviously this incident is horrible, but this is an unfortunate reality of war inside a large city.  This is the unfortunate consequence of taking a massive military machine, focusing it on a civilian population with the intention of police keeping.  The soldiers can only be held responsible for so long before we have to accept that the policy might be to blame.

As for covering up the incident, I can’t say I blame them.  The government doesn’t want its soldiers paraded around in front of the media.  Doesn’t want their families demonized for their actions because a bad judgment call was made on the field.  They don’t want their own soldiers wondering if they will face similar treatment, to hesitate at the trigger and get people killed through inaction.  The ability to kill sits atop the knowledge of support by peers and superiors.  Take that away from the soldier and we have well armed men and women who sit and think about every consequence before pulling the trigger.  That is not effective when they have the span of milliseconds to live or die, for their squad mates to live or die.  In those situations they have to take what they can see and work with the best of their knowledge.  Those are not just facts of war but facts for anyone that works in snap decision environments like that with lives resting on those decisions.

In regard to the relaxed nature of the people, that is inconsequential.  Many of the men and women I’ve spoken to in the military will talk about watching people setup ambush points, watching them set up IEDs or setting up bombs to be used against civilians and troops.  I have heard this from Iraqi war veterans to those in Vietnam and Korea.  They can’t do anything due to the rules of engagement, the enemy knows that.  So under full view they simply do that.  When a guerilla force can be identified, their intentions inferred to the best of a field personnel’s ability and a clearance to fire is given there won’t be much hesitation to enforce the decision.  That operator knows that if he makes the wrong decision not to fire and eliminate the threat, his people may be paying for his mistake.

Also, the bravado they gave is to be expected.  When people are faced with undeniable actions that are horrendous, they attempt to excuse the situation.  Blame the victim is the typical recourse.  That does not mean they were laughing and joking back at base for hurting children.  If someone hits a child with a car there tends to be a response of “what were they doing in the street?”  That same person may go home and cry for hours for hurting a child.  They may not be able to touch the steering wheel of a car for years.  Once more, assuming something about the soldiers from that video is poor judgment.

[Wolfy]

What are your thoughts of the soldier taunting the crawling man, Pumpkin, saying "Come on, pick up a weapon, pick up a weapon," clearly waiting for his chance to shoot an injured man who is trying to crawl to safety?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Bravado...blood pumping...heat of the moment...anticipation of danger.  An injured man with a gun is still a threat as any police officer will testify. 

[Wolfy]

Bravado...blood pumping...heat of the moment...anticipation of danger.  An injured man with a gun is still a threat as any police officer will testify.

Well yes, but he's certainly not a threat to a soldier well away in the air in an armored Apache Helicopter.

And what about the medical van? Clearly they were carrying weapons, nor were they trying to pick them up. They were trying to move the injured/dead bodies out of the street to get them medical attention. Not to mention the children that could be seen, on the video, in the front seat of the van (Though I can understand if the pilot/gunner couldn't tell that they were children, but still.)

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I think this is a classic situation of not understanding the workings of the mind in stressful situations.  The brain, when thinking it is in danger, does not dissect information so well.  Typically things are filtered into threats and non-threats and those decisions are made with little context.  The medical van does not surprise me considering paramedics need to call into police situations before moving in to clear out wounded.  Paramedics don’t just go running into a gunfight to pull people out like in the movies.  Those doing the fighting need to be alerted to their presence and give the signal that they are in a position to stop firing and have their weapons unengaged. 

[Vekseid]

What are your thoughts of the soldier taunting the crawling man, Pumpkin, saying "Come on, pick up a weapon, pick up a weapon," clearly waiting for his chance to shoot an injured man who is trying to crawl to safety?

You are sitting safe behind your computer - have you ever, in your entire life, faced mortal danger or the knowledge that your inaction may kill people? You have four resources that the people involved in this did not.

1) Safety of everyone you are responsible for
2) A broader scope of the knowledge surrounding the situation
3) A clear head, without adrenaline.
4) Time.

You lack several pieces of information that could put this video into an entirely different context, but the main one is - how often are these sorts of situations where it looks like someone actually does have a weapon and it turns out that yes, in fact, they do?

After the invasion of Normandy, American soldiers massacred entire French villages, thinking they were German outposts.

It's gut-wrenching that it happened. Horrible. Hindsight is 20/20. War is hell. Innocents pay. Millions of Iraqis are dead because of American mistakes there. Because of religious fanatics. Because of power-hungry whackjobs.

The series of events described in this video is horrible. I am not denying that. Pumpkin is not denying that. September is not denying that.

But rather than assume that every soldier who committed this atrocity is a villain, you would have your energy better directed by trying to open up dialogue about how this sort of situation could be better handled in the future, about how we can make sure we do not prosecute an unjust war again, about how we can have an active process for reviewing decisionmaking structures and improving them so that future mistakes such as these can be stopped before they happen.

[Jude]

The sort of bravado that you see in these videos (the taunting of the wounded, et cetera) I think is promoted institutionally by the military.  I find it troubling that in many situations, pilots are allowed to listen to music while in the combat zone.  I realize it sets the mood for what they're doing, but it strips them of a certain surgical mindset and replaces it with something lacking in empathy.  How widespread that practice is (and how associated with this incident it could be) I have to admit I do not know.  I also can't say for certain how much I think the culture of the military contributed to this, but I'm willing to make a wager that it had something to do with it (which could easily be false, none of us really have the facts about this situation).

Mostly I agree with what Vekseid's been saying though.  In the moment, bad things will happen.  When you're twitchy, in a dangerous environment, and trying to save lives (including your own) with poor visibility and intelligence, some things are gonna go wrong.  People who don't deserve it are going to die.  These sort of overseas contingency operations (I think is what they're calling it now) are messy.  Urban Warfare in the 21st Century is a very disturbing thing that will occasionally produce situations like this even if everyone is acting in good faith.

I think the lessons that can be learned from this are as follows:
1)  War is not clean.  No matter what a politician tells you, think of this instance when they're bringing up the case for war, and be vocal in opposition if you're not willing to let events like this happen in exchange for whatever your nation stands to gain.
2)  Coverups are 10x more ominous than if they just came out with the truth right away.  They should not have tried to bury this, it does us no good, you can't stop the truth from getting out in the information age.
3)  Every soldier is not perfect, some aren't even good people.  The majority of people in the military are trained to be upstanding citizens who put their life at risk and deserve our respect, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a few bad apples.  I know people who have signed up explicitly because they wanted to shoot people, that's not an attitude typical of the fine men and women of our armed forces (I have family there) but to pretend that there aren't any dangerous, malicious, or sociopathic people in the armed forces is delusional.
4)  We are civilians, we can't possibly understand what went through those soldiers minds because the majority of us haven't even been in a life-or-death combat scenario and probably never will be.

Even if it turns out that everyone person involved in this video acted reprehensibly, that isn't a reflection on our military.  Considering we've been in Iraq this long and so few of these incidence have cropped up should tell you more than anything that our country is defended by patriots.

[September]

Guys, you need to watch more closely. The pilots didn't mistakenly ID the RPG, one of the ambushers actually has an RPG. They mistake the slung cameras for weapons but there is also an RPG down there. The journalists were filming an ambush being set.

Secondly Geneva only applies to lawful (ie uniformed) combatants. Those aren't "medics" in the vehicle, they're unlawful combatants.

[September]

How about verifying those weapons were actually weapons? They identified one of the cameramen as holding an RPG.

They ID the slung cameras as "weapons". The guy they ID with an RPG is holding an RPG.

[MasterMischief]

I was in the military and I simply never saw this sort of thing.  Frankly, I am offended that people are so willing to believe our soldiers are this heartless.  Even if this video is completely accurate, I refuse to believe all of our soldiers act in this manner and that the chain of command would allow this sort of thing.

The fact that the gunner is so calm and nonchalant about the entire thing makes me extremely suspicious.  My father was in the Navy.  I was in the Army for 8 years.  In 25 years of close experience with the United States military, I never once encountered a service man who bragged about killing someone.  If you ask a vet if he ever shot someone, most of the time they will politely change the subject.  They do not want to talk about it.

[Wolfy]

I was in the military and I simply never saw this sort of thing.  Frankly, I am offended that people are so willing to believe our soldiers are this heartless.  Even if this video is completely accurate, I refuse to believe all of our soldiers act in this manner and that the chain of command would allow this sort of thing.

The fact that the gunner is so calm and nonchalant about the entire thing makes me extremely suspicious.  My father was in the Navy.  I was in the Army for 8 years.  In 25 years of close experience with the United States military, I never once encountered a service man who bragged about killing someone.  If you ask a vet if he ever shot someone, most of the time they will politely change the subject.  They do not want to talk about it.

Llama, I'm not saying that all Military personnel are like this, nor am I saying they are bad people. These are just individuals who were caught on Camera doing bad things and being...well, much like someone who plays CoD multiplayer, really. O_o "I think he just ran over a body." "Haha, really?" <- I mean..WTF. O_o

[MasterMischief]

It is so outrageous to me as to be unbelievable.  If they were setting up an ambush (it looked to me like they were just milling around) and the Army had reliable intelligence that is what they were up to (I have no idea how they could have), why not fire a few rounds into the street to scatter them.  After all, the first few shots sent everyone scrambling.  Surely, that would have been enough to scare them off until the other until had rolled through and completed their mission.

I generally do not subscribe to conspiracy theories.  It is just too difficult to get enough people to keep their mouths shut.  But I find it more likely this video has been dubbed over or even completely fabricated than for our service men to act in this manner.

In the heat of battle, when bullets are buzzing by your head, I have no doubt our brave men and women can make poor decisions.  But there is no heat here?  No threat to the gunship.  If that were an RPG about to be fired on one of our own, why did the gunner wait to come all the way around for a clearer shot?  Tell the pilot to pull back.

No, something smells funny about this whole thing.

[Wolfy]

It is so outrageous to me as to be unbelievable.  If they were setting up an ambush (it looked to me like they were just milling around) and the Army had reliable intelligence that is what they were up to (I have no idea how they could have), why not fire a few rounds into the street to scatter them.  After all, the first few shots sent everyone scrambling.  Surely, that would have been enough to scare them off until the other until had rolled through and completed their mission.

I generally do not subscribe to conspiracy theories.  It is just too difficult to get enough people to keep their mouths shut.  But I find it more likely this video has been dubbed over or even completely fabricated than for our service men to act in this manner.

In the heat of battle, when bullets are buzzing by your head, I have no doubt our brave men and women can make poor decisions.  But there is no heat here?  No threat to the gunship.  If that were an RPG about to be fired on one of our own, why did the gunner wait to come all the way around for a clearer shot?  Tell the pilot to pull back.

No, something smells funny about this whole thing.

According to sources, this Video isn't even supposed to be out in the public eye...because, ya know...the military wanted to cover it up, as can clearly be seen by the quotes from actual newspaper articles concerning what happened.

[MasterMischief]

Considering the video comes from a military aircraft that only military personal should have access too, it is shocking how poorly this was covered up.  Everyone on the ground is dead.  The aircrew were probably the only English speaking witnesses.  Did the gunner turn himself in?

Sorry, I still smell fish.

[Wolfy]

Considering the video comes from a military aircraft that only military personal should have access too, it is shocking how poorly this was covered up.  Everyone on the ground is dead.  The aircrew were probably the only English speaking witnesses.  Did the gunner turn himself in?

Sorry, I still smell fish.

Well, it doesn't list the source that it got the video from, probably to protect them from having action taken against them.

[Xanatos]

Wolfy, do you realize that American Media slanders its own government? You can turn to any channel, newspaper, etc, and find politicians and government works under fire and many times for stupid stuff. Who cares if a politician committed adultery? Its his/her private business. Many of the things the media slanders people for is a flat out lie or its the truth being bent and twisted for their own goals. Politicians greedily use the media to slander their opponents so as to gain and edge. The presidential elections are the best example. Its nothing but a shit slinging contest, its disgusting.

So my point, believe nothing the media says. Do your own research. The Media is nothing but biased, half truth (if any truth), liars. If you don't believe me, go to the store and pick up just about any magazine and read the rumors being spread about Hollywood stars, politicians, government, etc. Watch news, read internet articles. The truth is blatantly clear. The Media has been hard at work slandering our nations military for years on end. The only war I know of in which the Media worked in tandem with the military was WWII and WWI, ever since then its been a more terrible and fearsome enemy than the enemies we have been fighting!

American's need to understand war is ugly, its nasty, and its nothing to be proud of. I am sick of people blaming our nations soldiers for killing. Killing is not murder, murder is cold blooded and for no reason. Killing is for a reason, such as defending ones nation or killing ones enemies. Soldiers kill, they rarely murder. Innocents killed in the cross fire is just a reality of life. Few American soliders want to kill but they strongly want to defend their nation and its ideals. Most people who join the military do so for that very reason (the others join for the money so they can go to college). That said, and more could be said, I have to agree with MasterMischief that anyone who believes are soldiers nothing but evil murders, is simply shameful and disgusting. How can you or anyone else side against our soldiers and your own country? I am no patriot, I don't like a lot going on in this country but America is still my country and I will be damned if I side against it and those brave soldiers who sacrifice years of their lives or their very life to help better our nation.

Wolfy I honestly am not trying to attack or offend you but your attitude is clearly ignorant and misguided. Please for the love of your own nation, learn about this kind of stuff please before you become a hater. Our own freaking Media is bad enough, poisoning the minds of Americans against the country which feeds them, clothes them, provides them with their numerous amenities. Damn man, we live like Kings! No other nation(s) can claim to live like we do, not even Europe (they are close yes)! We have it MADE. Why do you bite the hand which feeds you and protects you?

[Wolfy]

Wolfy, do you realize that American Media slanders its own government? You can turn to any channel, newspaper, etc, and find politicians and government works under fire and many times for stupid stuff. Who cares if a politician committed adultery? Its his/her private business. Many of the things the media slanders people for is a flat out lie or its the truth being bent and twisted for their own goals. Politicians greedily use the media to slander their opponents so as to gain and edge. The presidential elections are the best example. Its nothing but a shit slinging contest, its disgusting.

So my point, believe nothing the media says. Do your own research. The Media is nothing but biased, half truth (if any truth), liars. If you don't believe me, go to the store and pick up just about any magazine and read the rumors being spread about Hollywood stars, politicians, government, etc. Watch news, read internet articles. The truth is blatantly clear. The Media has been hard at work slandering our nations military for years on end. The only war I know of in which the Media worked in tandem with the military was WWII and WWI, ever since then its been a more terrible and fearsome enemy than the enemies we have been fighting!

American's need to understand war is ugly, its nasty, and its nothing to be proud of. I am sick of people blaming our nations soldiers for killing. Killing is not murder, murder is cold blooded and for no reason. Killing is for a reason, such as defending ones nation or killing ones enemies. Soldiers kill, they rarely murder. Innocents killed in the cross fire is just a reality of life. Few American soliders want to kill but they strongly want to defend their nation and its ideals. Most people who join the military do so for that very reason (the others join for the money so they can go to college). That said, and more could be said, I have to agree with MasterMischief that anyone who believes are soldiers nothing but evil murders, is simply shameful and disgusting. How can you or anyone else side against our soldiers and your own country? I am no patriot, I don't like a lot going on in this country but America is still my country and I will be damned if I side against it and those brave soldiers who sacrifice years of their lives or their very life to help better our nation.

Wolfy I honestly am not trying to attack or offend you but your attitude is clearly ignorant and misguided. Please for the love of your own nation, learn about this kind of stuff please before you become a hater. Our own freaking Media is bad enough, poisoning the minds of Americans against the country which feeds them, clothes them, provides them with their numerous amenities. Damn man, we live like Kings! No other nation(s) can claim to live like we do, not even Europe (they are close yes)! We have it MADE. Why do you bite the hand which feeds you and protects you?

Aaaaaannnddd...the Media isn't covering this. At all. newspapers have covered it, and provide the story that the military tells them, nothing more, nothing less...No media form that I know off besides who posted this video is covering this story at all.

[Xanatos]

And missed my point completely. Forget I said anything, obviously not willing to listen to what I had to say.

[Vekseid]

2)  Coverups are 10x more ominous than if they just came out with the truth right away.  They should not have tried to bury this, it does us no good, you can't stop the truth from getting out in the information age.

And let the media cry for blood, resulting in forcing every individual soldier to consider the political ramifications of every action they make in a war zone?

People make mistakes. Sometimes, those mistakes are going to cost lives.

You can review the process, improve the process, cull out the worst of the worst - but mistakes are still going to happen. In war, someone's brother is going to die for no good reason. Someone's father. Someone's son.

Sister. Daughter. Mother. Cousin. Nephew. Niece.

This isn't "Just following orders and obeyed an unethical order." This is "Following (hopefully) good procedure and making mistakes." The former is certainly prosecutable. The latter should only be when expectations can reasonably be set otherwise.

If the blame lies with anyone, it's with those who engineered the war.

[Jude]

It's most likely that what appears to be going on in this video is what happened, but you're right, this could be out of context or otherwise falsified.

Still, believing that 100% of the military is righteous and that there are no bad apples flies in the face of reality.  Abu Graib and numerous other smaller incidents show that there are in fact some people in our military who are malicious and break protocol in ways which give the United States a bad name unfairly.  They are the extreme minority, the number of incidents that can actually be pointed to is a perfect testament to that.

No group of people, no matter how righteous their cause or benevolent their intent, is going to be comprised entirely of good people.  Even if we went around purposely collecting the most morally upstanding people in order to form our military, there would still be problems with our criteria of measuring that or people who change once they're in the service.

I understand what you're getting at Master, you've served in the military and seen a great deal of sacrifice and bravery, and what you've observed is definitely the trend.  On the whole our servicemen are impeccable human beings, I'm not disputing that, but claiming absolute perfection simply isn't logical.  You've seen a snapshot of an organization, not looked into the hearts of each and every member and sought out all of the dark corners, then found that there were no rats.

And let the media cry for blood, resulting in forcing every individual soldier to consider the political ramifications of every action they make in a war zone?

People make mistakes. Sometimes, those mistakes are going to cost lives.

You can review the process, improve the process, cull out the worst of the worst - but mistakes are still going to happen. In war, someone's brother is going to die for no good reason. Someone's father. Someone's son.

Sister. Daughter. Mother. Cousin. Nephew. Niece.

This isn't "Just following orders and obeyed an unethical order." This is "Following (hopefully) good procedure and making mistakes." The former is certainly prosecutable. The latter should only be when expectations can reasonably be set otherwise.

If the blame lies with anyone, it's with those who engineered the war.

You make a good point, but I wasn't advocating for total transparency, just when it's quite clear that something questionable has occurred, the public should be informed.  Citizens have a right to know what's being done in their name around the world.

[Callie Del Noire]

First off, armchair tacticians get the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. There are several questions that were not covered about the crew. How long into their patrol was this incident? How many hours down time they were given? And yes, I can see where the two journalists WERE not carrying the weapons but it's not clear.

There were DEFINITELY AK-47s in that group of men and a rpg.

Forcing the soldiers to second guess themselves is a surefire way to cause more fatalities. Was this handled poorly ? Definitely. Was it a cover up? Not sure since I am only seeing the video and not the outcome of the official investiagtion (which can and DOES take years.. had to give statements for 2 aircraft mishaps in my 15 years in the navy)

Let me point out something about letting the folks who aren't int he chain of command set the Rules of Engagement to ensure 100% civilian safety. The guards at the embassy barracks in Beruit weren't allowed to have ammo on them when the suicide bombers took out the building.

I am curious as to how much of this 'cover up' is Rueters taking the military to task over their people and how much of it is fact.

 

[Serephino]

What gets me is that they're showing this at all.  I mean, you don't publicly show people being killed!

I'm talking to an ex Marine friend on yim and I showed this to him.  His reply.... *bangs head on desk* 

He was over there back in the early 90's when what's his face invaded Kuwait I think it was.  He's told me stories.  Sadly, in a war things like this happen.  All that talk you guys are criticizing is called compartmentalizing.  They teach themselves to see the enemy as less than human so that they can kill them without the guilt eating them away inside.  They thought these guys were insurgents.  They even said in the audio that they saw weapons.  Some of them don't succeed and end up abusing drugs and alcohol.  Whoever said war is hell made the understatement of the century. 

These aren't the first innocents killed in this shit, and won't be the last.  I'm mot saying it's ok, but what can we do?  I hate this shit and want it to end, but what power do I have?

My friend thinks that whoever leaked this video if it's real is a complete and utter moron.  He and the men he served with would have never left any evidence.  Things like this are covered up to avoid outrages like this.  This incident was a mistake and most likely dealt with internally.  Of course there are other bad things that aren't accidents, but that's what happens when you have thousands of men thousands of miles away from home under constant stress and with little supervision.  The solution is to be a little more careful about starting wars.       

[Ket]

I had originally intended on refraining from posting in this thread. However, I feel I must point some things out.

and they shot at medical personnel, which, shooting medical personnel is against the Geneva convention, something we're supposed to be upholding...

There is no indication that they are medical personnel. They are simply a van of people coming to collect bodies.

And what about the medical van? -snip- They were trying to move the injured/dead bodies out of the street to get them medical attention.

Again, there was no indication that the van was some sort of ambulance or was carrying medical personnel.

Well, it doesn't list the source that it got the video from, probably to protect them from having action taken against them.

It says in the video (2:16) that a Freedom of Information Act request was filed by Reuters.

[Vekseid]

The FOIA request was denied, though. Though this might have been prepared and thus seen by a few too many people?

[Mithlomwen]

Aaaaaannnddd...the Media isn't covering this. At all. newspapers have covered it, and provide the story that the military tells them, nothing more, nothing less...No media form that I know off besides who posted this video is covering this story at all.

So my question  would be, how do you know this is coming from a credible source?  How do you know whomever obtained this video got it from a reliable source? How do you know that it hasn't been tampered with or manipulated in some way?  That's the problem with things such as this.  You are never really certain where this information is coming from, so then how can you believe that everything you are seeing is the truth?  Propaganda fuels wars, fuels debates, it's a fact. 

It's not hard to splice videos together, to grab shots from here and there and manipulate them in a way that looks authentic. Look at all of the home made videos on youtube for example.  I'm not saying that this is what this is, but the possibility is there. 

[Jude]

He was over there back in the early 90's when what's his face invaded Kuwait I think it was.  He's told me stories.  Sadly, in a war things like this happen.  All that talk you guys are criticizing is called compartmentalizing.  They teach themselves to see the enemy as less than human so that they can kill them without the guilt eating them away inside.  They thought these guys were insurgents.  They even said in the audio that they saw weapons.  Some of them don't succeed and end up abusing drugs and alcohol.  Whoever said war is hell made the understatement of the century.

What you're describing is at best propaganda and at worst brainwashing.  You make it sound like it's a choice, either they dehumanize the people they kill and become desensitized to what they do or they become addicts.  That strikes me as a real lack of confidence in our soldiers; I think they can wrestle with the gravity of what they've needed to do without being delusional about it or becoming mentally ill.

My friend thinks that whoever leaked this video if it's real is a complete and utter moron.  He and the men he served with would have never left any evidence.  Things like this are covered up to avoid outrages like this.  This incident was a mistake and most likely dealt with internally.  Of course there are other bad things that aren't accidents, but that's what happens when you have thousands of men thousands of miles away from home under constant stress and with little supervision.  The solution is to be a little more careful about starting wars.

And how do you propose people realize that we need to be more careful about starting wars if we censor all of the information about how bad wars are?  Stuff like this is a shock to people's systems rightfully so, it makes them realize that the stuff we hear about isn't just a hole in budget.  This is the ugly side, this is the human toll, and if you censor these images, it lets the Government come up with the narrative of what's happened and what's going to happen.

Suppression, synthesis, and manufacture of information by the Government is what got us in Iraq to begin with.  How about we treat the American people like adults and let them see where their money is going?  I think I have a pretty fundamental right to know what my Government is doing so that I know whether or not to support it.  Take that way, and how is a Democratic society supposed to work?

[Ket]

The FOIA request was denied, though. Though this might have been prepared and thus seen by a few too many people?

Out of curiosity, is there an article somewhere that states the request was denied?  There is no information in the video stating that it was or wasn't, only that one was filed and the video had yet to be seen, followed by a website plug and them stating that they have a good record of keeping confidentiality.

[Vekseid]

What you're describing is at best propaganda and at worst brainwashing.  You make it sound like it's a choice, either they dehumanize the people they kill and become desensitized to what they do or they become addicts.  That strikes me as a real lack of confidence in our soldiers; I think they can wrestle with the gravity of what they've needed to do without being delusional about it or becoming mentally ill.

Several centuries of research proves you flatly, completely and utterly wrong here.

Healthy humans are not disposed towards killing people. If you had an entire army that could kill without dehumanizing, you by definition have an army of sociopaths.

And how do you propose people realize that we need to be more careful about starting wars if we censor all of the information about how bad wars are?  Stuff like this is a shock to people's systems rightfully so, it makes them realize that the stuff we hear about isn't just a hole in budget.  This is the ugly side, this is the human toll, and if you censor these images, it lets the Government come up with the narrative of what's happened and what's going to happen.

Suppression, synthesis, and manufacture of information by the Government is what got us in Iraq to begin with.  How about we treat the American people like adults and let them see where their money is going?  I think I have a pretty fundamental right to know what my Government is doing so that I know whether or not to support it.  Take that way, and how is a Democratic society supposed to work?

That's not going to happen on any reasonable terms with a sensationalist media driven by ratings and beholden to advertisers.

The only silver lining there is that the current media apparatus is clearly not going to be the media apparatus of the next generation.

Out of curiosity, is there an article somewhere that states the request was denied?  There is no information in the video stating that it was or wasn't, only that one was filed and the video had yet to be seen, followed by a website plug and them stating that they have a good record of keeping confidentiality.

It's stated on http://collateralmurder.com/

[Ket]

Thank you Veks.

[Jude]

There's a difference between emphasizing the mechanistic aspects of combat during training and trying to teach people how to fight without thinking of their opponent's humanity and teaching them to dehumanize them.  People often view human obstacles day to day not as humans but as objects, when debating, when arguing, so on and so forth.  I'd consider specific training and attempts to put people in a place where they are trained to dehumanize (instead of trained not to humanize by focusing on other things) dangerous.

But I also have to concede I don't know nearly enough about this subject to really be making such judgments.  I've always thought it really messed up that they let them listen to music while driving a tank through the streets of Iraq during the initial invasion, but I am no expert, and am largely uneducated here.

[September]

There are plenty of things wrong with it. Rather clearly, there is no aggression at all, simply men walking down the streets. The soldiers shot at a perceived threat, not an actual one.

If that's what you believe I can see why you're unhappy about it, but your description is not accurate.  Those men were not walking down the streets, they were setting up an ambush with a rocket propelled grenade launcher.

Second, they shot someone already injured and out of commission again just to make sure he was dead,

No, they specifically didn't do that.  They held back from finishing him off because he didn't seem to be armed.  They were waiting for the ground team to capture him.

and they shot at medical personnel, which, shooting medical personnel is against the Geneva convention, something we're supposed to be upholding...

They weren't medical personnel, medical personnel wear uniforms.

[Schrödinger]

Aaaaaannnddd...the Media isn't covering this. At all. newspapers have covered it, and provide the story that the military tells them, nothing more, nothing less...No media form that I know off besides who posted this video is covering this story at all.

Took a moment, but most, if not all, major Western news outlets are all over this. Examples include Fox (refreshingly providing full factual details with as little of their own fair and balanced fluff), MSM, BBC and, of course, Reuters (who seems to note all involved victims besides their two reporters were hostile targets when the results clearly show civilian targets as well). Al Jazeera was about the first of the major news outlets (not suprisingly, given their Arabic demographic) to give the first reports. Some of the sites may currently block searches for 'wikileaks', however, but the fact remains that most major news outlets are well covering the footage.

Just... skip the user comments if you want to keep any faith in human dignity 

EDIT: Watch the 40-minute version as well. Have a highlight. See that white puff at the start of the looping .gif? That's the discharge of the Hellfire missile. One of three.

"You're clear."

[Schrödinger]

Oh hey, have some articles. NYT first.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/w.../06baghdad.html
On the day of the attack, United States military officials in Baghdad said that the helicopters had been called in to help American troops who had been exposed to small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades during a raid. “There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad, said at the time.

But the video does not show hostile action. Instead, it begins with a group of people milling around on a street, among them, according to WikiLeaks, Mr. Noor-Eldeen and Mr. Chmagh. The pilots believe them to be insurgents, and mistake Mr. Noor-Eldeen’s camera for a weapon. They aim and fire at the group, then revel in their kills.

Riddle me what happens when you include a small snippet? AP here:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...ZefmRQD9ET8GQG0
WASHINGTON — A gritty war video circulating on the Internet that shows U.S. troops firing repeatedly on a group of men — some of whom were unarmed — walking down a Baghdad street is authentic, a senior U.S. military official confirmed Monday. The official said the video posted at Wikileaks.org was of a July 12, 2007, firefight involving Army helicopters in the New Baghdad District of eastern Baghdad.

It spreads. CSM:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Glob...aq/%28page%29/2
The video released today shows something quite different. A group of about 15-20 Iraqi men on a dusty street, chatting and walking along, apparently unaware of the helicopters watching them – or, at least, unconcerned. One of the Americans in the helicopter says "that's a weapon" while his cross-hairs focuses on a man WikiLeaks identifies as Mr. Noor-Eldeen, who has what appears to be a professional camera slung over his right shoulder.

Some of the other men in the group are carrying what could be assault rifles. After the helicopter circles the block, it comes on the same group again, who appear to be sharing cigarettes and chatting in front of a house in a tight cluster of about 11, with at least one man on his cell phone. A voice on one of the helicopters asks for permission to engage and also says he sees a man with an RPG, which cannot be confirmed by watching the video.

And Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0040503898.html
The helicopter gunsight video, with an audio track of conversation between the fliers, made public for the first time a stark view of one bloody incident in the seven-year war in Iraq.

It showed an aerial view of a group of men moving about a square in a Baghdad neighborhood. The fliers identified some of the men as armed.

WikiLeaks said the men in the square included Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, who were killed in the incident.

"The gathering at the corner that is fired up on has about nine people in it," Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks spokesman, told reporters at the National Press Club.

The gunsight tracks two of the men, identified by WikiLeaks as the Reuters news staff, as the fliers identify their cameras as weapons. Military spokesman Turner said that during the engagement, the helicopter mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

The helicopter opened fire on the small group, killing several people and wounding others. Minutes later, when a van approached and began trying to assist the wounded, the fliers became concerned the vehicle was occupied by militants trying to collect weapons and help wounded comrades escape.

Funny how you can change a story around by that little ambiguous snippet added. Seems to dehumanize the victims.

Worse if you realize the guy in the van bringing his children to school only saw the devestation and did what any straight-thinking man would do seeing a bloodied person crawling on the street. Before getting shot. At least the children survived.

I need a drink.

[September]

Worse if you realize the guy in the van bringing his children to school only saw the devestation and did what any straight-thinking man would do seeing a bloodied person crawling on the street. Before getting shot. At least the children survived.

I seriously doubt that guy just happened to be a passing Good Samaritan.

[Schrödinger]

I seriously doubt that guy just happened to be a passing Good Samaritan.

Despite it being a Google Translation (sorry for the errors that arise), all signs seem to point to yes, yes he was.

So to correct myself: Saleh Matasher Tomal brought his kids from school, came across the disaster, and tried to bring one of the struggling men into his van. They were shot.

[September]

If that account is true it's very sad, as collateral damage always is.  This is the reason the Geneva Conventions don't protect combatants who disguise themselves as civilians.

[Schrödinger]

If that account is true it's very sad, as collateral damage always is.  This is the reason the Geneva Conventions don't protect combatants who disguise themselves as civilians.

Watch the links and videos then. It's not a matter of 'if'. There was collateral damage, one of the victims was Saleh Matasher Tomal, who did try to help a man who was bleeding to death, and the Apache gunmen did open fire on a civilian target without confirmed weapons. That is also covered in the Geneva Conventions as a warcrime.

EDIT: I hate quoting Collateral Murder, the slant is obvious as fuck, but have the medical records of the two children Doaha and Syad. They've survived the attack. They're 4 and 10 year old children. Take those accounts at face value.

[Wolfy]

Indeed..thanks to Schro, I've posted up a long to the resources that came from this video and led up to it, I believe.

[Vekseid]

Watch the links and videos then. It's not a matter of 'if'. There was collateral damage, one of the victims was Saleh Matasher Tomal, who did try to help a man who was bleeding to death, and the Apache gunmen did open fire on a civilian target without confirmed weapons. That is also covered in the Geneva Conventions as a warcrime.

The Geneva conventions were not written with guerrilla warfare in mind. No sane force on the planet has any intent of a direct engagement with the American military - to quote a Chinese general "It would be like throwing an egg against a rock."

Given that, it makes identifying civilians and combatants difficult, and in order to charge it a crime, you would need to prove that the operator reasonably believed that he was a civilian at the time.

[Schrödinger]

Given that, it makes identifying civilians and combatants difficult, and in order to charge it a crime, you would need to prove that the operator reasonably believed that he was a civilian at the time.

So the simple fact that these guys were in their 'hoohah killed another' mentality may well be a free pass to shoot at whatever, including someone just arriving at the scene after the smoke has settled trying to do the right thing?

Goddamn, that's depressing.

[Vekseid]

So the simple fact that these guys were in their 'hoohah killed another' mentality may well be a free pass to shoot at whatever, including someone just arriving at the scene after the smoke has settled trying to do the right thing?

Goddamn, that's depressing.

Maybe the next time someone wants to fight a war on dubious terms, you'll be somewhat more vocal about opposing it?

[Schrödinger]

Maybe the next time someone wants to fight a war on dubious terms, you'll be somewhat more vocal about opposing it?

Now what did I deserve that ad hominem for?

[September]

So the simple fact that these guys were in their 'hoohah killed another' mentality may well be a free pass to shoot at whatever, including someone just arriving at the scene after the smoke has settled trying to do the right thing?

Goddamn, that's depressing.

Wait, that's not it at all.  (You'll remember they had to get permission to engage the vehicle.)  The reason they engaged it is because they thought it was backup arriving to recover the weapons and bodies.

[Vekseid]

Now what did I deserve that ad hominem for?

It's not intended as one.

If you think a war should be fought, you must also accept that consequences are going to occur, and that those who prosecute it are deserving some level of immunity for honest mistakes - however horrible - unless you wish to paralyze your army. "But that could be you!" Well yes. The idea is that we really should not be so cavalier about it. War is a last resort - it means you have catastrophically failed at some earlier point. There are reasons for that notion, reasons for the phrase "War is hell." If you are going to be ready for it, you also need to be ready for what that means.

[Trieste]

Yes.

Think about it this way: the War Over There (Do most Americans even know where Afghanistan and Iraq are? Do they know the difference? Do they know why we're even there anymore?)  is so wildly unpopular that there are two options.

A. The anti-war voices are just not deafening enough for DC to take note.

B. Our government is doing this without our permission, while we get painted with the same brush because we share a nationality.

There is another option, too.

C. Americans are just not as opposed to The War as they say they are, and are willing to let it slide until it hits them at home.

Which one is more scary? :P

[Schrödinger]

Wait, that's not it at all.  (You'll remember they had to get permission to engage the vehicle.)  The reason they engaged it is because they thought it was backup arriving to recover the weapons and bodies.

You're absolutely right. Even checked the transcript. Thing is, there was no-one checking whether that really was the case, whether weapons and bodies were retrieved - only the bodies were picked up.

07:07   Yeah Bushmaster, we have a van that's approaching and picking up the bodies.
07:14   Where's that van at?
07:15   Right down there by the bodies.
07:16   Okay, yeah.
07:18   Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.
07:25   Let me engage.
07:28   Can I shoot?
07:31   Roger. Break. Uh Crazyhorse One-Eight request permission to uh engage.
07:36   Picking up the wounded?
07:38   Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage.
07:41   Come on, let us shoot!
07:44   Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight.
07:49   They're taking him.
07:51   Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight.
07:56   This is Bushmaster Seven, go ahead.
07:59   Roger. We have a black SUV-uh Bongo truck [van] picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage.
08:02   Fuck.
08:06   This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. Engage.
08:12   One-Eight, engage.
08:12   Clear.
08:13   Come on!
08:17   Clear.
08:20   Clear.
08:21   We're engaging. ...

Then there's still the whole Rules of Engagement that state (as per this NYT article disseminating the footage and its legal ramifications) that '[protections must be afforded to people who] collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe,' as well as that they must be positively identified as enemy combatants. From the transcripts, I cannot make this out :(

It's just made all the more horrifying by the fact the gunman was almost begging to shoot.

It's not intended as one.

It came over as one because you seemed to imply I could do anything to oppose a war following the Afghanistan invasion. I believe the Iraq war was under no single circumstance to be fought given its lackluster casi belli. But that's for another thread of discussion, too much of a derail on this matter - the 2007 attack by Hotel Bushmaster 2-6 and its legitimacy on that area. Let's drop this point :(

[September]

Then there's still the whole Rules of Engagement that state (as per this NYT article disseminating the footage and its legal ramifications) that '[protections must be afforded to people who] collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe,' as well as that they must be positively identified as enemy combatants. From the transcripts, I cannot make this out :(

Medics are protected so long as they're in uniform.  Just handling an injured person doesn't mean nobody's allowed to shoot at you, for obvious reasons.

It's just made all the more horrifying by the fact the gunman was almost begging to shoot.

I don't find it horrifying at all that a US soldier really wants to kill the enemy, but then like I said I have a loved one who gets a little bit safer every time a "militant" dies.

[Vekseid]

It came over as one because you seemed to imply I could do anything to oppose a war following the Afghanistan invasion. I believe the Iraq war was under no single circumstance to be fought given its lackluster casi belli. But that's for another thread of discussion, too much of a derail on this matter - the 2007 attack by Hotel Bushmaster 2-6 and its legitimacy on that area. Let's drop this point :(

Sorry. The intent was to present it as a genuine and genuinely unavoidable cost of war. It's good to have reasons to back up your positions, and to have situations like this clear in your head when you vote for your politicians, and where you can influence their decisions, make sure it is clear in theirs. You have more of a voice than you think you do - so much attention is given to various national scenes that the local scenes in the US and other countries do not get as much attention.

[Hemingway]

What really bothers me about this situation, after witnessing various discussions concerning it, is the belief some people seem to hold that just because they acted as any soldier would, or that because innocent bystanders being gunned down is unavoidable, that it's somehow morally acceptable. I think we need to separate the two entirely.

[Wolfy]

What really bothers me about this situation, after witnessing various discussions concerning it, is the belief some people seem to hold that just because they acted as any soldier would, or that because innocent bystanders being gunned down is unavoidable, that it's somehow morally acceptable. I think we need to separate the two entirely.

I think it has to do with the War Propaganda....we see them as "The Enemy" and that somehow makes them less than us, so it's OK that their civilians are slaughtered, and our citizens don't speak up about it.

But that's just me. >_>

[September]

What really bothers me about this situation, after witnessing various discussions concerning it, is the belief some people seem to hold that just because they acted as any soldier would, or that because innocent bystanders being gunned down is unavoidable, that it's somehow morally acceptable. I think we need to separate the two entirely.

Well civilians always die in wars so it sounds like you would like the west to find war itself morally unacceptable. Which would be music to the ears of tyrants and terrorists everywhere.

[September]

I think it has to do with the War Propaganda....we see them as "The Enemy" and that somehow makes them less than us, so it's OK that their civilians are slaughtered, and our citizens don't speak up about it.

But that's just me. >_>

That would be insulting if it weren't so funny.

[Wolfy]

That would be insulting if it weren't so funny.

It's not really that funny. The Military constantly tries to de-humanize "The Enemy" so that they seem less than human, and thus more able to be killed without regretting the loss of human life. Whether it works or not is an entirely different story.

This a well known psychological fact. >_> The Basic example is "They are different from us. They are bad, we are righteous." And can be seen rather obviously being used throughout wars in history.

[Wolfy]

Well civilians always die in wars so it sounds like you would like the west to find war itself morally unacceptable. Which would be music to the ears of tyrants and terrorists everywhere.

No, it sounds like he's saying we shouldn't take the death of a human life so dismissively.

For instance, 10 Innocent American Citizens get killed over there(By Insurgents, Terrorists, or just accident), it's front page news. 10 Innocent Iraqi Citizens get killed by American Troops (Accidentally or On Purpose), it doesn't even make the back page of the newspaper.

There's a dissonance in the value of human life here, isn't there?

[September]

It's not really that funny. The Military constantly tries to de-humanize "The Enemy" so that they seem less than human, and thus more able to be killed without regretting the loss of human life. Whether it works or not is an entirely different story.

This a well known psychological fact. >_> The Basic example is "They are different from us. They are bad, we are righteous." And can be seen rather obviously being used throughout wars in history.

The funny bit is you thinking that I'd see things the same way you do, if only I were smart enough to see through The Man's propaganda.

[September]

No, it sounds like he's saying we shouldn't take the death of a human life so dismissively.

For instance, 10 Innocent American Citizens get killed over there(By Insurgents, Terrorists, or just accident), it's front page news. 10 Innocent Iraqi Citizens get killed by American Troops (Accidentally or On Purpose), it doesn't even make the back page of the newspaper.

There's a dissonance in the value of human life here, isn't there?

It's just logistics.  150,000 people die every day, they can't all be front page news can they.  Deaths get reported on based on how newsworthy they are, not how inherently valuable the departed's life was as decided by a cabal of ruthless press barons.

[Wolfy]

The funny bit is you thinking that I'd see things the same way you do, if only I were smart enough to see through The Man's propaganda.

No, the funny bit is that most people aren't smart enough to see through it, yet you seem to still value their lives as less than our own citizens by saying "Civilians Casualties are going to happen." in such a dismissive way as if it was there fault that they died simply for living in that country.

[Wolfy]

It's just logistics.  150,000 people die every day, they can't all be front page news can they.  Deaths get reported on based on how newsworthy they are, not how inherently valuable the departed's life was as decided by a cabal of ruthless press barons.

Most Deaths(Usually those that don't result from freak accidents of nature) get reported because they were American Citizens. Which shows we value our own people over others.

Which means that a casualty from our soil is valued more than a casualty  from theirs. :D

[September]

No, the funny bit is that most people aren't smart enough to see through it, yet you seem to still value their lives as less than our own citizens by saying "Civilians Casualties are going to happen." in such a dismissive way as if it was there fault that they died simply for living in that country.

So I'm stupid for disagreeing with you.  Right.  Could you use your superior intellect to show me how saying "civilian casualties always happen in war" means that I blame civilians for becoming casualties?  I can't figure that bit out, maybe I'm just too propagandised to join the dots.

[Wolfy]

So I'm stupid for disagreeing with you.  Right.  Could you use your superior intellect to show me how saying "civilian casualties always happen in war" means that I blame civilians for becoming casualties?  I can't figure that bit out, maybe I'm just too propagandised to join the dots.

Sorry, I was putting words in your mouth when I said that, and I apologize.

And no, you aren't stupid. I said that most people aren't smart enough to look between the lines, not that you are stupid. I'm glad that you can look past the propaganda.

What I was complaining about was that you say "Civilian Casualties always happen;" in a dismissive way.

Would you say the same thing if the Civilian Casualties were on our own soil?

[Ket]

Most Deaths(Usually those that don't result from freak accidents of nature) get reported because they were American Citizens. Which shows we value our own people over others.

Which means that a casualty from our soil is valued more than a casualty  from theirs. :D

Think about this from the other side. How many American deaths do you think are being covered by Afghan or Iraqi news?

Civilian deaths happen no matter who the combatants are. Just because someone can accept this fact doesn't necessarily mean they think it is right or justifiable.

Would you say the same thing if the Civilian Casualties were on our own soil?

It is a part of war. That doesn't mean one has to like it. But just because you don't like that civilians are purposefully or not victims of war doesn't mean the fact that it happens is going to go away.

[September]

Sorry, I was putting words in your mouth when I said that, and I apologize.

No problem, I was being a stroppy, overly defensive bitch.  Apology accepted.

[Wolfy]

Think about this from the other side. How many American deaths do you think are being covered by Afghan or Iraqi news?

Civilian deaths happen no matter who the combatants are. Just because someone can accept this fact doesn't necessarily mean they think it is right or justifiable.

It is a part of war. That doesn't mean one has to like it. But just because you don't like that civilians are purposefully or not victims of war doesn't mean the fact that it happens is going to go away.

It's just seems to me, Ket, that the Majority believes that civilian deaths and the loss of human life over there is fine because of the "They are Bad, We are Good" Mentality.

Which shouldn't surprise me...our media portrays muslims and middle eastern people as terrorists almost every time they are in a movie, even before 9-11 happened...It's easier to pick out a movie where the Middle Eastern person is a terrorist/villain than to pick out one where they are not, and the stereotype that "All Muslims are Terrorists" still happens all the time. >_>

[MasterMischief]

The problem is you hamstring your own army by saying civilian casualties are unacceptable.  Al Qaeda   purposely attacked civilians.  Insurgents kill their own civilians for aiding western troops.  Do you honestly think you can win a war playing by rules your enemy disregards?

The insurgents want you to want to give up.  They know they can not defeat our soldiers, but they can defeat the American desire to continue the conflict.

[Vekseid]

The problem is you hamstring your own army by saying civilian casualties are unacceptable.  Al Qaeda   purposely attacked civilians.  Insurgents kill their own civilians for aiding western troops.  Do you honestly think you can win a war playing by rules your enemy disregards?

The insurgents want you to want to give up.  They know they can not defeat our soldiers, but they can defeat the American desire to continue the conflict.

That doesn't mean a discussion regarding policies and procedures should not be had. Nor does it mean that people should not be aware of what war costs before entering into it.

[MasterMischief]

That doesn't mean a discussion regarding policies and procedures should not be had. Nor does it mean that people should not be aware of what war costs before entering into it.

If I implied that, I certainly did not mean to.

[Wolfy]

I'm not saying that Casualties during war are unacceptable, or that they shouldn't happen, or won't happen.

I'm saying that we shouldn't take them so lightly. A loss of life is a terrible thing, no matter who it happens to.

[MasterMischief]

I'm saying that we shouldn't take them so lightly. A loss of life is a terrible thing, no matter who it happens to.

I can agree with that...mostly.

[Hemingway]

Well civilians always die in wars so it sounds like you would like the west to find war itself morally unacceptable. Which would be music to the ears of tyrants and terrorists everywhere.

I agree - to absolutely nobody's great surprise - with Ernest Hemingway's sentiments. It doesn't matter how justified or how necessary a war is, that doesn't make killing people a morally sound thing to do. We are, both sides, equally convinced we're right, so how could it possibly?

You know, I thought about terrorism a few days ago, about Blackwater killing civilians in Iraq. Why aren't they being hunted down? I mean, I can't imagine Americans cheering if a coalition of Middle Eastern countries invaded the United States to track down and kill the Blackwater people responsible for shooting civilians. But isn't that essentially what's going on? I mean, doesn't that make us terrorists?

As for the rest, Wolfy made the point pretty well, I think. I'm happy to agree.

[Serephino]

I agree that the loss of human life is a horrible thing.  It's just that people were saying it happens because others were demonizing those soldiers in the video.  Those of us who were saying it happens weren't saying we didn't care, just that those soldiers aren't necessarily the horrible human beings they were made out to be.  I don't like this war period and wish it were over.

But as for the American deaths always being reported... here's a little analogy.  Let's say you're talking on the phone to a neighbor and while they're looking through their mail they get a paper cut.  Around the same time you're searching for your casserole dish to make dinner and a skillet falls out of the cabinet and lands on your foot.  Which are you going to care about, their paper cut, or your smashed foot?  And no, I'm not saying American deaths are worse, just that people tend to care more about what directly affects them.  This stupid war is way far away in a country most Americans can't even find on a map.  We wouldn't even know it was going on if it wasn't talked about on the news.  So it's a little hard to care about someone else's sore finger when my foot hurts.   

[September]

I'm saying that we shouldn't take them so lightly. A loss of life is a terrible thing, no matter who it happens to.

Including Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot?

[Trieste]

Oh, for chrissake.

Locking the thread.